Dave Holmberg Holmberg probably doesn’t
like you either, and if you don’t want him to harass you, then
don’t e-mail him at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Dave Holmberg
Chopsticks poised and sushi ready to enter my expectant belly, I
watched a bus roll by the window. Not an uncommon sight in Los
Angeles, despite public transportation’s unreliability. It
was not the Metro, though, that caught my attention.
The moving advertisement attached so blatantly to the side of
the bus displayed a horde of planes over a hapless woman out doing
her Sunday laundry. No big deal, except those planes are Japanese
and that woman is American, and people are about to die in the
screen version of a real historical event. Worst of all, the
scenario is merely for public spectacle in this summer’s sure
fire blockbuster, “Pearl Harbor.”
This is not an issue of the acceptability of using historical
events as the basis of major Hollywood films. Steven Spielberg has
repeatedly proven that history is a fascinating backdrop to tell
dramatic stories. Just like the upcoming “Pearl
Harbor,” two of his recent films, “Schindler’s
List” and “Saving Private Ryan,” both used World
War II as their setting. But make no mistake, there are major
differences between these films and “Pearl Harbor.”
In the case of “Schindler’s List” (1993), the
central cast is primarily German. The conflict exists between the
Nazi’s and the German Oskar Schindler, who tries to save
Jewish prisoners in the death camps.
Schindler is a little known historical figure who attempted to
fight the injustices of Hitler and company. It was a story seldom
told, but one of great importance and relevance in our ever
changing past.
For that reason, it was a story that needed telling, at the very
least to remind us all of the horrors of mankind.
With “Saving Private Ryan,” World War II is but a
convenient backdrop for a powerful human drama. The object of this
1998 film is not necessarily to kill all German Nazi’s, but
to rescue a fellow American soldier, at all costs. The conflict
exists within each character, particularly Tom Hanks’ Captain
Miller, who struggles more with the emotional impact of his own
feelings than the threat of German attacks.
“Pearl Harbor,” however, is a different case
altogether. The story is rooted in a well known historical tragedy,
that is recreated for the pleasure of thrill-seeking audiences. The
point here is not to inform or educate, but instead to provide
another spectacle for summer audiences.
Although “Pearl Harbor” will not be released
nationwide until Memorial Day, the proof of its biased slant lies
in its advertising campaign. Scenes from the film can be seen on
almost any street in the Los Angeles area, whether it be on a 10
story-high billboard, 3 foot bus stop poster, or 3 x 5
postcard.
One scene, as I mentioned earlier, shows a woman out doing her
laundry, with planes looming above. We are supposed to hate the
Japanese who are about to ruin this poor innocent woman’s
life.
Another more disturbing poster has a young boy pausing from his
baseball game to watch bombers soaring overhead. Baseball is one
aspect of the romantic ideal of American life. By threatening it,
the ads stir feelings in even the most unpatriotic individual.
Some of these pictures attempt to recreate actual ads by the
U.S. government. They show stars Ben Affleck and Cuba Gooding Jr.
in World War II style uniforms, as if to encourage citizens
everywhere to “Join the Fight!”
Well, news flash: World War II ended over a half a century ago.
And these advertisements are doing exactly what
“Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private
Ryan” did not ““ they vilify old enemies. Regardless of
how the film may show Japanese involvement or motivations, the
posters clearly arouse passionate emotions toward those who would
dare bomb United States citizens.
Most misleading about these ads is their juxtaposition of
American civilians with Japanese bombers. History books tell us
that Japan attacked the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, and the
surrounding airfields as well. While the film most likely is
accurate on this account, the posters show a more dramatic and
unrealistic image.
Japan did not attack United States civilians, although the
advertisements keenly combines the two to evoke an emotional
response.
There is no disputing the truth of the incident ““ Japan
did attack the United States. Although there are theories regarding
the U.S. government’s knowledge of the attack, it remains a
terrible day in our history that resulted in the loss or injury of
approximately 3,000 naval and military personnel.
But, unlike the Jewish prisoners who were tortured and executed
in Nazi camps, the United States was avenged. August 1945 saw
nuclear bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, killing as many as 130,000 Japanese people.
Where are the posters showing Japanese civilians with radiation
burns, or the cancer-ridden survivors? For every poster portraying
an evil Japanese bomber supposedly attacking civilians, there
should be 50 more displaying a real Japanese civilian who died at
Americas hands.
It is unnecessary to revive the Japanese as villains, especially
when it is purely for the purpose of creating a summer blockbuster.
Summer special effect rides are the time for alien invasions and
mummies, not history. Besides, how much integrity can the
director-producer team of Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer ““
who brought us such gems as “Armageddon” and “The
Rock” ““ truly have?
Should they be trusted to bring a potentially racially loaded
film to the screen? Time will tell, but at least Spielberg had
proven himself before he tried to tackle a controversial topic.
Perhaps the film will be a fair and just, telling of both sides
of that infamous day. Regardless of the story the movie tells, let
it be remembered that the film is not stock footage of the actual
event, and, however accurate it may be, it is still fictional. A
thin line is being walked, and for everyone’s sake, let us
hope special effects and a sappy love story do not spark old hatred
and fears.
As for me, I will still be in a Japanese sushi restaurant,
wondering when history will stop being glorified by the winners, or
if Bay and Bruckheimer will decide to make the follow-up film,
“Hiroshima.”