You have nothing worth saying.
-
queerever — 13 years ago(June 09, 2012 08:16 PM)
Hey baby,
there are not many reasons why people laugh, but one of the main ones is cause they are uncomfortable, which is something your psychotic classmate probably never escapes being. Poor thing. Don't be offended, try to do some good analysis! -
doublethink03 — 13 years ago(July 07, 2012 01:00 AM)
Maybe they were laughing at the fact that such a movie was be made in a place where the most vile inhumane treatment of disseneters based on their religious or political conviction was everyday practice in Russian prisons and concentration camps (gulag), including torture beyond imagination, drugging people into oblivion and casual murder? Maybe he also found it funny that people from such a country would completely ignore the conduct of their own red army troops and partisans. But hey, we've found that the Germans were evil, so that puts everything else in perspective, right? Let's just feel deeply touched by a propaganda piece and close our eyes to the reality.
-
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(July 17, 2012 06:17 PM)
Yes, we have "found" that the Germans were evil. Indeed. Also, even if it were propaganda in the strict sense of the word, itd be an uncommonly tolerable example of such as essentially nothing seen in the film is made up; Nazis left fairly little room for imagination.
And what kind of a fascist are you, anyway, if you dont even have the guts to identify yourself as such? Weichei.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
-
jesusfood-1 — 13 years ago(August 29, 2012 01:30 PM)
the real test is did this guy laugh at the end when the germans get massacred, if he laughed while they were doing the autrocities maybe he is the type of person that takes joy in cruelty without the ability to imagine the shoe on the other foot. i can imagine if i was a russian in this time after seeing some of the things they did to civilians i would actually take pleasure in revenge
-
doublethink03 — 10 years ago(June 11, 2015 11:58 PM)
Impossible to argue with people who are so brainwashed that they think everyone who dares to have a dissenting opinion is a "fascist." It's this kind of black and white thinking that is typical for people with a totalitarian world view. I'm sure you would have made a great Gestapo officer.
-
franzkabuki — 10 years ago(July 04, 2015 08:01 PM)
"Everyone who dares to have a dissenting opinion is a "fascist"".
No, just the ones who disingeniously play down and try to whitewash the Nazi conduct during WW2 (bet you'll argue Holocaust never happened, either right?). Nothing about which is a matter of opinion btw. As for black and white worldviews, I do not rely on one Soviet film for historic information, so I do not necessarily expect this or any other single movie to present a perfectly balanced & nuanced, complexly multidimensional picture of WW2. And I'm pretty sure I've got more reason to hate the Red Army than you do, buster.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
doublethink03 — 10 years ago(July 05, 2015 03:52 AM)
Hate? It's about balance, moving away from the anti-German propaganda to a more realistic view. Naturally, there are different perspectives one can take. Saying that only one opinion is possible is equivalent to thinking only in black and white and betrays a totalitarian worldview.
What do you mean by "Nazi conduct during WW2?" The conduct of the Nazi-party members? Of their adherents? Of the black SS, Gestapo and SD? Or are all Germans during the WW2 period "Nazis?"
The conduct of the Allies is also not a matter of opinion. "Good guys" don't throw splinter bombs and then fire bombs on civilians for the fun of it or herd people in barbed wire so they can't even sit, preventing them from getting a sip of the nearby water. They also don't boil people's feet and tear off the skin, disembowel pregnant women and have their chief propagandist call for torture, rape, and murder. Btw, they still parade their flags and symbols threw the street under which 100 million were murdered and only God knows how many were imprisoned and tortured. -
franzkabuki — 10 years ago(July 07, 2015 05:12 PM)
"Or are all Germans during the WW2 period Nazis?"
In one of the earlier posts on this very thread, I explicitly acknowledged I wasn't speaking of all Germans. Furthermore, not even all SS men - especially those in Waffen SS - were personally guilty of atrocities (hell, my own grandfather was conscripted to 20 Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS yet never witnessed any war crimes).
"The conduct of the Allies is also not a matter of opinion".
When did I say it was? I have no idea where do you take the absurd number of 100 million people murdered, though; you should avoid such ridiculous exaggeration for it makes your bias all too evident.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
doublethink03 — 10 years ago(July 08, 2015 10:32 AM)
OK, so apparently you don't subscribe to the collective guilt thesis, but still you seem very eager to brand people as fascists
Obviously I'm talking about the Communists, and 100 million victims is by no means an exaggeration. In Russia, people are still parading red stars through the streets to commemorate the "patriotic war," and nobody in the world seems to care. -
franzkabuki — 10 years ago(July 10, 2015 12:11 PM)
"You still seem very eager to brand people as fascists"
Idk, when someone seemingly downplays the evils Nazis committed and finds nothing wrong with people laughing at the sufferings of a young Belorussian boy who's lost all in the war, that usually is indicative of a certain kind of world view
"Obviously, I'm talking about the Communists".
In your previous post, you only mentioned "Allies", so I obviously assumed you were speaking of the Allied atrocities during the war.
"In Russia people are still parading red stars through the streets to commemorate the "patriotic war" and nobody in the world seems to care".
I don't like the sight of Soviet symbols or portraits of Stalin paraded about either, but in principle, there's nothing wrong with Russians celebrating the victory over an enemy who was out to annihilite them.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
doublethink03 — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 09:23 AM)
Well, I don't remember referring to anyone laughing.
The Soviets were part of the Allies, so the atrocities committed by them during the war and its aftermath are Allied atrocities I would think.
"I don't like the sight of Soviet symbols or portraits of Stalin paraded about either, but in principle, there's nothing wrong with Russians celebrating the victory over an enemy who was out to annihilate them."
So if we imagine a scenario where the Soviets had struck first and the 3rd Reich had successfully defended itself, later abandoning national socialism and turning to democracy Would there be nothing wrong with the Bundeswehr parading under the insignia of the Nazis? -
psycho_terrorism — 12 years ago(January 08, 2014 05:59 PM)
Old post I know, but needs addressing.
Unspeakable acts have been perpetrated by numerous people throughout history, including by those in eastern Europe in it's many forms, perhaps particularly during this period of history. But this film isn't about those people. In fact this film isn't even supposed to be a holistic view of that period - it's pretty clearly about the journey of one single boy, and in a wider context the inhabitants of Belarussian villages. For that reason alone it's unfair to level criticism at the film for failing to reflect absolutely the misdeeds of people that are not it's main focus.
secondly, I think it's fair to argue that despite your attempts to vilify those that are less than sympathetic towards the German people, the atrocities you mentioned are unfortunately
somewhat
mitigated and therefore negated when history correctly records that Germany
was
the aggressor, and that the film depicts a German military force murdering Belarussian civilians. That, specifically is the content of the film, and I can't find any context within which to frame that which makes anyone that appreciated this film ignorant of the wider events of the war or wrong to have been emotionally effected by it.
on topic, I found myself laughing at this film on several occasions to hold back tears or to briefly revel in an escape from the unrelenting harshness. For someone to laugh in any other way doesn't immediately imply they are a heartless, hateful thug, but I admit it would take a fair level of emotional detachment (be it conscious or unconscious) or a significant lack of engagement to elicit such a response. -
porridge_car — 13 years ago(July 12, 2012 07:30 AM)
I find the fact that people laughed more disturbing than a very disturbing film. It is kind of sick if you ask me. It is about time people grew up. Rather go and watch an Adam Sandler movie instead.
If you wanted to get me on my back you just had to ask. -
Chapaev36 — 13 years ago(November 14, 2012 01:02 AM)
Frankly, I don't think this kind of film should be shown in class.
First of all, it's hard to relate to a work like this. Even moreso when one is really young.
And I would argue that this film should be experienced in a more solitary context, to give one a chance to think and breathe.
As an educational tool, I don't think this film is terribly appropriate. It is not a historical piece, but a powerful emotional vehicle.
Personally speaking, I found watching this film was like seeing someone being violated. I confess to not enjoying it.
On certain merits, the film succeeds brilliantly. It is no joke. Very visceral and real. But it filled me with dread, which is not something I look for in art. Others might feel differently. I love Tarkovsky, but more admire than like Come and See.
Also, I suspect some might have been laughing at the manner of some of the characters. Slavics are very different people in physical manner and manner of speech. Very expressive.
And perhaps laughing is just another way of dealing with things that are uncomfortable or difficult. For some at least. -
ribby45 — 13 years ago(November 20, 2012 03:07 PM)
Chapacv36 -
What an eloquent and beautifully-written post.
I did watch
Come and See
alone and I felt as if I'd been thrown head-first into a nightmare.
I do see it as a historical piece, because the epilogue mentions that hundreds of Russian villages were destroyed & their inhabitants murdered by the Nazis.
People need to know this. -
areader-13920 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 04:37 PM)
The vast majority of people (in the west and Russia) know this, but fewer know about what Japan/USSR did during their occupations, and far fewer know about the crimes Italy, Romania, France, and Croatia. The film (from what I know, as of now I've only seen parts and heard about it in documentaries and IMFDB) isn't very accurate at all. Most of the vehicles and weapons aren't used by the right nations and some of the Russian vehicles weren't made until decades after the war. The film was made to show the emotional struggle of a child partisan, and to help do this they take many artistic liberties (like showing well over a platoon of average Germans rounding up dozens of villagers and burning them in church and then proceeding to fire thousands of rounds into it). I had a similar problem in my history class where some students were laughing at scenes in "Glory" and to be honest, the film is really overrated. The choice of actors isn't good, the fighting is not shown to be nearly as brutal as it was (the only film that ever did was "Lincoln") and it's over all almost mediocre. If I was a history teacher (and I have considered actually doing that) and I had to show a film about the second world war, it would either be "Flags of Our Fathers", "Letters From Iwo Jima", "Der Undertag" (aka "Downfall"), or "The Pianist". The biggest issue I see with most "history movies" being shown in school is that they have either aged terribly (like "Glory"), are not accurate ("Come and See") or in the case of "The Sullivan Brothers", both.