 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Is the upcoming "Pearl Harbor" really necessary? posted by TAFKA Steve on May 08, 2001 at 18:26:20:
I blush to say that I've not see "From Here to Eternity," but I've seen "Tora!Tora!Tora!" many times. I consider the latter movie rather technical and bloodless; kind of like one of those Avalon-Hill board war games where two players re-enact famous battles.While I don't have much hope for "Pearl Harbor" (reportedly Michael Eisner, Disney CEO, forced a tight budget; and the money was spent on effects, not actors), it is certainly possible to envision a telling of that story that would be both interesting and worthwhile.
It would not have to involve the last SOTA effects in blowing up ships and creating squadrons of attacking aircraft.
Rather, it could focus on the wrenching moral/mental transformation of some of the people involved (and I don't mean some weepy lieutenant, junior grade getting some nookie on the beach while the Zeros fly overhead killing his shipmates romance either)
For example:
The 18-year old farmboys and cityboys who make up the crew of the Iowa suddenly find themselves transformed into a hell they could not even imagine
The base commander, an Admirial who later received a letter of reprimand, realizes the destruction of the main US Pacific battle fleet was the result of his complacency
The lieutenant in charge of the radar station that detected the Japanese air squadrons but thought they were US aircraft realizes the price of his sloppiness in not verifying the aircrafts' status, or at least reporting his radar contact.
The common portrayal of the participants in the aftermath of the raid is one of resolute defiance; but I suspect that is utter b.s. It is clear from what happened that the great bulk of the US forces were psychologically unprepared for war, which meant they were physically unprepared. I suspect in the immediate aftermath of the raid they were, literally, shell-shocked. Moreover, the more senior commanders no doubt appreciated just how exposed they were, militarily. The destruction of the US fuel depot (which apparently was not targeted) would have completely shut down the Pacific fleet, including those ships undamaged by the raid.
On the other side of the battle line, it would be interesting to portray the Japanese pilots. While their government may have been treacherous, their achievement and courage cannot be questioned. They attacked the heart of the US Navy in the Pacific, which they would reasonably expect to be very heavily defended. US films portray them as mere robots; but I doubt that is accurate. They must have been ecstatic at their success.
What about Adm. Yamamoto? Did he really say the "sleeping giant" statement? Was he prescient enough to really see that he had won a tactical victory but Japan had taken a step that was a strategic error? If he really felt this, he must have been very alone amid the celebrations of his junior officers and men.
I think there are lots of stories there -- worth telling and worth hearing. But first, we've got to get past the 14-year old boy's fascination with making things explode. I doubt that "Pearl Harbor" does that, but, perhaps, someday, some film will.
Follow Ups:
"Technical & bloodless"?I think it's easily the most historically accurate depiction of the reality of a major war time event we have ever seen in film and are ever likely too. It strikes me you are asking for the "Hollywoodization" of reality because reality somehow isn't good enough.
Regarding a few specific points:
Iowa vs. Arizona as already pointed out
"On the other side of the battle line, it would be interesting to portray the Japanese pilots."
And didnt we see just that as they were trained, participating in and following the raid? What am I missing here? Are the Japanese not showing an Amercian enough sense of enthusiasm to suit you? If you knew Japanese culture and military hierarchy you would have a sense that the demonstration of achievment, pride and enthusiasm displayed by the pilots in the film is very much in line with reality.
"The base commander, an Admirial who later received a letter of reprimand, realizes the destruction of the main US Pacific battle fleet was the result of his complacency"
The base commander was a fall guy for broader compacency and mismanagement of military resources in the presence of superior intelligence data which was inefficiently distributed and interpreted at the highest levels of US government. In that regard the film depicted that broader failure of US policy management than has ever even been hinted at in any other treatment of the subject on film.
"The common portrayal of the participants in the aftermath of the raid is one of resolute defiance; but I suspect that is utter b.s. It is clear from what happened that the great bulk of the US forces were psychologically unprepared for war, which meant they were physically unprepared. I suspect in the immediate aftermath of the raid they were, literally, shell-shocked. Moreover, the more senior commanders no doubt appreciated just how exposed they were, militarily. The destruction of the US fuel depot (which apparently was not targeted) would have completely shut down the Pacific fleet, including those ships undamaged by the raid."
The best depiction of the military and public attitude in the aftermath of the battle was shown by the desk seargeant who receives the telegram warning of the pending Japanese intent to attack after the battle had occured - from a Japanese-american courier. The reality you would see if it were accurately depicted would be a rather unsavory one of utter hatred for all things Japanese - not an inwardly turned sense of introspection and vulnerability. Remember Japanese-American internment camps and the ubiquitous use of the derogatory term "jap" for Japanese?
"What about Adm. Yamamoto? Did he really say the "sleeping giant" statement? Was he prescient enough to really see that he had won a tactical victory but Japan had taken a step that was a strategic error? If he really felt this, he must have been very alone amid the celebrations of his junior officers and men."
Yes. He opposed atacking the US but the Japanese army was in ascendency and leading the drive to create their euphamisticly labelled asian "Coprosperity Sphere" whereby Japan acquired access to raw materials through military expansion in China and the rest of the far east. Yamamoto's campaign to avoid war with the US failed and he only proceded with the attack in a sense of duty to the emperor. He promised the ability to take the war to the US for 6 months after which he recognized all bets were off as the US's superior manufacturing capabilty and access to raw materials gave it a fundamental strategic advantage (he was college educated in the US and the only Japanese military leader with a realistic perspective on US manufacturing capabilities). He recognized at the time of the battle that the failure to catch the US carriers in port rendered the attack only a partial and temporary victory at best.
"I think there are lots of stories there -- worth telling and worth hearing. But first, we've got to get past the 14-year old boy's fascination with making things explode. I doubt that "Pearl Harbor" does that, but, perhaps, someday, some film will."If this is your take on this film and events it portrays I think you are missing the point completely. If you interpret this film as being a 14 year olds obsession with explosions I would instead suggest that your own lack of historical context for interpreting the story is the real issue when it comes to Tora Tora Tora.
But if you really want to learn history you need to read about it - movies arent the palce to learn it and its apparent from your comments there is a lot about this topic you simply dont know.
But where we absolutely agree is that Pearl Harbor is going to bark like a dog...
joe
given the arrogant and condescending tone of your response, but here goes.1. I apologized for the Iowa/Arizona screwup. A freudian slip or whatever. So, I'm a moron.
2. Apparently you have never been taught the difference between drama and documentary. As a primer, let me suggest any of the "history" plays of Shakespeare. The history is not so good; the drama is first-rate. Tora! Tora! Tora! is fine as a documentary, kind like the re-enactment of Civil War battles. But having seem the film many times, I recall it telling me practically nothing about what any of the participants are thinking or feeling. I see no need for another documentary; that's been done. But I think there's plenty of a room for a good drama about Pearl Harbor, even one that does not violate the historical record. Those were some of my suggested "angles."
3. So you think the very first, same-day, reaction of American military commanders in Hawaii to our having the shit kicked out of us at Pearl Harbor was a burst of racial hatred? Not to wonder if there was an invaision force coming, a second wave, a naval bombardment from battleships? If you've got evidence to back your claim up -- other than the current PC fixation on the admittedly wrong and unjustified US internment policy -- these guys really were were incompetent.
4. "If this is your take on this film and events it portrays I think you are missing the point completely. If you interpret this film as being a 14 year olds obsession with explosions I would instead suggest that your own lack of historical context for interpreting the story is the real issue when it comes to Tora Tora Tora."You should keep better track of your pronoun references ("this film"). I never said Tora! Tora! Tora! was about blowing things up; I said it was "bloodless" because it's just a re-enactment; it tells me nothing about the people involved. It appears that "Pearl Harbor" is about blowing things up. We both appear to be disappointed about that; although perhaps for different reasons. Maybe you want to see a re-enactment that features the latest in digital technology unavailable at the time of Tora!Tora!Tora! ? I want to see some real drama; I've seen the documentary.
5. "But if you really want to learn history you need to read about it - movies arent the palce to learn it and its apparent from your comments there is a lot about this topic you simply dont know."
Well thank you for that bit of advice. The last history book I read covering some part of the WW2 period was "In Harm's Way" about the sinking of the "Indianapolis." I finished it about 3 weeks ago. What's the last book you read on this subject, and when did you read it? Did I say I wanted to learn history from the movies? That's YOUR line. What I said was I expect drama from the movies; because that's what they are.
Do you have any idea what I'm talking about, or are you still clueless?
Enjoy Pearl Harbor. Perhaps it will have the "drama" you seek.joe
"Iowa" should have read "Arizona"I've got Iowa on the brain for reasons unrelated to this post.
Sorry.
The Iowa was part of the last class of US battleships built, which included the Missouri on which the articles of Japan's surrender were signed.
Not to nit-pick, but I don't think the Iowa was launched until 1943 or 1944. Of course, I'm sure that the "technical and bloodless" "Tora!Tora!Tora!" wouldn't have made that mistake...
--
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
