I never got why despite the fact that it was the Japanese that attacked us at Pearl harbor and brought us into WW2, in a
-
mistamajestyk — 13 years ago(February 01, 2013 04:51 PM)
Oh, I didn't mean you, nickm2. lol.I was responding to the OP. (Guess I should have quoted his post)
But you should check out 'Come and See', as well. You're definitely not going to feel good afterwards, but it also has some amazing camera work and excellent acting from the young protagonist. I think Spielberg even paid homage in SPR with some scenes.
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see." -
jd-276 — 12 years ago(October 13, 2013 02:10 AM)
He's creating his own polemic.
To disagree with him would evoke an accusation of being a "liberal traitor" or something equally irrelevant.
Wars are fought by people of and endless variety of backgrounds who fight for a similarly endless variety of reasons. To assume that we know they were all fanatics is to kid ourselves. To be successful it is necessary to see the fight from your opponent's point of view. Naive assumptions have no value here and it really doesn't matter what we think of them. Remember the old saying that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Unless you can walk a mile in your enemy's shoes, you cannot predict his next move with any accuracy. That's why modern defence forces spend so much time and money on intelligence gathering.
Blanket outrage and assumptions of universal evil need to be left at the planning room door. Your enemy is human. He thinks and feels in the same way anyone else does, though his reasoning is different.
The books were written by two men whose exposure to the Japanese did not extend to living in captivity under them. The only Japanese they encountered were those they met - and probably killed - in combat so the matter is irrelevant.
But you can see his logic: the series didn't include something he thinks should be included to make
his
point so he denounces it as "PC". Never mind the fact that it's based on books by a couple of people who evidently didn't include it for reasons of their own. -
blackjackxxx — 13 years ago(February 02, 2013 04:05 PM)
There is very little positive about war. The positive that you see is the camaraderie, if you will, between brothers in arms. You can also see tension between the same. Victory can be every bit as debilitating as defeat. You just don't have to hump backwards when you're done for the day.
While the ideology behind the German and Japanese war machines was despicable, a great many of the individuals went through the same process as any American in combat; the brutal reality of a buddys' grizzly death at arms length. Just as US troops get dissolutioned about fighting for God and Country, the other side does, too. You get some of that in Letters. I think Eastwood had the same mindset as you do and wanted to tell the tale from the "other side".
The Pacific doesn't really dwell on that. It does show a softening attitude toward the Japanese, through Sledge, at the end on Okinawa.
Push the button, Max -
babel_on_5 — 13 years ago(February 18, 2013 09:42 AM)
You need to see "Stalingrad." It's told from the German POV and many of the Wermacht soldiers are very sympathetic, even likeable.
Btw, your final line is so unintelligible I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Every Jap and Jerry is just a cold blooded savage beast who wants to kill, Kill, KILL!!!???
The sad reality (I'm sure) is that their are millions of Afghanis and Iraqis who feel the same way about our (USA) soldiers who conquered and occupied their country.
I grieved I had no shirt until I met a woman who had no pants. -
crockett_john — 12 years ago(July 30, 2013 12:18 AM)
There was also a movie called, "The Eagle has Landed," which is fictional, but the protagonists are German. They're trying to assassinate Winston Churchill. When I watch it, I ask myself, "Why am I supposed to root for the Germans who are trying to kill Churchill?" Early in the movie, it's established that one of the main protagonists is not too bad. He takes up for his war-weary troops and even helps a Jewish girl escape from a train. This still doesn't answer why we should want to see Churchill killed.
-
pgharett-676-553123 — 11 years ago(March 17, 2015 11:21 PM)
which is fictional
It's part fiction and part fact. There were attempts on Churchill's life.
but the protagonists are German
Not all. Liam Devlin is an IRA enforcer who's being paid by the Germans.
I ask myself, "Why am I supposed to root for the Germans who are trying to kill Churchill?"
That movie came out in 1976. I've never heard anyone say that we're supposed to "root for the Germans". What a bizarre take on an excellent movie! I mean, if you watch old gangster movies with Cagney or Bogie, are you supposed to root for them?
This still doesn't answer why we should want to see Churchill killed.
If you know anything about history, you'd know that Churchill outlived Hitler by 20 years, so you know going into the movie, that the assassination attempt would be unsuccessful. But it's still a great action movie. And Jack Higgins(the author of the book) is still going strong at 85 years old. -
pgharett-676-553123 — 11 years ago(March 19, 2015 06:49 PM)
You think I have a bizarre take on the movie? Why is that bizarre?
Maybe bizarre isn't the right word. But I was taken aback when I read it. But what about the movie makes you think the filmmakers wanted (or expected) you to "root for the Germans"?
I did read an interview Jack Higgins gave a few years ago, saying the book was "moderately sympathetic to the Germans". But that doesn't mean you have to root for them. I didn't root for them or Liam Devlin. He beat up an a-hole early on in the movie, but he was vicious about it. Plus rooting for Churchill to be kidnapped is pointless, as he was never kidnapped. -
Terrapin2212 — 13 years ago(February 04, 2013 06:00 PM)
I've now watched more of this series and its disturbing how they portray some of the Americans like Snafu cutting out the teeth of the dead Japanese soldier I'm through the sixth episode and no Japanese war crimes have been depicted yet. The only thing was the poisoning of the water (btw what was that thing was it some poisonous animal they put in there or was it a chemical device?)
I think my favorite movies about the Pacific theater are Pearl Harbor and Windtalkers. If you are talking about WW2 from the civilian perspective I guess you can't beat Schindler's List and The Pianist. -
mistamajestyk — 13 years ago(February 04, 2013 06:39 PM)
"I think my favorite movies about the Pacific theater are Pearl Harbor and Windtalkers."
I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously after that sentence. Pearl Harbor and Windtalkers are basically Hollywood action films in a WW2 setting. The modern equivalent of a John Wayne war flick. Full of historical inaccuracies and patriotic bravado. Not to say they don't have their entertaining moments, but they're not a very accurate potrayal of the war.
As far as the teeth pulling goes, it happened. Americans did this. And you apparently missed the scene in an earlier episode where Leckie and the troops came upon the mutilated bodies of several dead G.I.'s.
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see." -
crockett_john — 12 years ago(July 30, 2013 12:24 AM)
"Windtalkers" should have been a great film and it would have been if they'd focused on more of the historical events and hadn't made it a crappy action film with the story focusing on whether they're going to kill the Windtalkers or not.
-
senpaidude — 12 years ago(April 11, 2013 02:15 PM)
I think the "movie" has left out many of the horrible things US soldiers did as well. Not everything needs to be in a movie. This movie followed a bunch of people, who at least according to this movie, were very civilized and with extremely high morals compared to average soldier in such an environment.
The same goes of course for the Japanese soldiers, but on average I believe that the picture given about Japanese soldiers was very negative in comparison to the picture given about US soldiers, when considering what actually happened.
But as said. It doesn't need to show it all. I think most of the people would definitely not want to see that. Also, the heroic picture the movie painted would not be possible with more realistic approach. I think it was realistic enough and well balanced.