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
-
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. -
bjorn5 — 12 years ago(May 01, 2013 05:44 AM)
Letters from Iwo Jima is another blatant Hollywood attempt at making us sympathize for the enemy.
Directed by that liberal commie pinko Clint Eastwood, no less
It alsso would have been better if the doctor opposed his son going to war because he was an unpatriotic liberal who was against the war despite Pearl Harbor (the way many liberal traitors opposed the Afghanistan war after 9-11) and not because of his history with WW1 just saying.
You sure you aren't just trolling with that stupid comment? Or are you an idiot for real? -
simonchinnock — 12 years ago(May 08, 2013 05:01 PM)
All the Japanese war crimes like the Bataan death march seems overlooked as well as the Japanese war crimes in Asia
A number of reasons:
1)It was decided that no Nuremburg-style trials would be held and that most would be given amnesty; partly because no-one had a read on how the Japanese public would take defeat and occupation and whether any post-war resentment might fester in a similar vein to post-WW1 Germany. Public trials could be a rallying symbol that could put pressure on the occupation. There was also a great deal of focus on events in Europe and whether an amicable post-war settlement could be agreed with the Soviet Union. That had 99% of everyone's attention, peace in Japan revolved around whatever was the easiest option
2)Racist apathy, people simply didn't care, it never struck a chord in the way German atrocities did because the ethnic groups involved had fair representation in America; namely Jews and assorted Slavic minorities.
3)The American government provided sanctuary to Japanese scientists responsible for the worst acts of genocide, Japanese biological weapons research was decades ahead of anyone else and the Americans wanted the technology. It was a technology nations were starting to consider and the Japanese were way ahead with weaponised germs and tactical delivery mechanisms. -
R011DaveAAA — 12 years ago(June 23, 2013 12:07 AM)
It was decided that no Nuremburg-style trials would be held
They must have changed their minds then because a number of senior government and military officals, including former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo were put on trial, found guilty and executed.
people simply didn't care,
That's far from true, particuarly with regards to Japanese treatment of Wstern POW's.