ORIGINAL: Charles_22
ORIGINAL: mlees
Charles_22:
If they machine-gunned the AA crews and nobody seems to deny this, then how is giving it extra drama that much worse?
Well, I never said it was "worse", inaccurate, or even bad film making. I merely said that I do not think that the director put it in the movie solely for accuracy. (Note: I have only seen the clips linked above. I cannot find a DvD to buy, and in any case, I will wait for one with English subtitles.)
Another poster stated that they felt that a lot of "strafing" attacks are shown. (Post #48) I took this as an impression the movie may leave with me as well, if I had seen it whole.
I considered it a dramatic plot device, primarilly intended to evoke a specific reaction/emotion from the viewers.
IOW you thought it was gratuitous, as though they were making the casualties look worse than we can reasonably expect they were, so as to evoke outrage or sympathy, correct?
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. (I have enough skill at chewing on my own shoes without help from anybody.) I meant only what I said, and nothing else.
The strafing scenes (as are all the scenes in movies) are set up to evoke a desired response from the viewer. Period.
Note: No judgements were stated or implied in that observation of film making. Period.
No judgements made on the real life tactics employed. Period.
You yourself noted that only the IJN crew is depicted in human form, and the Americans as faceless airplane machines. (In post #76)
A director picks and chooses the action, the angles, the lighting, the sound, and everything else you were subjected to while watching it. He usually does this with several goals in mind (for example: entertainment value).
I feel that that is a valid part of the craft of moviemaking. Period. As such, he did his job. And probably did it fairly decently, too, judging from the shorts that I can watch as linked here.
I was trying to say, that if they indeed did a good bit of strafing of the AA guns, then if that is a bad thing or even a good thing, how is it so much more worse for how they portrayed it?
Again, you are assuming I have a negative "judgment" on the whole deal. I do not.
Why do you think the director (deliberately) shot those scenes in the way he did?
I felt a bit of sympathy for them myself, in fact it was quite a bit more moving than the Tora, Tora, Tora casualties, mainly I imagine because the means of making gore and excitement is so much better in film these days (no comment on acting). I didn't even understand them and I felt sorry for them, must have had a lot to do with the music and the attacks being seemingly endless.
Do you think that the very way it was filmed had an effect on the reaction you noted above?
Do you think that the film maker was attempting to provoke this very reaction? And why?
I think that all that is both a legitimate part of story telling (including film making), and a legitimate question to ask yourself: "What was the film trying to tell me, and how do I feel about that message?"
[;)]
