If you are actually there, all you need is a bullet or two whipping by your ear to know you're being shot at, while a film like 'SPR' needs to do a lot more than that to actually transport the viewer and make them feel like they are on the beach themselves. There is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill along the lines of "There is no feeling more exhilarating than being shot at without result", which I think is fitting here. We're getting more into film theory then history, but something like the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan" is trying to transport us there, and this can mean it needs to be more real than reality. They are striving to capture authenticity, and in some ways what feels authentic doesn't need to be what is actually accurate. Now, that isn't to say that old newsreel footage is a closer approximation, by any stretch, but it is to say that using Hollywood films is problematic in several ways. I doubt that you are a World War II veteran, and neither am I, as you might suspect, but nevertheless, I would note that technically speaking, actual combat footage is reality, while "Saving Private Ryan" isn't. The first thing I'd point out is that "compared to reality" is something of a strange baseline to make. After having seen films like Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and the Pacific, I would expect there to be more footage similar to those combat scenes rather than what is broadcast to us today.ĭid the wartime photographers or the US Military edit out the frames that were too graphic for the public to see? Did the photographers not roll the camera when things got too hot? Maybe I’m not watching the right videos… Can anybody explain? The only video that I felt came close to depicting the realities of combat was a scene from Norman Hatch’s documentary “With the Marines at Tarawa.” There is a brief clip of a dead corpse getting riddled with machine gun fire which is graphic to watch. Obviously, there is plenty of footage of the aftermath such as the dead and wounded, but nothing actually during the heat of battle. For instance, I feel like the troops in the footage are always a little too calm, I never see the enemy in the same frame and never see who the troops are shooting at, and I never see casualties occur such as soldiers being shot or shelled. I wonder why the footage seems so tame and not graphic compared to reality. I was up late last night watching combat footage and documentaries from both the Pacific and the European theaters and maybe I am the only one that has this opinion. Previous AMAs | Previous Roundtables Featuresįeature posts are posted weekly. May 25th | Panel AMA with /r/AskBibleScholars Please Subscribe to our Google Calendar for Upcoming AMAs and Events To nominate someone else as a Quality Contributor, message the mods. Our flaired users have detailed knowledge of their historical specialty and a proven record of excellent contributions to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read and Understand the Rules Before Contributing. Report Comments That Break Reddiquette or the Subreddit Rules. Serious On-Topic Comments Only: No Jokes, Anecdotes, Clutter, or other Digressions. Provide Primary and Secondary Sources If Asked. Write Original, In-Depth and Comprehensive Answers, Using Good Historical Practices. Questions should be clear and specific in what they ask, and should be able to get detailed answers from historians whose expertise is likely to be in particular times and places. Nothing Less Than 20 Years Old, and Don't Soapbox. Be Nice: No Racism, Bigotry, or Offensive Behavior. Downvote and Report comments that are unhelpful or grossly off-topic.Upvote informative, well sourced answers.New to /r/AskHistorians? Please read our subreddit rules and FAQ before posting! Apply for Flair
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |