To End All Wars (1 Viewer)

[Harrytheheid]

A movie about Scottish POW's of the Japanese and the building of the Siam-India "Railroad of Death".
First off, this film is obviously low budget, with scenes of the fall of Singapore restricted to black and white still photos, and the actual film only involves like three people plus extras.
Secondly, the moral of the film, which is repeatedly shoved down the viewers throat, is nauseatingly clichefied Christian ethics;
"Turn the other cheek style, with the not very original core content of;
"Hatred Consumes You",
"Forgiveness is Divine",
"Love Your Enemy",
etc, etc......you get the idea.
The bad guy in the film (Robert Carlyle) is the prisoner that dreams of escape and freedom, albeit with an unrealistic plan. The good guy is the prisoner who motivates the POWs to work even harder for the Japanese and finish the Bridge on the River Kwai ahead of schedule. (Those on this forum who kn ow me will know who I sypathise with).
The entire message of the movie is highly dubious IMO. Moreover, the complex psychological and moral issues explored in "The Bridge on the River Kwai", such as the Stockholm Syndrome of growing to be loyal to your captors, and how hard a POW should work to aid the enemy, are blatantly absent. Instead, this film recommends that you love your torturerer's and work as hard as you can for the Emperor.
If you are a Christian, Disney-Loving person, then for sure, you'll like this movie. If however, you're like me and refuse to forgive the excesses of the WWII Japanese generation, you would seriously consider revenge on those who tortured and killed the people you loved, in other words if you are a human being, this movie has you cast as the villain.
As far as I'm concerned, ALL - okay 99% of those monsters those who served in the WWII Japanese military were accurately described in GMF's book "Quartered Safely Out Here".

H

 

[4th Hussar]

So the arse kissing fool is the good guy? Sounds like they have taken 21st century "sensitivity" back to the 1940s. This movie must be real popular with the ww2 vets still with us.

P.S. Welcome back Harry - have you been pardoned ?

 

[theBaron]

Yes, Harry, welcome back!

Interesting question that you raise with this post-how much modern thinking colors the history in an increasing number of movies made since the Sixties. That is, even when watching historical fiction, how much of a post-modern worldview colors the scriptwriter's vision, or the director's, and how many details must be taken with a grain of salt.

It makes it hard, sometimes, to think about watching war movies, or other historical movies, period. I'm immediately skeptical that the filmmaker is trying to put across a message that might otherwise not be there, or that is on shaky ground, in my opinion. I'm torn at times by this skepticism, because the property might otherwise be worthy. For example, take Saving Private Ryan. I didn't see it in the theaters, and didn't see it until it made its way to basic cable (TBS), because I was worried that I would find it peppered with anachronisms from our time. Same goes for Band of Brothers. I've seen some episodes, but in the back of my mind is the question, at any given line or action in the show, "How accurate is this?" "Did they really say things like this, or even talk like that?"

Granted, I've learned not to ask those questions for a movie like The Battle of the Bulge, which has no pretensions of being anything other than an action-adventure set in WWII. Same goes for Kelly's Heroes. But I think that SPR and BoB both pretend to something more, so I want to watch them more closely, and if they fail the mark, any message they might try to convey, is not brought across.

So, to watch this movie, or not? To be fair, to judge it fully, I guess I'd have to see it myself. But I think I can wait for it to show up on cable

Prost!
Brad

PS-hey, I've made it to Oberst-Leutnant! Wahnsinnig!

 

[L Flowers]

There is a very good book called The Past Imperfect about Hollywood's attempts(good and bad) to recreate or tell the story of an historical event. I have the 1995 edition and it explains what was right and wrong based on historical evidence. One example is from The Longest Day when Major Howard assaulted what came to be called Pegasus Bridge. The charges to blow up the bridge were never placed and were in a storage locker. The director wanted the drama so he had the charges on the bridge with the soldiers going hand over hand removing them. This while Howard, who was an advisor, looked on in disbelief.