Unbroken, AN OP/ED, not about this one movie, but about war movies in general.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Unbroken, AN OP/ED, not about this one movie, but about war movies in general.

OP/ED,

No this is not about this one movie, but the long term glorification of war. One can hate the glorification of war, and still value those who protect us. War is nothing to be proud of, it is simply an unfortunate part of human existence. Just like a doctor does not like finding out his patient has cancer, or doesn't like pulling a bullet out of a body. You can value that they are around to do those things, but ethical doctors will often tell you because of some of the things humans do, they wish you would not give them work.

If we are going to make movies about war, we should not sugar coat it as all right and all wrong, even if we are on the right side of history. America has not always done the right thing. We owned slaves, we killed off Native Americans, and we held innocent Japanese in prison camps during WW2.

The war movies I can enjoy, are not the endurance crap, but the risks of compassion, like Oscar Shindler. It is easy to show the risks of the guys with guns, and that constitutes the majority of these types of movies.

Here is a guy I think deserves a movie that few outside Japan know about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiune_Sugihara

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i don't think anyone has

i don't think anyone has made a movie outright glorifying war since the days of john wayne and lee marvin. certainly not about modern warfare. if they have, it's neither well known nor well regarded. platoon, full metal jacket, saving private ryan, hamburger hill, the hunted, pearl harbor, band of brothers, fury, forrest gump--all the major ones i can think of are firmly in the "all quiet on the western front" vein: showing the real horrors of war, with the only relatively positive aspect being the (also real) camradery and acts of personal courage that can arise in the midst of it. the only exceptions are movies like "inglourious basterds," which clearly aren't meant to be taken seriously. as for the schindler-type, they are many too. sophie's choice, the piano player, the book thief, the boy in the striped pyjamas, life is beautiful, defiance (a true story about jewish partisans who make a specific choice not to use violence if not necessary), the reader, jakob the liar, hiroshima--these are all more or less recent films about normal civilians who choose compassion and nonviolent methods to save lives in the mmidst of war. i really don't know what else you want.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I guess I'd like to see

 I guess I'd like to see less stories about "endurence" like Unbroken, and more like Shindler's list. 

MASH had a huge influence on me growing up. War sucks and certainly we need someone to protect us. But when it gets to the point of Frank Burns it is worship, instead of being an unfortunate reality. I loved BJ and Hawkeye's attitude about it. It is reluctance that gives you a compassionate perspective. I certainly have to admit I could not even do that, but even if I had the courage to do that, I would not want anyone next to me finding selfish joy out of killing another human. I can see the joy only in the strict concept that there is a sense of releief when the danger is over and the people harming you are not there to do it anymore. But not the woship of it. 

War is hell. It is nothing to be proud of even if we can and do value those who protect us.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Off topic

 I noticed, when I got the chance to see the recent Stalingrad (English subtitles) that while there was much ugliness of the war right there, it was a bit over the top in the so called "portrayal" in terms of the Russians are all intellectuals, with tormented pasts about the war, with dignity, etc. 

 While the Germans are all portrayed as soulless monsters with not a hint of humanity in them. 

 Even the lead Nazi who fights with conflicts about the war commits rape and such. 

 I understood this was a big deal for Russia, as it was a major production (and had a very Steven Spielberg style beginning and end) but the directors were hardly trying to capture the horrors of war Smiling Give me a break, there is but one theme I could see in this:

 

Germans= Monsters   Soviets= Superhuman heroic types with very deep qualities. 

 

Not to say that almost all war films do this on some level. 

But it was just so obvious with this film that it was bad. Not to mention the fact it , like Hollywood, relied heavily upon explosions, slow motion style matrix fight scenes etc. 

How many Soviet soldiers floating flawlessly in the middle of the air while simultaneously killing ten and twenty Germans at once do you need for a film ? 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
t

Brian37 wrote:

 I guess I'd like to see less stories about "endurence" like Unbroken, and more like Shindler's list. 

MASH had a huge influence on me growing up. War sucks and certainly we need someone to protect us. But wheln it gets to the point of Frank Burns it is worship, instead of being an unfortunate reality. I loved BJ and Hawkeye's attitude about it. It is reluctance that gives you a compassionate perspective. I certainly have to admit I could not even do that, but even if I had the courage to do that, I would not want anyone next to me finding selfish joy out of killing another human. I can see the joy only in the strict concept that there is a sense of releief when the danger is over and the people harming you are not there to do it anymore. But not the woship of it. 

War is hell. It is nothing to be proud of even if we can and do value those who protect us.

Except that killing is extraordinarily pleasurable, we can thank EVOLUTION! for that. While civilized society tells us that killing is terrible, evil yada yada, humans enjoy killing other humans and it is perfectly natural. In many ways, our soldiers go through an unhealthy peer pressure process when they get back similar to gays in the closet. They are expected to say war was terrible, when if they are honest, killing humans was a very enjoyable experience for them. There is a clear conflict between our modern morality and our physiology. Hence why substitutes to actual killing are so popular like violent games, physical sports, violent movies etc. But ultimately, our strictness against killing heeds our natural urges about as well as the xtian hangups about sex. Civilization is POISON!

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 I guess I'd like to see less stories about "endurence" like Unbroken, and more like Shindler's list. 

MASH had a huge influence on me growing up. War sucks and certainly we need someone to protect us. But wheln it gets to the point of Frank Burns it is worship, instead of being an unfortunate reality. I loved BJ and Hawkeye's attitude about it. It is reluctance that gives you a compassionate perspective. I certainly have to admit I could not even do that, but even if I had the courage to do that, I would not want anyone next to me finding selfish joy out of killing another human. I can see the joy only in the strict concept that there is a sense of releief when the danger is over and the people harming you are not there to do it anymore. But not the woship of it. 

War is hell. It is nothing to be proud of even if we can and do value those who protect us.

Except that killing is extraordinarily pleasurable, we can thank EVOLUTION! for that. While civilized society tells us that killing is terrible, evil yada yada, humans enjoy killing other humans and it is perfectly natural. In many ways, our soldiers go through an unhealthy peer pressure process when they get back similar to gays in the closet. They are expected to say war was terrible, when if they are honest, killing humans was a very enjoyable experience for them. There is a clear conflict between our modern morality and our physiology. Hence why substitutes to actual killing are so popular like violent games, physical sports, violent movies etc. But ultimately, our strictness against killing heeds our natural urges about as well as the xtian hangups about sex. Civilization is POISON!

 

If you are expecting me to deny that some people get pleasure out of murdering other human beings you are an idiot. NO SHIT.  I am not in denial of that. I am saying cruelty and compassion unfortunately both work in evolution. Our compassionate side would lead us to reluctingly doing it. Our selfish side would be the narcissitic enjoyment of it.

 

Fuck you asshole. Religion is poison because it is the roadblock of understanding our natural behavior. It is using a kaliedoscop instead of a telescope. You don't manage violence by pretending a bullshit bandaid like a god or prayer will explain why we do what we do. Accepting that people will hold those supertitions no matter what, does not mean you ignore the problems those placebos cause.

Maybe I should call you Frank Burns. I was happy that Bin Ladin was killed, in the context of feeling releived that he was no longer arround to hurt other people. But that does not mean if I had been there to do it myself I would enjoy killing another human being.  Revenge is our narcissitic side. It is nothing to value even if it is part of our reality. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Here is a guy

Brian37 wrote:
Here is a guy I think deserves a movie that few outside Japan know about.

 

                            

witty expression goes here.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Maybe I should

Brian37 wrote:

Maybe I should call you Frank Burns. I was happy that Bin Ladin was killed, in the context of feeling releived that he was no longer arround to hurt other people. But that does not mean if I had been there to do it myself I would enjoy killing another human being.  Revenge is our narcissitic side. It is nothing to value even if it is part of our reality. 

Which is one of a bazillion reasons someone like you didn't kill Bin Laden. The people who did are far better and far more valuable to society than you will ever be. And a fuckton less narcissistic. How one can beat their chest constantly about their moral superiority and accuse everyone else of being narcissists is beyond me. Unlike you, they have real tangible achievements and regularly do things than we are incapable of.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Religion is

Brian37 wrote:

Religion is poison because it is the roadblock of understanding our natural behavior.




bullshit. any psychoanalyst will tell that religious beliefs shine one of the clearest lights on human motives and the subconscious. the hebrew bible, for example, might not be enjoyable to read, and certainly isn't morally applicable in most of our contemporary situations, but anyone who would say you can't get a stark picture of how humans act and think, and the motivations behind it, by reading it, just plain hasn't read it. which of course you haven't.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Except

Beyond Saving wrote:
Except that killing is extraordinarily pleasurable



that's definitely true. i recall reading in yamamoto tsunetomo's hagakure, one of the books that changed my entire life's perspective, his account of going to the execution grounds to practice beheading. apparently, in medieval japan anyone could volunteer to carry out a death sentence (or several) if he wanted to refine his swordplay. one of his last remarks in that passage is something along the lines of "a lot of people object to this practice, but i have found it extremely enjoyable." yes, this book is full of such laconic insights into human nature, and that line in particular affected me greatly, in a way neither beneficial nor detrimental. tsunetomo's candor is one of the great unknown treasures of human wisdom. he generally classifies things not according to whether they are good or bad, but according to whether or not they are "reasonable."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Except

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except that killing is extraordinarily pleasurable...

 

   Personally speaking, killing for the sake of killing ( or even general cruelty ) is utterly repugnant to me.   However there are certain types of human behavior that I find so abhorrent, and that arouse so much emotion within me, that my inhibitions could be sufficiently lowered to cross that line.

witty expression goes here.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Except

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except that killing is extraordinarily pleasurable, we can thank EVOLUTION! for that. While civilized society tells us that killing is terrible, evil yada yada, humans enjoy killing other humans and it is perfectly natural. In many ways, our soldiers go through an unhealthy peer pressure process when they get back similar to gays in the closet. They are expected to say war was terrible, when if they are honest, killing humans was a very enjoyable experience for them. There is a clear conflict between our modern morality and our physiology. Hence why substitutes to actual killing are so popular like violent games, physical sports, violent movies etc. But ultimately, our strictness against killing heeds our natural urges about as well as the xtian hangups about sex. Civilization is POISON!

 

     But in war, presumably you are killing enemy soldiers for whom it is legal to kill and who are trying to kill you in return.  There exists an undeniable utilitarian aspect in that kind of killing.  Perhaps the pleasure a combat veteran may experience is embodied within a sense of evening the score against a hated enemy or avenging dead comrades.   If one derives satisfaction in that scenario I see no problem and can emotionally identify with it. 

 

  Killing for the exclusive pleasure of killing is the mark of a psychpath.  Someone who chooses their victims not based upon any deserving status but based upon no other motivation than to cause suffering.  I could perhaps "enjoy" the killing of  certain individuals but it would be predicated upon their own gross behavior.   In my case it would have to be punative, retaliatory in nature.  If someone murdered my elderly mother I can assure you that in my rage I would enjoy exacting revenge but any pleasure would be a by-product and not my initial motive.  I could never kill the innocent...period.

Killing the guilty...even to the point of enjoyment... is an altogether different show for me.

witty expression goes here.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except that killing is extraordinarily pleasurable, we can thank EVOLUTION! for that. While civilized society tells us that killing is terrible, evil yada yada, humans enjoy killing other humans and it is perfectly natural. In many ways, our soldiers go through an unhealthy peer pressure process when they get back similar to gays in the closet. They are expected to say war was terrible, when if they are honest, killing humans was a very enjoyable experience for them. There is a clear conflict between our modern morality and our physiology. Hence why substitutes to actual killing are so popular like violent games, physical sports, violent movies etc. But ultimately, our strictness against killing heeds our natural urges about as well as the xtian hangups about sex. Civilization is POISON!

 

     But in war, presumably you are killing enemy soldiers for whom it is legal to kill and who are trying to kill you in return.  There exists an undeniable utilitarian aspect in that kind of killing.  Perhaps the pleasure a combat veteran may experience is embodied within a sense of evening the score against a hated enemy or avenging dead comrades.   If one derives satisfaction in that scenario I see no problem and can emotionally identify with it. 

 

  Killing for the exclusive pleasure of killing is the mark of a psychpath.  Someone who chooses their victims not based upon any deserving status but based upon no other motivation than to cause suffering.  I could perhaps "enjoy" the killing of  certain individuals but it would be predicated upon their own gross behavior.   In my case it would have to be punative, retaliatory in nature.  If someone murdered my elderly mother I can assure you that in my rage I would enjoy exacting revenge but any pleasure would be a by-product and not my initial motive.  I could never kill the innocent...period.

Killing the guilty...even to the point of enjoyment... is an altogether different show for me.

Whether you would do it or not, or whether or not you would feel guilty after are irrelevant to whether or not an action is physically pleasurable. I would hope that there are a great many things that would be pleasurable that you would never do. 

Killing releases adrenaline and endorphines. It isn't some higher psychological pleasure like one might get for finishing a boring but important task, it is a very base and immediate physical pleasure. In fact, in diaries written by soldiers it is often compared to sex. Certainly some people enjoy it more than others, but I suggest that if it were possible to measure pleasure centers in the brain while killing, that those who didn't experience any pleasure at all would be the odd balls. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Maybe I should call you Frank Burns. I was happy that Bin Ladin was killed, in the context of feeling releived that he was no longer arround to hurt other people. But that does not mean if I had been there to do it myself I would enjoy killing another human being.  Revenge is our narcissitic side. It is nothing to value even if it is part of our reality. 

Which is one of a bazillion reasons someone like you didn't kill Bin Laden. The people who did are far better and far more valuable to society than you will ever be. And a fuckton less narcissistic. How one can beat their chest constantly about their moral superiority and accuse everyone else of being narcissists is beyond me. Unlike you, they have real tangible achievements and regularly do things than we are incapable of.  

Stop, all you are doing is justifying your own gains.

You have this bullshit utopia attitude that anyone who doesn't conform to your idea of a script they are a looser. If me admitting I could not mentally fight in a battle makes me worthless, then that means you should admire Bin Ladin because he was willing to get violent for what he believed.

"At least he died for what he blieved".  Lots of honor led idiots to blind loyalty. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Maybe I should call you Frank Burns. I was happy that Bin Ladin was killed, in the context of feeling releived that he was no longer arround to hurt other people. But that does not mean if I had been there to do it myself I would enjoy killing another human being.  Revenge is our narcissitic side. It is nothing to value even if it is part of our reality. 

Which is one of a bazillion reasons someone like you didn't kill Bin Laden. The people who did are far better and far more valuable to society than you will ever be. And a fuckton less narcissistic. How one can beat their chest constantly about their moral superiority and accuse everyone else of being narcissists is beyond me. Unlike you, they have real tangible achievements and regularly do things than we are incapable of.  

Stop, all you are doing is justifying your own gains.

How so? Exactly which gains am I justifying? 

 

Quote:

You have this bullshit utopia attitude that anyone who doesn't conform to your idea of a script they are a looser.

Where have I ever said anything of the type? 

 

Quote:

If me admitting I could not mentally fight in a battle makes me worthless, then that means you should admire Bin Ladin because he was willing to get violent for what he believed.

I didn't say you are worthless, I said they are BETTER than you. And they are. I'm not in a position to determine if you are worthless or not, I don't know you that well. But from what I do know, they are physically better, mentally better, smarter, braver and have sacrificed more and achieved more for our society than you ever will. Are you disputing that? 

 

Quote:
 

"At least he died for what he blieved".  Lots of honor led idiots to blind loyalty. 

Are you suggesting that Navy SEALs are idiots that are blindly loyal? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:In fact,

Beyond Saving wrote:

In fact, in diaries written by soldiers it is often compared to sex.

 

     I would suspect that the camp staff at Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka etc, would have performed their duties with perpetual erections, then.

 

 

  Do you have any links to these anectdotal accounts so that I can read them ?   Orr Kelly's book on the Navy SEALS "Never Fight Fair" has an entry in chapter 16 ( pp 137-138 ) about a Viet Nam era SEAL who was suspected by his team mates of being overly enthusiastic ( a psychopath ) after he needlessly shot and killed an unarmed old Vietnamese woman ...just for the hell of it.  The same SEAL was later convicted of a rape he commited  back in the States while still on active duty.   Perhaps performing acts of rape produces the same rush of endorphins ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

witty expression goes here.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i don't think

iwbiek wrote:
i don't think anyone has made a movie outright glorifying war since the days of john wayne and lee marvin. certainly not about modern warfare. if they have, it's neither well known nor well regarded. platoon, full metal jacket, saving private ryan, hamburger hill, the hunted, pearl harbor, band of brothers, fury, forrest gump--all the major ones i can think of are firmly in the "all quiet on the western front" vein: showing the real horrors of war, with the only relatively positive aspect being the (also real) camradery and acts of personal courage that can arise in the midst of it.

Yep.

Hollywood seems somewhat more willing to romanticize and glorify wars if they're fictional and/or far enough back in history (as you said, not modern warfare). Like, say, "300" or "Battleship." Both really entertaining movies, albeit Battleship's portrayal of the Navy (and reality in general, lol) left a really bad taste in my mouth. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Yep.

Hollywood seems somewhat more willing to romanticize and glorify wars if they're fictional and/or far enough back in history (as you said, not modern warfare). Like, say, "300" or "Battleship." Both really entertaining movies, albeit Battleship's portrayal of the Navy (and reality in general, lol) left a really bad taste in my mouth. 




yeah, it's easier to romanticize the distant past. civil war movies often walk a thin line between romanticism and realism. anything before that is usually glorified. i'm thinking specifically of mel gibson tripe like "the patriot" and "braveheart," which is an awful, awful film. i don't care what every frat boy and christian men's group in america says: "braveheart" is an awful, awful film. "300" is one of those films that is obviously not meant to be taken seriously. i've never seen "battleship." is it supposed to be based on the board game or something?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: i'm thinking

iwbiek wrote:
i'm thinking specifically of mel gibson tripe like "the patriot" and "braveheart," which is an awful, awful film. i don't care what every frat boy and christian men's group in america says: "braveheart" is an awful, awful film.

It may be a tad ironic that christian groups like it when you consider the context. Of course, they'll just think of Mel Gibson as the "real" Christian.

Have you seen Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers," then? Definitely one of the most glorified vietnam movies I've seen.

Quote:
"300" is one of those films that is obviously not meant to be taken seriously.

Hmmm, while all of the manliness is obviously exaggerated (I would say that the violence was exaggerated too, except that from what I've read, Spartan society was MORE brutal than portrayed in this movie) for entertainment value, it does seem to be serious about anti-authority and the "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" angle which I don't have any issues with.

Quote:
i've never seen "battleship." is it supposed to be based on the board game or something?

Hah.

It actually has nothing to do with the board game whatsoever. It's basically an hour and a half long commercial for the U.S. military. Aliens invade our planet and the Navy fights them off by being totally badass, probably one of the most cliché movies in existence. 

You don't need to watch it, unless your brain cells enjoy being whipped.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:butterbattle

iwbiek wrote:
butterbattle wrote:

 

Yep.

Hollywood seems somewhat more willing to romanticize and glorify wars if they're fictional and/or far enough back in history (as you said, not modern warfare). Like, say, "300" or "Battleship." Both really entertaining movies, albeit Battleship's portrayal of the Navy (and reality in general, lol) left a really bad taste in my mouth. 


yeah, it's easier to romanticize the distant past. civil war movies often walk a thin line between romanticism and realism. anything before that is usually glorified. i'm thinking specifically of mel gibson tripe like "the patriot" and "braveheart," which is an awful, awful film. i don't care what every frat boy and christian men's group in america says: "braveheart" is an awful, awful film. "300" is one of those films that is obviously not meant to be taken seriously. i've never seen "battleship." is it supposed to be based on the board game or something?

I haven't seen a good war movie, ever. They all suck. Braveheart was a piece of shit. The Patriot was total shit too. 300 was laughable. Troy. Thin Red Line. Saving Private Ryan (though the special effects were amazing). I find all of the stories poorly written. I recently saw Fury and thought while they attempted to show the hardships of being in a lesser tank on the battle field the reaslism and the story I found lacking.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Have you

butterbattle wrote:
Have you seen Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers," then? Definitely one of the most glorified vietnam movies I've seen.



christ, i forgot about that one, but no, i haven't seen it. why it took so many people so long to see he was batshit crazy is beyond me. it was obvious with braveheart.


and take it from someone who came out of the contemporary college christian culture: it's not ironic at all that men's groups love braveheart. it glorifies dying for one's ideals, which of course every christian should be ready to do at the drop of a hat, and it fits the whole bullshit christian manhood aesthetic that was so in vogue when i was in college and that fuckin' "wild at heart" book cams out, the one that basically says every man has a fundamental need to have a "battle to fight." i remember in college when one men's group put up a flyer advertising their meetngs, they just took the braveheart movie poster and pasted one of the group leaders' faces over mel gibson's. even as a convinced believer at that time, i thought that was so fuckin' stupid on so many levels, especially since i knew that guy was a self-satisfied piece of shit with no character to speak of.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  What, war movies aren't

  What, war movies aren't realistic ? Surprise it's Hollywood for Christ's sake !  Why the fuck would you look for dead-on realism regarding war films from the Fantasy Factory ?  Hollywood is about escapism and drawing in as much revenue as possible from the widest audience as possible.  Realism and Hollywood rarely ever meet, regardless of the subject matter.

  If you want a realistic war movie ( how many actual combat veterans in this thread anyway ? )  then arrange a Kick Start campaign #TheMostRealisticWarMovieEver and go make one.  Maybe enough gore-whores will show up and buy a ticket so you can at least break even on your investment.

witty expression goes here.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  What, war movies aren't realistic ? Surprise it's Hollywood for Christ's sake !  Why the fuck would you look for dead-on realism regarding war films from the Fantasy Factory ?  Hollywood is about escapism and drawing in as much revenue as possible from the widest audience as possible.  Realism and Hollywood rarely ever meet, regardless of the subject matter.

  If you want a realistic war movie ( how many actual combat veterans in this thread anyway ? )  then arrange a Kick Start campaign #TheMostRealisticWarMovieEver and go make one.  Maybe enough gore-whores will show up and buy a ticket so you can at least break even on your investment.

my problems with realism is for example, in "Fury" they had tanks moving while firing. The tanks moved up and down so much that if you tried to fire while moving you would almost 100% of the time miss. Training for tanks, in WWII, was "stop, aim, fire, move".

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  What, war movies aren't realistic ? Surprise it's Hollywood for Christ's sake !  Why the fuck would you look for dead-on realism regarding war films from the Fantasy Factory ?  Hollywood is about escapism and drawing in as much revenue as possible from the widest audience as possible.  Realism and Hollywood rarely ever meet, regardless of the subject matter.

  If you want a realistic war movie ( how many actual combat veterans in this thread anyway ? )  then arrange a Kick Start campaign #TheMostRealisticWarMovieEver and go make one.  Maybe enough gore-whores will show up and buy a ticket so you can at least break even on your investment.

 

I agree with this statement. One reason I watch a lot of Independent and Foreign films for "realism" if that is what people want to call it. 

But even a cynic like me gets a kick out of mindless entertainment once in a great while.  Hell I even liked Divergent and Hunger Games. Who really gives a fuck about what Hollywood puts out ? Sometimes I do not want to think. Sometimes I'd rather just kick back and waste a couple of hours on my day off without giving a shit about reality. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

In fact, in diaries written by soldiers it is often compared to sex.

 

     I would suspect that the camp staff at Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka etc, would have performed their duties with perpetual erections, then.

 

 

  Do you have any links to these anectdotal accounts so that I can read them ?   Orr Kelly's book on the Navy SEALS "Never Fight Fair" has an entry in chapter 16 ( pp 137-138 ) about a Viet Nam era SEAL who was suspected by his team mates of being overly enthusiastic ( a psychopath ) after he needlessly shot and killed an unarmed old Vietnamese woman ...just for the hell of it.  The same SEAL was later convicted of a rape he commited  back in the States while still on active duty.   Perhaps performing acts of rape produces the same rush of endorphins ?

 I think you're missing my point a little. I'm not saying social order is thrown out the window. Arguably, in their own way, morality and order is more strict in the military, especially among elite units. Just because one feels pleasurable feelings also doesn't eliminate all the negative feelings surrounding it such as guilt. Feelings are not binary, you don't feel either good or bad, you feel some range. What the end result is dependent on the individual and how they cope.

Certainly rapists experience good feelings, why do you think they wouldn't? Most of us can appreciate the good feelings that come from an orgasm, but most of us don't run around fucking everyone we meet, not even everyone we meet who consents. We are restrained by our personal morality, law and/or social pressures. Those all still exist in a warzone, and I would argue the social pressures are intensified by the situation.

Getting pleasure from the action doesn't make you a psychopath, not feeling guilt, empathy, anger, sadness or other emotions that would come along with the action might. Not having control or restraint in regards to when amd how you kill might as well. 

As far as sources a good source, there was a book I read that compiled a bunch of such letters by Joanna Borsch? Not sure, when I get home I will track it down and see if I can find some digital sources. 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  What, war movies aren't realistic ? Surprise it's Hollywood for Christ's sake !  Why the fuck would you look for dead-on realism regarding war films from the Fantasy Factory ?  Hollywood is about escapism and drawing in as much revenue as possible from the widest audience as possible.  Realism and Hollywood rarely ever meet, regardless of the subject matter.

  If you want a realistic war movie ( how many actual combat veterans in this thread anyway ? )  then arrange a Kick Start campaign #TheMostRealisticWarMovieEver and go make one.  Maybe enough gore-whores will show up and buy a ticket so you can at least break even on your investment.

 

I agree with this statement. One reason I watch a lot of Independent and Foreign films for "realism" if that is what people want to call it. 

But even a cynic like me gets a kick out of mindless entertainment once in a great while.  Hell I even liked Divergent and Hunger Games. Who really gives a fuck about what Hollywood puts out ? Sometimes I do not want to think. Sometimes I'd rather just kick back and waste a couple of hours on my day off without giving a shit about reality. 

Since most of war is sitting around in miserable conditions being bored, anything realistic would be pretty boring. If you want to see real war, there are plenty of videos on the internet with clips of the more action filled parts of our most recent wars. I don't find them particularly entertaining. Fantasy is better than reality when it comes to movies imo. I don't mind watching the hot 100 pound chick beat up a dozen huge special ops guys with a toothpick.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I don't mind watching the hot 100 pound chick beat up a dozen huge special ops guys with a toothpick.

LOL You get my point then Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i personally don't care if a

i personally don't care if a film is "realistic" or not. when i talk about "realism vs. romanticism" in war films, i'm talking about realism the artistic movement, not realism as in trying your damnedest to show things as they would actually happen in real life. i absolutely loved "inglourious basterds," but my brother hated it because he said it was too "far-fetched." i loved it precisely for that reason. hell, i basically looked at it as the film adaptation of "wolfenstein 3d."


when i say the mel gibson war films are awful, awful films, it has nothing to do with them being "unrealistic." it's because they're shitty fucking films starring a shitty fucking person.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:my

digitalbeachbum wrote:

my problems with realism is for example, in "Fury" they had tanks moving while firing. The tanks moved up and down so much that if you tried to fire while moving you would almost 100% of the time miss. Training for tanks, in WWII, was "stop, aim, fire, move".

 

 

 

      Yes, you are correct about tanks of that era not being capable of firing with precision while on the move.  The only guns ( that I'm aware of ) that were stabilized to compensate for motion were the large naval guns mounted on battleships and such.

witty expression goes here.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

 

 

 

But even a cynic like me gets a kick out of mindless entertainment once in a great while.  Hell I even liked Divergent and Hunger Games. Who really gives a fuck about what Hollywood puts out ? Sometimes I do not want to think. Sometimes I'd rather just kick back and waste a couple of hours on my day off without giving a shit about reality. 

 

      A fantasy / horror movie that I enjoyed was 1983's "The Keep"  by Michael Mann, a very surrealistic movie that had WW 2 as the setting.   I was impressed with the authenticity as it related to the weapons, vehicles, clothing etc of the German military, especially since this was not a war movie.  Jurgen Prochnow, Gabriel Byrne, Scott Glen and Ian McKellan were in it, all young and relatively unknown at the time.

witty expression goes here.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: when i say the

iwbiek wrote:

when i say the mel gibson war films are awful, awful films, it has nothing to do with them being "unrealistic." it's because they're shitty fucking films starring a shitty fucking person.

    

        I'm opinionated but I can usually look past my personal distaste for a performer if they are truly talented. Lot's of people in Hollywood  make my skin crawl but I'd have to really hate them to actually boycott them.

witty expression goes here.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
http://fivethirtyeight.com/da

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/which-movies-make-grown-men-cry/

I thought I would through this out there since we are talking about war movies.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:iwbiek

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

when i say the mel gibson war films are awful, awful films, it has nothing to do with them being "unrealistic." it's because they're shitty fucking films starring a shitty fucking person.

    

        I'm opinionated but I can usually look past my personal distaste for a performer if they are truly talented. Lot's of people in Hollywood  make my skin crawl but I'd have to really hate them to actually boycott them.


don't get me wrong, gibson has done good work, usually in movies he has had less of a personal investment in, like road warrior and lethal weapon, but his war movies are shitty.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:As far

Beyond Saving wrote:

As far as sources a good source, there was a book I read that compiled a bunch of such letters by Joanna Borsch? Not sure, when I get home I will track it down and see if I can find some digital sources. 

 

 

 

 

            Yeah, I googled "Joanna Borsch" and got nothing related to what we are discussing.  If you can find the link I'm still interested but don't go to any extra trouble.

witty expression goes here.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:don't get me

iwbiek wrote:
don't get me wrong, gibson has done good work, usually in movies he has had less of a personal investment in, like road warrior and lethal weapon, but his war movies are shitty.

 

           I haven't seen any of Gibson's war movies.  I tried to watch "Passion of the Christ" and it was just pathetic, and not because of the subject matter.  Speaking as an atheist I consider Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" from 1977 to still be an excellent movie that genuinely stirs my emotions.

witty expression goes here.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

As far as sources a good source, there was a book I read that compiled a bunch of such letters by Joanna Borsch? Not sure, when I get home I will track it down and see if I can find some digital sources. 

 

 

 

 

            Yeah, I googled "Joanna Borsch" and got nothing related to what we are discussing.  If you can find the link I'm still interested but don't go to any extra trouble.

That's because I was wrong on the name. It is Joanna Bourke "An Intimate History of Killing". It is a bit of a cumbersome read, but a lot of direct quotes from source material. 

To save you the trouble of shelling out cash for a book that isn't terribly interesting outside of the source material, see

 

www.esquire.com/blogs/news/why-men-love-war

A 1984 article by William Broyles Jr. who I think we can agree isn't a psychopath, or at least has managed to become a well adjusted and productive member of society. 

 

and

www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/historical/Jones2006-thepsychologyofkilling.pdf

A journal article by Edgar Jones which pulls quite a bit from her book and some other sources. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Passion of the Christ

 Passion of the Christ reminded me of an S&M version of 1980's cable softcore porn. I was just waiting for the guy with the creepy mustache. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

www.esquire.com/blogs/news/why-men-love-war

A 1984 article by William Broyles Jr. who I think we can agree isn't a psychopath, or at least has managed to become a well adjusted and productive member of society. 

 

 

    Just finished reading Why Men Love War.  Excellent article and a surprisingly eloquent explanation.  It reminds me of a quote from one of my other military books where a soldier stated "You've never lived 'till you've almost died."

witty expression goes here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13017
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
DS9 had a few good episodes

DS9 had a few good episodes on war.

I find it odd that people would get pleasure from killing. I've never killed a person, but I have killed. I never got pleasure from it. I got pleasure from the hunt, and from the violence, but the killing itself? Not that I could determine.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
despite my earlier tsunetomo

despite my earlier tsunetomo quote, i can't imagine personally getting any pleasure out of killing or harming anything larger than an insect (i do admit to feeling pleasure whenever i kill a fly that has been ceaselessly making noise for an hour and constantly evading me). i can't stand to watch any film that shows humans being graphically cruel to other humans (holocaust films excepted, but usually the nazis in them are thoroughly dehumanized). the thought of causing any serious harm to anyone, or any animal, is repugnant to me. i recall when i was a child and would see my dad and uncles skinning game i would cry inconsolably. maybe i could learn to find it pleasant but it would require a fundamental change in my conscious psyche.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:despite my

iwbiek wrote:
despite my earlier tsunetomo quote, i can't imagine personally getting any pleasure out of killing or harming anything larger than an insect (i do admit to feeling pleasure whenever i kill a fly that has been ceaselessly making noise for an hour and constantly evading me). i can't stand to watch any film that shows humans being graphically cruel to other humans (holocaust films excepted, but usually the nazis in them are thoroughly dehumanized). the thought of causing any serious harm to anyone, or any animal, is repugnant to me. i recall when i was a child and would see my dad and uncles skinning game i would cry inconsolably. maybe i could learn to find it pleasant but it would require a fundamental change in my conscious psyche.

Intense post.

I experienced similar responses when I would see people use blow dart guns to shoot local lizards or birds, just for the hell of it. I remember a kid tying a rope around a turtle and swinging it around like a hammer throw. All of which really annoyed me because it was such a ignorant act lacking in compassion or understanding for life.