Fucking brilliant! I want to see this ASAP!

Fucking brilliant! Sounds like this is a film the dumb fucking middle American inbreds won’t be too happy about. I’m seeing this ASAP!

Heh, double posted. Anyways, good job!

This movie sounds really interesting; can’t wait to see it!

Good stuff, Kris. I liked this film as well. There’s a lot in here that assumes at least a rudimentary knowledge of tactics used in WWII, such as the radio broadcasts by Tokyo Rose. Some of the sequences I thought quite important: the soldier falling off the American ship, and none of the other members of the fleet stopping to save him. Ryan Philippe’s character tending to an obviously gone soldier, only to stab an advancing enemy soldier. There’s a moment where he seems torn between his duty as a healer, and the duty to his country. The enemy soldier whispers “help me”, and he twists his knife, ensuring the enemy soldier will bleed to death. He then goes back to his futile attempts at bandaging his fellow soldier’s guts, both lives fading in front of him.  There’s so much in this film to think about. It’s not the action fest that was Saving Private Ryan, and that’s going to turn off some audiences. Great great stuff. Good job Kris!

this film seems interesting…i saw the trailer…seemed like a another war tanker…looked very “the great raid”-ish. But now my interest has piqued because of your review…nice mention of the second movie coming out…that movie holds a lot of promise…nobody seems to want to take the “enemy” perspective.

great job

Glad you guys liked this one. I just caught it, and was also startled. And it’s only half of the story. For a filmmaker at 76 to attempt a project of this scoop is impressive indeed. Not much squinting is needed to see links with today’s war. Eastwood puts a lot of the “edgier” younger directors to shame.

“scoop”

I meant “scope,” of course. Bah.

Fo sho, Fernando. Glad to see you liked it as well.

I went to read a movie review and instead, I ended up reading a defense of Japanese actions during World War II.

First, I will concede that the United States and its Allies employed “Total War” tactics with horrifying results against civilians. The fire bombing of Japan killed more people than did the atomic bombs. In the European theatre, the bombing of Dresden killed 100,000 civilians.

But let’s not carried away and paint the Japanese as innocents swept up in a war not of its own making. To imply that the Rape of Nanking was a minor event is ridiculous and insulting. Conservative estimates are that between 100,000 and 300,000 people were killed. The reason people are, in the words of the author, “boohooing” this atrocity is because that there are those in Japan up to and including senior government officials who will not concede the full scope of the brutality employed by the Japanese in China during WWII.

The use of the atomic bomb is a subject that is clearly worth debating. Was it ultimately a better choice? Would have the Japanese surrendered? Would the U.S. had to invade mainland Japan to ensure a swift conclusion to the war? Did the atomic bomb ultimately save more lives that would have been lost had the war continued? Was using the atomic bomb a morally justifiable position? All are valid and important questions.

I have no problem with the author criticism’s of U.S. foreign policy or its propensity to rely upon military solutions. I do fault the author for comparing what occurred in World War II with the current U.S. policies in Iraq. I also find it disingenuous to play down the atrocities committed by Japanese forces. The questions of Jews and concentration camps are not germane to any of these positions, and are used clumsily to bolster the argument that the Japanese were the real victims here.

Certainly this entire review would be more useful if it concentrated on the movie. If its aim was to compare and contrast the behavior of Japan and the United States during WWII and beyond, it failed miserably.

Dirk, I believe the point she was trying to make is that one should question what they know about the war, and their concepts of American heroism. I think that if you read one paragraph further than the point at which you became upset, you would probably see this.

And certainly, the Rape of Nanking was not something to be taken lightly. However, there is a bit of uncertainty and suspicion of inflation regarding the actual numbers. One reason historians site is the disparity in actual births following the atrocities given the numbers. Still, there’s no discounting the evil that was committed. Rape and torture, prolonging and sustaining a person’s suffering, is far more sadistic and deplorable that killing a person outright. And our own soldiers were guilty of a similar disgrace in Vietnam. Certainly not on a comparable scale, but no less worthy of scorn. But, if the number is lower than that believed, by comparison, using pure numerics, the US actions in WWI were worse.

As an aside: What’s funny is that following the withdrawl of the Japanese in the area, Chiang Kai-shek’s Guomingdang army (which was funded and partially armed by the US) set out on a widespread looting and raping campaing, taking advantage of already victimized peasants. That’s another one you don’t hear about that one as much.

But, again, I think she was trying to get you to think. We know from our American history courses who to label as the bad guy (and rightly so), but we often label ourselves as being without fault. If you look at the pure numbers the US is responsible for just as much, and more loss of human life worldwide.

I agree, the current US policy in Iraq differs from the policies of WWII. The current US policy represents the corporatization of war. We do a bit, but only enough that we keep the conflict going, so as to prolong our business interest overseas.

Anyways, I apologize for the sporadic nature of this post, but I do think she was just trying to get viewers to think about what they claim to know when viewing this film. Nice discussing with you, Dirk.

Also, here’s an article on Iwo Jima’s name change from yesterday’s news.

Hey Dirk, I welcome discussions and love a good debate, but I urge you to read the entire review before commenting.. the point of the review AND the movie was to show BOTH SIDES of the issue.

I believe your stance proved exactly what I was talking about.. that noone tries to understand what external forces were engaging and coercing Japan to do. The atomic bomb was not a gut response to Pearl Harbor. There was no cause for the Japanese internment camps and illegal confiscation of Japanese-American property and businesses. It was to instill hatred, paranoia and fear. The tactics the Allies used and are using today to “liberate” are just as irreprehensible. Unfortunately there is always an ulterior motive. This is my point: war can bring out the worst in soldiers as in officials. Officials used the image of the Iwo Jima flag raising as a marketing scheme so that the American citizens could be duped into purchasing war bonds and funding their war. (Hmm, see the parallel between then and now?) That is what Flags of our Fathers also covers.

I am not belittling the Rape of Nanking, but asking for people to dig a little into history (not entirely relying on history books written from the white american male perspective) and reveal the events leading up to the pinnacle of WWII, including the Rape of Nanking. America is not innocent. Many American companies (GM for instance) took advantage of Nazi concentration camp prisoners as cheap labor. Many American soldiers raped women and children overseas. Many German soldiers raped women and children. Heck, many American men rape women everyday and noone cares.

Many people are unaware of the relentless firebombing raids on Japan before the atomic bombs were dropped and killed more than the atomic bombs. It’s great that you were motivated enough to discover that. The Americans wanted full surrender with an incredibly unrealistic list of restrictions that they planned for the Japanese to repeatedly refuse. They wanted to test napalm and WMDs to intimidate the rest of the world powers. If people research, they will discover the truth, but people prefer to be indifferent about it. Even the way Native Americans were treated (which I discussed later on in the review) are rarely presented. This is why I applaud Clint Eastwood for attempting to educate people with his films, but the majority of audiences just wanted more action, more bombs. Doesn’t that make a stunning statement as well?

Another question I want to pose: why is there still so much animosity towards the Japanese but not at Germans? Why is forgiveness arbitrary? Just asking people to have an open mind.