|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Is the upcoming "Pearl Harbor" really necessary? posted by Bruce from DC on May 9, 2001 at 09:57:38:
"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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Is the upcoming "Pearl Harbor" really necessary? - Joe S 22:43:31 05/14/01 (2)
- This might not be a good idea - Bruce from DC 15:50:46 05/15/01 (1)
- Sigh.... - Joe S 22:10:24 05/20/01 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
