Well, it's not over yet (or is it?).

 

It's not over yet. USA will have to question its ethics next on this one (after the election)

 

By the way, we are terribly guilty of spoiling the topic, guys.

 

This is true

A very humbling thread. I watched from afar in an office in the UK, where almost everyone was stood not believing what they were seeing.

I think it's fairly obvious why 9/11 is so big in the west, many of us lost a friend or a relative or more in it, and of those that didn't, they likely know a friend who did

 

I would beg to differ on this point. The article in question skirts around the role of the media and the way it can influence us. The fact is we were all part of it in one way or another because we all saw it unwrap before our very eyes on TV - everywhere in the world. And we could not help but be mortified because most of us are decent human beings. Of course we are going to feel an attachment and if the same had happened in the middle east, my attachment and disgust would be no different.

 

From the same article, I quote "is the annual reminder of 9/11 a continued attempt to emotionally manipulate the public opinion on middle-eastern politics for as long as possible?" I don't know the answer to that very valid question, but as much as propaganda is a dirty word, it is constantly played out by every country in the world. The good thing about the internet is the choice of media "spins" we can listen to or watch (provided we do so with an open mind). The exact same story but with a very different slant.

 

As a side note, if there is a Higher Being - God / Muhammed / Buhda / Whatever - surely he (or she) must be sitting there and saying "what is wrong with these people"?

Also WW2 was an allied victory so don't let Steven Spielberg's films convince you otherwise. Many nations were at war and not just the USA. Saving Private Ryan is a joke.

 

What a bizarre statement.

 

What a bizarre statement.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

Why do you say that?

 

Ok where to begin?

 

"Also WW2 was an allied victory so don't let Steven Spielberg's films convince you otherwise."

 

Anyone who has done a modicum of study about WWII knows it was really a World war... involving many countries from all over the globe.

 

"Don't let Steven Spielberg's films convince you otherwise." Really?

 

I am surprised (Matthew) about this statement... "Hollywood movies" are designed to do one thing: to make money... in the form of (fictional) entertainment. If there is "truth" or "historical accuracy" to a movie, it is typically an accidental or incidental by-product in the telling of the story. Anyone looking to Hollywood to educate them... well I don't know what to say to you except, dang, keep that to yourself because it is not very wise to educate one's self that way.

 

It would be akin to watching Oliver Stone's JFK and then claiming you know the truth of / about JFK's assassination.

 

If you want historical accuracy... you will be lucky if it is not completely dry and thoroughly boring. If it says "documentary" then sure... there can be some educational value. A good example would be Ken Burn's "The Civil War". But it is still told thru the directors view and (his/her) research.

 

Saving Private Ryan a joke? Why? Do you not understand the story / premise of the film? The idea was loosely based on an actual event: the loss of a number of brothers in war and one sent back because the others were dead or supposedly dead. Look at that powerful scene of "Marshall" reading Lincoln's letter to a mother who apparently lost 5 sons fighting for the Union. He was determined that wasn't going to happen on his watch: "That boy is alive. We are gonna send somebody to find him. And we are gonna get him the hell outta there." That's the movie... the sacrifice of a number of men for one deemed needing rescue. And there is truth to that theme (off the top of my head - the rescue Lt. Col. Gene Hambleton).

 

Just because Spielberg attempts to faithfully recreate what an amphibious assault would be like... especially the hell on Omaha Beach with the blistering MG 42 fire, mortars, mines etc... by no means makes it a documentary. I think it is more of a tribute to his dad and the millions who fought... an acknowledgment... a thank you of sorts... of what they endured and suffered to ensure our freedom from the Axis powers.

Ok where to begin?

 

 

No worries mate, don't take what I say online too seriously as people will have different POV's about films the world over. I look for historical accuracies in film and appreciiate when they portray history in a proper way.

 

For example. I think that the film United 93 is one the best film's ever done that portray a real life event. I appreciate how the director Paul Greengrass used ATC transcripts and casted the real Air Traffic Controlers and casted United Airlines employees in the film rather then fictionalizing a plot line using actors. Turns out the best person to play FAA Operation Manager Ben Sliney is the real Ben Sliney, which I thought was amazing.

 

I think the worse example of a historic based film was the film Titanic. When I lived in Halifax a few years back people used to leave flowers on the grave of J Dawson, a Titanic victim that worked in the boiler room. They thought this was the real Jack Dawson. This is what fictionalizing history does in films is it makes the masses think that was what really happened.

It used to make me think how funny that no one ever paid attention to that grave until after the Titanic film, because people think that Leonardo Decaprio's character was really a victim and lies in that grave. This is the power of pursuasion Hollywood has in changing historical events.

 

Let's just say I prefer to read over films as I am always hungry for facts. My all time favourite war film is Tora Tora Tora, it doesn't get much better then that. I didn't even bother to see Disney's remake of Pearl Harbour as I wouldn't have been able to stomach the love story with Ben Affleck

A good example would be Ken Burn's "The Civil War". But it is still told thru the directors view and (his/her) research.

 

I am going to have to check that one out....Cheers

Getting back to the original topic and also talk about historical films, to me the best documentary ever was "9/11" by the Naudet Brothers. It originally was broadcast without commercials on the first anniversary of 9/11 and was hosted by Robert de Niro.

The documentary started as a study of a rookie FDNY firefighter. It was one of the most amazing films I had ever seen to this day. I believe the Naudets were the only people to actually film the first airliner hitting the WTC.

 

Bill

Ok where to begin?

 

Great Ozzie .... whether or not people may agree with your comments, that reply sincerely deserves a round of applause. Well done!

No worries mate, don't take what I say online too seriously as people will have different POV's about films the world over.

 

Well I try to as your are a poster in that "circle of respect"... it just surprised me to read that in your post.

 

Also, my nose gets a little out of joint (do noses have joints?) when I hear people from other countries thinking what they saw in a Hollywood movie somehow is "real" with respect to American life. I'll hear someone say, "I was watching the documentary about..." and I am like :t0105: "No... it was a movie!... for entertainment!... not a documentary! Capisce???!!!" and then I try to settle down.

 

I prefer films being the clod that I am... also imo you missed a good movie not seeing the Pearl Harbor with Ben. Trying to change that and read more.

 

The Ken Burns Civil War was one of those excellent documentaries... unusual for the fact it used pictures & paintings and narration by several well known actors (like Sam Waterson - from Law & Order years ago - voiced Lincoln)... rather than recreations or re-enactments. His technique for filming (which kept me rivted) actually became known as the "Ken Burns Effect". It's long... like 9+ hours (I have the VCR version). I see on Amazon there is a DVD version now (http://www.amazon.co...s the civil war). Dang for $45 I think I'll do a "one click order" now.

imo you missed a good movie not seeing the Pearl Harbor with Ben.

Ok. :mellow:

 

Nothing wrong with Ben, but with that management adding a 'typical love story for the women in their 20s' to it. I have yet to see a good Michael Bay movie I think. Means one where, in between the boom and bangs, 'something' takes place. Nice effects though.

 

If there was a stereotype Hollywood way of filming things, he would have written the book. Well, the flyer, offering a discount on popcorn. ^_^

 

I'm sorry, did I just rant about Michael Bay (movies)? I should have ranted about Roland Emmerich. :wacko:

Well I try to as your are a poster in that "circle of respect"... it just surprised me to read that in your post.

 

People are never going to agree with everything I have to say and I would expect that.

 

I do wish that Hollywood would be more inclusive when they make films as this is the way warfare works...

 

When the USA goes to war they call on their allies and it become a coalition mission. Many countries are involved and many sacrifices the world over. US Solders get to work with solders from other countries and develop a bond with people that last a lifetime.

 

When the war is over and everyone goes home the USA says thank-you very much for your help, sorry about your casualties and losses, and when we make a movie about it we will be sure to exclude you from the film.

 

I just think that is a shame is all considering that they sell these films to all countries around the world.

 

That is just my POV. So when Hollywood makes a film about the Afghanistan mission I think it better to show that bond that solders had with each other from varies armies then just about the USA as that is the reality of what Afghanistan was. Hopefully Hollywood see it that way too.

 

Cheers

Well, sometimes, critical and open films emerge, Matthew. But those are not the ones automatically making the money Hollywood relies on. So, on that part, I agree with you a lot.

 

But I don't have a problem with the popcorn category. I just hope that people take it as the starting point, to look up how this and that event was described outside of the cinema. Well, even with books, it sometimes is obvious that the winner wrote the history lectures.

 

That old story of the 'clear' good and evil sides in conflicts. I wonder if that ever was something really taking place for example.

You're mixing Hollywood with the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government isn't in the habit of making movies. And Hollywood sells to whoever buys.

 

Those of us who have been in the military and have worked with our allies are grateful... I don't see the need for a movie thanking me for my service.

 

USA says thank-you very much for your help, sorry about your casualties and losses,

I can't for the life of me, imagine any U.S. president being so blasé with respect to the service of another country. Hollywood sure. Not our "government". To suggest we (me as a former service member or my government) are not appreciative of our allies and the supreme sacrifice many have made is offensive. To suggest Hollywood doesn't care... well... c'est la vie. They aren't in the business of sending out "thank yous".

 

Again... these movies are for entertainment... historical accuracy is not a requisite.

 

Btw you have never seen A Bridge Too Far ?