2001: year of the bad movie

[Librarian on Fire]

Re: Helloooo?...

> A World War is not defined by the whole world being in war.
> After all, to mine and many other people's information, such
> nations as Australia and most parts of South America and Africa
> weren't involved at any point.

"Where England goes New Zealand goes". Both Australia and New Zealand fought in WW1 and WW2. Both nations suffing huge losses. NZ the biggest per capita. What everyone here needs to do is go along to the library and get some books out on history. You all should be ashamed. This is where the term ANZAC comes from. To think my grandmother's brother died in the trenches of WW1 and I feel like everyone forgets.

 

[Laura]

Re: Helloooo?...

> "Where England goes New Zealand goes". Both Australia
> and New Zealand fought in WW1 and WW2. Both nations suffing huge
> losses. NZ the biggest per capita. What everyone here needs to
> do is go along to the library and get some books out on history.
> You all should be ashamed. This is where the term ANZAC comes
> from. To think my grandmother's brother died in the trenches of
> WW1 and I feel like everyone forgets.

Wow, I am really sorry- and I have never claimed to be a large history buff...that was my Mom's department. But I can spell (generally speaking) like a madman! But I thought I remember it correctly that WW's usually involve ALL nations...I am sorry if I was wrong on any account.

To be VERY general in my knowledge, I think that war in itself is an atrocity and horrid in any way shape or form...as I am sure we all do. But being married to a very angry person for 5 years and having a bit of a streak in me as well, I am not ignorant to the fact that it has to happen...at ALL costs. So sad in any way.

Laura

 

[Laura]

Re: Helloooo?...

> This is precisely what I'm saying. This is how Hollywood chooses
> to distort history.

I don't tend to believe much of what Hollywood produces as my main place of getting my facts straight. But then, I am planning on watching the epic being produced by Tom Hanks and Speilberg in, I think?, September on HBO or Showtime...I can't quite remember which major conglomorate. I think Speilberg tends to keep his facts as real as possible...but again, I do not claim any expertise in any of these areas. Sorry if I made anyone think I am by saying what I have said on the subject.

> Absolute rot. Of course it was already a world war before the
> Americans joined in. Don't forget the war in Africa, or the
> often overlooked battle of the seas.

But you see what I am saying, right? I didn't know there was an official WWIII declared in Africa or any Battle of the Seas???

 

[Librarian on Fire]

Forgiven

 

[Laura]

Appreciated...

 

[Mimi]

Re: Helloooo?...

> "Where England goes New Zealand goes". Both Australia
> and New Zealand fought in WW1 and WW2. Both nations suffing huge
> losses. NZ the biggest per capita. What everyone here needs to
> do is go along to the library and get some books out on history.
> You all should be ashamed. This is where the term ANZAC comes
> from. To think my grandmother's brother died in the trenches of
> WW1 and I feel like everyone forgets.

I'm sorry, but I just used the wrong words to what I meant..... I was just pointing out that those countries never declared war or were declared war on at any point. I know that doesn't necessarily mean they had no losses. Australia had to stand up for the crown and Germany thought it had the right to recrut soldiers from African collonies for instance. Equal things go for the whole of Scandinavia - they weren't "involved", but all countries were invaded and occupied for the whole length of the war and suffered terrible human losses. And the whole lenght of the war - and THAT was my only point - was not Pearl Harbour to Hiroshima. Half the world was already destroyed before the US even had it on the news.

 

[Virtual Prisoner]

Re: Helloooo?...

> remember which major conglomorate. I think Speilberg tends to
> keep his facts as real as possible...but again, I do not claim
> any expertise in any of these areas.

Oh yes! Mr Spieldberg and his all-American D-Day invasion, with no sign of the British, Canadians, Poles, Free French...

VP

 

[Laura]

Re: Helloooo?...

> Oh yes! Mr Spieldberg and his all-American D-Day invasion, with
> no sign of the British, Canadians, Poles, Free French...

> VP

Can we say "Perspective?" What is the need to be so hostile? And I was pretty much talking about the new mini-'series' he and Tom Hanks are doing, which from previews I can't tell either way if they are profiling americans, germans, englishmen, etc...all I was saying was that he has done things in the past that try to stay accurate. And, yeah, if you are speaking about "Saving Private Ryan," the story line was ABOUT an american...with his fellow americans looking for him. I would think if he were to attempt to show every soldier and what they went through on D-Day, then we wouldn't have been watching a MOVIE...it would've been more like "A Day in So-and-So's Life..." because we would have had to sit and watch every minute for you to be happy with the historical correctness. I think you would still be in the theater making sure he wasn't leaving anyone out!

Laura

 

[Virtual Prisoner]

Re: Helloooo?...

> in the past that try to stay accurate. And, yeah, if you are
> speaking about "Saving Private Ryan," the story line
> was ABOUT an american...with his fellow americans looking for
> him. I would think if he were to attempt to show every soldier
> and what they went through on D-Day, then we wouldn't have been
> watching a MOVIE...it would've been more like "A Day in
> So-and-So's Life..." because we would have had to sit and
> watch every minute for you to be happy with the historical
> correctness.

No. Granted that "SVP" is about American soldiers, but this was to the detriment of any mention of their allies (who had, after all, been fighting Jerry for a couple of years until Uncle Sam decided to join the party. Ahem.). Anyway... This company of GIs troop through Normandy without catching sight of any British or other allied nationality combatives? Hmm. In fact, the only reference to the British was a cheap jibe at the memory of Montgomery, which was wholly unnecessary to the plot and stuck out (for me) like the proverbial sore thumb. As for the end scene... I didn't know whether to stand and salute or throw up.

And if you think this is just an anti-American rant, it isn't. If you want to see a film which fairly shows British, American, Canadian, French and other allies fighting the Nazis, I suggest "The Longest Day".

 

[joe di giugno]

Re: Nomination for "Pearl Harbour" also

> No one said the yanks are 100% good and the Japanese 100% bad.

Hmm. Did you see the horror (I mean PH, "the movie")?

> I realize, however, that Japanese culture to this day feels
> insulted, even offended, if anyone actually brings up the
> atrocities they
> committed during WW2. This ongoing state of denial is the
> equivalent of if Germany today were still acting like the
> Holocaust was no big deal, just part of war, or didn't even
> really happen.

> It's not the first time a film has been editted to ensure the
> ostrich like Japanese aren't offended by the truth.

OK, but have a look at this very movie. It's got this patriotism that is so terribly stupid, that we'd just love to have to remember the American war "heroes" Bull Hasley or Curtis Lemay, just in order to know that the Americans had their bad guys too.
Please. This movie is as much edited to the American taste as it is intended not to offend the Japanese.

 

[joe di giugno]

Re: Nomination for "Pearl Harbour" also

> I was limiting my comments to WW2, where America was on the side
> of the good guys. I agree that America has often been the bad
> guys many times. Including to this day.
> I don't think it's right to say that because America has
> committed crimes, including land theft and genocide against the
> Indians, that that makes it questionable as to who the bad guys
> were in WW2.

Sure, the American government didn't sponsor atrocities, but when they would have happened, would they have condemned them?

> It also does not justify Japan continuing to pretend they have
> nothing to be sorry for, and trying to bury historical facts
> they don't want to face.

> And, yes, America ought to be sorry for the crimes they've
> committed as well. For example, America's culture during slavery
> was just as sick. However, we are ashamed of that now, and
> America has become a better place for its acknowledgement of
> this.

Question mark. A better place ... for the slaves, or for the traders?

> Just as Germany today is a better place for its
> acknowledgement. Japan needs to admit to the world and to itself
> what it did in WW2.

That would indeed be a good thing. But it shouldn't be forced upon them. At least as long as they don't want to admit it, we know their official point of view on the matter, and can agree or disagree. But once they admit to their crimes, but only to please the foreigners, what did we achieve?

> Japan has paid pess than 1% the amount Germany has in
> reparations to its victims. GErman Nazis were incarcerated for
> their crimes, or forced from public life, while Japanese war
> criminals continued to hold powerful poistions in government and
> industry after the war.

But some German war criminals were/are still living undisturbed in Germany, until some foreign lawyer takes up the case and requires extradition. It's not so decent to have your own history written by another country, is it?
I do like the German handling of extreme-right organizations; it honours them that they are very strict in applying anti-discriminatory laws.

> This is not singling out and judging the Japanese people, but a
> recognition that culture can make any of us evil, and therefore
> we should not sweep things under the rug.

no party should, though. The patriotic feelings portrayed in PH are terrifying, to a similar degree as any stubborn denial. Very sad.

 

[Document Studies]

Re: Helloooo?...

> And if you think this is just an anti-American rant, it isn't.
> If you want to see a film which fairly shows British, American,
> Canadian, French and other allies fighting the Nazis, I suggest
> "The Longest Day".

I agree. Too many films portray the US as winning the war single handedly. And when Americans say "Hey, shaddap, you'd be speaking German now if it wasn't for us!" - I find that not only terribly insulting but incredibly egotistic. Do you ever hear little Belgium rubbing that in the faces of the French and the Russians due to the unexpected civil resistance in 1914, contributing to a major failing of the Schlieffen Plan, thus reducing the chances of France being overtaken by the Germans? Me thinks not.

 

[LoafingOaf]

Re: Nomination for "Pearl Harbour" also

> Hmm. Did you see the horror (I mean PH, "the movie")?

No, I don't have any interest in seeing another Michael Bay movie.

I'm not sure why so many people go to movies they know will
suck just because marketers tell them to.

 

[LoafingOaf]

Re: Nomination for "Pearl Harbour" also

> universal police then?

No. But if we can do something to stop atrocities, we ought to.
Something of a police force of nations intervening when
atrocities take place, yes.

> mind you: there's a difference between violence and
> disobedience; the latter does not necessarily amount to
> "doing nothing". There are much more options than
> throwing smart bombs with deplated uranium.

Yeah, well, if I escaped a village where my family had just
been burned alive, I think I'd be more hopeful that there'd
be some world leaders of MILITARY ACTION attempting to help
me, rather than world leaders responding with...I don't know what
you're advocating cuz you're vague...but...some kind of Deepak
Chopra jive?

If I were sitting in a concentration camp, I'd want some
effing bombers in the effing air sooner than immediately.

>Sure, the Americans were better
> than the Nazis and the Japanese during WW2. But applying morals
> again, don't tell me the Yankees are the universal angelic
> police.

Well...I did not tell you the Yanks are that....

> I fail to see that any war, any military action, is ever
> justified on ethical grounds. War, violence and crime in general
> simply SUC.KS. To seek any moral justification for it, is rather
> absurd.

Aw, come on, give war a chance.

And I'm glad you don't run America. = ) It's a little too easy to say things like that when you don't have the responsibility to make the decisions.

> In wartime, the only good party, is that of the united victims,
> all nations confounded.

 

[LoafingOaf]

Re: Nomination for "Pearl Harbour" also

> That would indeed be a good thing. But it shouldn't be forced
> upon them. At least as long as they don't want to admit it, we
> know their official point of view on the matter, and can agree
> or disagree. But once they admit to their crimes, but only to
> please the foreigners, what did we achieve?

THe thread started with someone saying we shouldn't "insult" Japan
in depicting their role in WW2.

 

[the cursed cake]

Re: Nomination for "Pearl Harbour" also

> No. But if we can do something to stop atrocities, we ought to.
> Something of a police force of nations intervening when
> atrocities take place, yes.

I'm sorry but I'm very pessimistic about that meeting with permanent success. Let's remember the iraqi people.

> Yeah, well, if I escaped a village where my family had just
> been burned alive, I think I'd be more hopeful that there'd
> be some world leaders of MILITARY ACTION attempting to help
> me, rather than world leaders responding with...I don't know
> what
> you're advocating cuz you're vague...but...some kind of Deepak
> Chopra jive?

I do understand your point, but there's something called "pity" and for some strange reason or psychological u-turn that happens inside your brain, victims of even very atrocious crimes are not necessarily wanting revenge, but, if possible, justice, and most of the time, prevention for future generations.
I am deliberately vague - I yet wait for intelligent actions against the Algerian government, e.g.; or the Turkish government ... Meaning: why bomb Irak or Gheddafi and shake hands with the late Mobutu within the same month? Some dictators are more useful than others?

> If I were sitting in a concentration camp, I'd want some
> effing bombers in the effing air sooner than immediately.

If I were there, I'd like it all just to stop without any more death.

> Well...I did not tell you the Yanks are that....

right .. because they're not.

> Aw, come on, give war a chance.

Never ever. Do you have kids? Wars can only be lost.

> And I'm glad you don't run America. = ) It's a little too easy
> to say things like that when you don't have the responsibility
> to make the decisions.

Oh I'm glad too I don't have to run America! Echelon anyone?
I regret that those who do make the decisions don't take much responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
The International Tribunal for (ex-)Yuguslavia is doing a better job than the fighters that flew over the region. Same holds for the Nuerenberg trial - I don't see how anyone could learn much from a bomb, be it a smart one.

And to return to the topic: "the Allied forces defeated Japan" as it goes, but why are the Japanese still so keen on denying the atrocities? What have those Allied Forces done to prevent that from happening?

 

[the cursed cake]

Re: Nomination for "Pearl Harbour" also

> THe thread started with someone saying we shouldn't
> "insult" Japan
> in depicting their role in WW2.

More correctly: insult the Japanese victims (with explicit reference to Nagasaki & Hiroshima).