Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
Your sarcasm is misplaced. You might want to try reading what I wrote instead of what you wished I wrote.Good point. Wasn't it infuriating when in the TV series "The Diary of Anne Frank" there wasn't more humanising of the SS jew-hunters? They were just portrayed as vague forces to be scared of, lurking on the periphery for the vast majority of the show. There must have been some scenes that could have been added, showing them in a good light?
Oh well, too late now I guess. Perhaps you should start writing a sceenplay on ISIS, so that the first feature film of the Islamic State can feature a humanising portrayal (edit out the unimportant beheadings and demolition of antiquities, and show some of the more common human stuff, like having breakfast, which would be a more realistic depiction of a typical day).
On the other hand, your implication was that it would be ridiculous to have a sympathetic Waffen-SS character.You mean it would be akin to asking WW2 movies to be less simplistic and more realistic? It may be out of place in a particular work of art but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of the general idea that people are never all one thing and none of another, even if they choose - or have chosen for them - the "wrong" side in a war.
Your Godwin powers are very weak considering that at its peak there were 38 divisions of Waffen-SS with around a million troops, and they weren't all volunteers.From my recollection of the movie, most of the "locals" he comes into contact with are Islamic insurgents. So what is the problem with showing them as barbaric? (They are). To do otherwise would be akin to asking WW2 movies to have sympathetic Waffen SS characters in them.
ETA: And finally, the further implication that the insurgents US troops were and are fighting can't be sympathetic betrays an incredibly simplistic view of the world. We don't live in an episode of 24.
Last edited: