Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

mainichi.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#71

Post by gre »

pengaru wrote: post #70
gre wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to British historian Mark Felton: "The Japanese murdered 30 million civilians while "liberating" what it called the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere from colonial rule. About 23 million of these were ethnic Chinese. It is a crime that in sheer numbers is far greater than the Nazi Holocaust. In Germany, Holocaust denial is a crime. In Japan, it is government policy. But the evidence against the navy –…

> Crimes all around. War is bad, actually? I'm not sure why this is in response to my comment, which speaks nothing of war crimes nor has anything resembling an accusatory tone, nor does it excuse Japan as innocent. The excerpt in my comment was transcribed and posted because it speaks to the Soviet Union's entering the war in-context, relative to the atomic bombings, from a Japanese perspective.

Good point. I thought you were emphasizing the labor camp aspect of it.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#73

Post by jorgesborges »

ransackdev wrote: post #65
koheripbal wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although they touched on the impact of the bomb on Japanese civilians a little, they didn't really do it justice, and it's a shame because I think it would have really provided an important insight on why Oppenheimer's views changed over time. The movie lacked a cohesive story anyway, so that would have added some meaning.

The movie was about the man, not the bomb, which is why it focused primarily on a man, and not a bomb. The actual testing of the bomb was a small part of the movie and the real deployments of it were but a couple sentences. The movie Oppenheimer was never a movie about Hiroshima and while I think there needs to be more coverage in general about our impact on Japan by dropping those bombs, I think giving the movie Opp…

It’s still true to say the movie lacked a cohesive story — it may have been “about the man” but it was an incoherent battery of spoken facts rather than a personal journey with growth and progression.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#74

Post by darkclouds »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #63
darkclouds wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why history is selectively taught at schools. Here in the UK we werent taught anything about Hiroshima but whilst its portrayed as shortening the war, thats using an argument which is hard to prove. It also means that once that step is taken, ie dropping the bomb, there is no going back, the US will have to remain the dominant power for the foreseeable future in order to prevent retaliation. This then undermi…

>because of the saying, the victor writes the history books, Yeah, in all my history books, the bad guys always lost and the good guys always won 100% of the time. What are the odds of that? /s

I know, but its never really taught how much more complicated the situation is that leads to the start of a war. At best it documents events, but history at least in my case never went into the politics. History was more a case of just remembering facts, but teaching might have changed a bit since my time.

One example of some of the stuff I heard the imperialist forces were up to in Japan, again I dont know how much is true or not, I wasnt there, but I do also read conspiracy theories to broaden my horizons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamashita%27s_gold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army_during_...

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#75

Post by randallsquared »

jorgesborges wrote: post #73
ransackdev wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The movie was about the man, not the bomb, which is why it focused primarily on a man, and not a bomb. The actual testing of the bomb was a small part of the movie and the real deployments of it were but a couple sentences. The movie Oppenheimer was never a movie about Hiroshima and while I think there needs to be more coverage in general about our impact on Japan by dropping those bombs, I think giving the movie Opp…

It’s still true to say the movie lacked a cohesive story — it may have been “about the man” but it was an incoherent battery of spoken facts rather than a personal journey with growth and progression.

Would you prefer that we only get biopics about people who have storybook personal growth or would you prefer that more of the biopics we get are fictionalized? 'Cause that's the choice we have, if we act on your complaint.

People tell stories. They are not themselves stories. Most people, even really important, impactful people, were just doing something interesting, or putting one foot in front of another, or pursuing short-term goals.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#76

Post by squarepizza »

jorgesborges wrote: post #73
ransackdev wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The movie was about the man, not the bomb, which is why it focused primarily on a man, and not a bomb. The actual testing of the bomb was a small part of the movie and the real deployments of it were but a couple sentences. The movie Oppenheimer was never a movie about Hiroshima and while I think there needs to be more coverage in general about our impact on Japan by dropping those bombs, I think giving the movie Opp…

It’s still true to say the movie lacked a cohesive story — it may have been “about the man” but it was an incoherent battery of spoken facts rather than a personal journey with growth and progression.

At some point I just closed my eyes and pretended I was listening to a radio drama, which is what it could've / should've been.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#77

Post by randallsquared »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #24
zer8k wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, PTSD is a terrible term because it's non-descriptive. It also makes it more difficult for a person to be empathetic to a sufferer of PTSD because it's not an on/off switch and more of a spectrum. A term like "shell shock" illustrates the actual trauma and enables people to be understand better why a person might act the way they do. It is often easier for a person with PTSD to describe themselves as a "vi…

Personally I think “post traumatic stress disorder” is more descriptive and accurate than “shell shock”. The person isn’t shocked, they’re traumatized. Also it turns out different things can make sense to people in different ways. Probably the term is less important than the understanding.

> The person isn’t shocked, they’re traumatized.

The terms "in shock" and "shocked" are not equivalent. The former means traumatized, while the latter means someone is extremely surprised.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#78

Post by networkchad »

judge2020 wrote: post #66
nerdponx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. So it's not quite a matter of "A-bomb good". Plenty of Americans alive today lived through the Cold War too, and spent years or decades in low-level fear of nuclear war. It's not quite as simple as "nukes good therefore no criticism of nukes in movie". Part of the interest in things like t…

> Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. Or, at least, less loss of American life. If The United Kingdom had not consented to the bombs and they were shelved, what are the chances the U.S. would've lost e.g. 50,000 and Japan 150,000 before surrender?

Do you really believe the consent of UK was a real gating decision? Lol. I chalk that one up purely to diplomatic nice-ness.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#80

Post by jorgesborges »

randallsquared wrote: post #75
jorgesborges wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s still true to say the movie lacked a cohesive story — it may have been “about the man” but it was an incoherent battery of spoken facts rather than a personal journey with growth and progression.

Would you prefer that we only get biopics about people who have storybook personal growth or would you prefer that more of the biopics we get are fictionalized? 'Cause that's the choice we have, if we act on your complaint. People tell stories. They are not themselves stories. Most people, even really important, impactful people, were just doing something interesting, or putting one foot in front of another, or pursu…

My complaint is that it was boring, not that it wasn't storybook -- although come on the scenes with Einstein (and many others) were terribly storybook.
Post reply on HN