Letters From Iwo Jima on AMC tonight

[hgilmer]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Somebody had to be a sympathetic charicter, or you wind up with "Barry Lyndon"---4 hours of "I don't give a shit about anybody in this picture."

LOL thats exactly how I felt after/during watching Fargo. Man that was a waste of two hours.

I'll go you one better. It was exactly how I felt watching The Talented Mr. Ripley. I wanted to cheer whenever any one of those spoiled brats were offed by Ripley. The only thing that would have been better would have been that boat he was on at the end getting sunk by a Japanese car carrier or a misplaced iceberg.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

... And I watched it twice on AMC, back to back!

Was it any better with the commercials?

It was commercial free, uncut

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

... And I watched it twice on AMC, back to back!

Was it any better with the commercials?

It was commercial free, uncut

Not the second showing on AMC; only the first Prime Time showing was commercial free.

[ilovestrategy]

Dang, I had forgotten about that. Sorry for not understanding your post.
Actually, it was better WITH the commericals because of wife and kid saying "Dave!, Dad!" [:D]

[Feinder]

I thought Letters was pretty good.  I liked it more than Flags of our Fathers, simply because it was more about the battle, than in Flags, half of it was about the demons they faced afterwards.  Not to minimize either of those points.  But I thought Letters was good, because it's -very- difficult to do a different perspective, no matter how hard you try. 
 
I think Eastwood actually did do a good job of creating (mostly) sympathetic characters.  My thought on it was, "You guys are bastages.  Your situation sucks.  And I understand that you're trying to live by that whole Code of Bushido thing.  But our guys aren't Code of BS, and if you look down on us for it, then so be it.  And when your world collapses on you, don't ask me for sympathy (and I understand you won't give me any either.  So that being the case, there is no "agree to to disagree" and our guys are just going to have to kill you.  Sucks to be you."
 
But from perspective, I think it did well as Japanese perception.  I also think it was valuable to raise awaremenss in Japan.  I actually found the commentary -after- the DVD very disturbing, that most of the actors and youth of Japan had no idea that there was even a war with the US.
 
-F-

[bradfordkay]

How many of today's american kids know that there had been a war with Japan? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just wondering if it's more of a "kids ignoring history" situation than the (well publicized) japanese national amnesia when it comes to their actions in WW2.

[Feinder]

How many of today's american kids know that there had been a war with Japan?

 
I think that's a partially valid point.  But I do think that teens today are at least aware that WW2 occurred.  I was recently surfing the web, and found a syllabus for an American History class (maybe 4 months ago).  I was kinda surprised (and then not) by what I read.  Given the greater PC climate, the syllabus was more to the tune of...
 
Primary talking point - Freedom of Speach, No taxes without representaiton.
Secondary talking point - Revolutionary War.
 
Primary talking point - Slavery.
Secondary talking point - Civil War.
 
Primary talking point - Technology and imperialism.
Secondary talking point - WW1
 
Primary talking piont - Holocaust, A-bomb, Nisei internment. 
Secondary talking point - WW2
 
Primary talking point - Civil rights.
Secondary talking point - Vietnam War.
 
Not trying to cause a fire-storm (given that most of us in this formum have both a considerable appreciation and application of history).  Obviously, I would reverse the order of importance, but like it or not, that -is- the current PC culture.  But at least WW2 gets talked about here (alhto High School student may remain asleep).  But in interviewing the Japanese actors (esp the young ones, not Watanabe), they were surprised to find out that there was ever a war with the US, "why are we even fighting them?"
 
-F-

[bradfordkay]

Yeah, I've been reading  John Toland's The Rising Sun, which has been acclaimed as "an unbiased look at the war in the Pacific" and am aggrieved to note that  it has page upon page describing the horrors of the hiroshima bombing (I'm just getting to the point where  the bomb is going to fall on Nagasaki). amd only two paragraphs on the Nanking incident - where more people actually died. Doesn't seem  "unbiased" to me, but maybe I'm too old to understand...

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

How many of today's american kids know that there had been a war with Japan?

In many modern college history courses, WW II/VN/DS are all at the end of the book, and most classes rarely make it that far; if you're lucky -- no snow days, etc. -- you might touch upon these topics before the end of the semester, but by that time everyone is thinking of finals.

Same thing for US Hist 1 and the Civil War; you're lucky if you get there, then US Hist II starts w/reconstruction.

[Gem35]

Speaking about unbiased as you describe this book, does it describe the atrocities Japan put upon the Chinese or the American PoWs?
Having been born well after WWII, I am 38 yrs old, I was not there to gage the events that took place myself but can only go on what history has recorded. Being American I am admittedly biased.
One thing in particular I notice is that in several Three Stooges episodes the boys really have "fun" with Germany and Japan.
Sure, Hollywood is not a very good example of truth in history but I always have found it interesting how much hatred was shown towards the Axis powers in several of the short films.

[Terminus]

Oh goody, here we go...[8|]

[Feinder]

I am also reading Toland's book (still only in the pre-war stuff).

I think thus far (granted, I haven't gotten very far), it's a good book, if taken with all other material available. 
 
While the write-up might try to call it "unbiased", I don't actually think that even Toland considers the book "unbiased".  I think he considers it "from the Japanese point of view", and certainly -not- unbiased.  Indeed, his wife is Japanese, which allowed him access many many veterans and documents that might not have been so easily available to a gaijin.
 
But it's like that "Fortress Against the Sun" and "Shattered Sword" books everyone around here rants about as Bible.  They -are- *excellent* books.  But they're not Bible.  They should be taken amongst the greater body of works.  Some more credible than others (indeed FatS and SS are very credible).
 
But my advice on Tolands book (at least as how I'm reading it).  It probably -does- bring some differing insights to the table.  You (and I) don't have to agree to with them, and they might not even be correct.  But either way, the book brings -something- to table and does contribute to the greater body of knowledge. 
 
Again, I don't think it's supposed to be "unbiased".  Toland says it's "from the Japanese perspective"; it is by definition, NOT unbiased, so just accept it as such.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I am also reading Toland's book (still only in the pre-war stuff).

I think thus far (granted, I haven't gotten very far), it's a good book, if taken with all other material available.

While the write-up might try to call it "unbiased", I don't actually think that even Toland considers the book "unbiased". I think he considers it "from the Japanese point of view", and certainly -not- unbiased. Indeed, his wife is Japanese, which allowed him access many many veterans and documents that might not have been so easily available to a gaijin.

I thought Toland's book was excellent and consider it a must-read for anyone interested in the Pacific war. There's info on the Japanese decision-making process both pre- & post- Pearl Harbor that I haven't encountered elsewhere. But you're correct - it's not unbiased and Toland does acknowledge that it's mostly from the Japanese point of view. I think it should be read as a companion to John Costello's The Pacific War - which IMO is another excellent general history of the war, but mostly from the allied POV.

[bradfordkay]

Feinder, I did realize that Toland called it as being "from the Japanese point of view", and mainly have appreciated it as such. It was one of the "reviews" on the cover that called it an "unbiased" view - probably by some PC type youngster who thinks that if America did it, it's wrong...

I guess that it has been the page after page after page of descriptions of the horrors of the atom bombing that have ticked me off. I know that the results of the bombing were horrifying, but do we really have to go through it in such nauseating detail - especially after glossing over the Nanking incident? Let me know what you think after you reach that point.

Terminus, before you write off my comments as being from some typical "America, Love it or leave it" type, you might want to understand that the guys at the steakhouse consider me to be a pinko commie because I don't go running to america's defense whenever the eurotypes start attacking our policies. I believe in trying to remove bias as much as possible when diescussing history, and this book seems to trade one for another. In Toland's defense, he considers it as being from the Japanese point of view and it was just the reviewer who called it unbiased. It is that reviewers point of view that I question...

My apologies to everyone for taking this so far from topic.

[Snowman999]

Again, I don't think it's supposed to be "unbiased". Toland says it's "from the Japanese perspective"; it is by definition, NOT unbiased, so just accept it as such.

"Unbiased history" is an oxymoron. Never has been such. Historians write to make an argument, from Herodotus on down. Written history is a synthesis of primary sources. The very act of synthesis introduces bias. One could imagine primary sources photocopied and stapled together, leaving the "work" to the reader, but there would still be bias in what was stapled and what was left out. "Bias" really means "does not conform to my pre-concieved ideas, or those of an historian whose conclusions I agree with."

Using terms like "PC" to describe history is unproductive. If the primary sources aren't forged one part or point is about as relevant as any other. If you truly want non-bias you'd need to simultaneously load the entire human history into the brain at once. Good luck with that.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I am also reading Toland's book (still only in the pre-war stuff).

I think thus far (granted, I haven't gotten very far), it's a good book, if taken with all other material available. 

While the write-up might try to call it "unbiased", I don't actually think that even Toland considers the book "unbiased".  I think he considers it "from the Japanese point of view", and certainly -not- unbiased.  Indeed, his wife is Japanese, which allowed him access many many veterans and documents that might not have been so easily available to a gaijin.

But it's like that "Fortress Against the Sun" and "Shattered Sword" books everyone around here rants about as Bible.  They -are- *excellent* books.  But they're not Bible.  They should be taken amongst the greater body of works.  Some more credible than others (indeed FatS and SS are very credible).

But my advice on Tolands book (at least as how I'm reading it).  It probably -does- bring some differing insights to the table.  You (and I) don't have to agree to with them, and they might not even be correct.  But either way, the book brings -something- to table and does contribute to the greater body of knowledge. 

Again, I don't think it's supposed to be "unbiased".  Toland says it's "from the Japanese perspective"; it is by definition, NOT unbiased, so just accept it as such.

I have Toland's book and I have read it several times (every few years - 5 or so - I re-read it).

IMHO, in his book he is quite "unsupportive" of Japanese imperialism and expansionism - thus in that respect he is more than "unbiased" (i.e. he is not trying to "approve" their actions - he is merely explaining their actions and events as they happened and as they, Japan, saw it)...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [EDIT]
Sighted typo fixed

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Again, I don't think it's supposed to be "unbiased". Toland says it's "from the Japanese perspective"; it is by definition, NOT unbiased, so just accept it as such.

"Unbiased history" is an oxymoron. Never has been such. Historians write to make an argument, from Herodotus on down. Written history is a synthesis of primary sources. The very act of synthesis introduces bias. One could imagine primary sources photocopied and stapled together, leaving the "work" to the reader, but there would still be bias in what was stapled and what was left out. "Bias" really means "does not conform to my pre-concieved ideas, or those of an historian whose conclusions I agree with."

Using terms like "PC" to describe history is unproductive. If the primary sources aren't forged one part or point is about as relevant as any other. If you truly want non-bias you'd need to simultaneously load the entire human history into the brain at once. Good luck with that.

I think we're getting carried away with semantics here. ALL human thought is biased by the experiances of the thinker. Historical thought generally comes in two strains. One is to tell (as well as can be determined) what happened, The other is to try to use "what happened" to make a point about "why it happened" (or didn't happen, or should or shouldn't have happened). Neither is totally unbiased---but authors trying to "Prove" something are generally more "selective" than those trying to "record" events, and more likely to be "biased" in the sense we are refering to.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I thought Letters was pretty good.  I liked it more than Flags of our Fathers, simply because it was more about the battle, than in Flags, half of it was about the demons they faced afterwards.  Not to minimize either of those points.  But I thought Letters was good, because it's -very- difficult to do a different perspective, no matter how hard you try. 

I think Eastwood actually did do a good job of creating (mostly) sympathetic characters.  My thought on it was, "You guys are bastages.  Your situation sucks.  And I understand that you're trying to live by that whole Code of Bushido thing.  But our guys aren't Code of BS, and if you look down on us for it, then so be it.  And when your world collapses on you, don't ask me for sympathy (and I understand you won't give me any either.  So that being the case, there is no "agree to to disagree" and our guys are just going to have to kill you.  Sucks to be you."

But from perspective, I think it did well as Japanese perception.  I also think it was valuable to raise awaremenss in Japan.  I actually found the commentary -after- the DVD very disturbing, that most of the actors and youth of Japan had no idea that there was even a war with the US.

-F-

I enjoyed "Letters" too because of it's in the trenches focus but from the other side. It puts a human face on what is often generalized as a machine like enemy that wants to do nothing more than stick a sword in all too human American boys and then blow "itself" up with a hand grenade with no thoughts of their own lives and desires. I think that was Eastwood's objective. One could easily imagine themselves in the main character's place....a draftee who isn't an endoctrined career soldier who wants nothing more than to die for his country/Emperor but a flesh and blood human who gets put through an ringer than thankfully few of us today will have to go through.

I thought the scene where he has to watch his fellow soldiers blow their own heads off with their grenades was intense. He has his own grenade ready. Its expected...you know he knows he thinks its the crazyest thing ever suggested to him but its an order...its an order however .....hes scared shitless...does he do it or not? And how do you feel if you don't afterward? Crazy world.

Havn't managed to get through Flags yet. A tad slow. We have watched the first two parts of Ken Burns "The War" however. I've heard mixed reactions to it but it is good enough that my GF.....who is anything BUT a war history freak (and thinks we all need lives), found it interesting because of it's focus on the home front. I liked it as well. I find the pictures and descriptions of how life used to be in a "normal" setting very facinating.

[Raverdave]

Sorry, but I am the only one here who thought the LFIJ and the other one that he made....were just average movies.
Would not rate them as great, simply average.

[witpqs]

Agreed.