Talk:Men Behind the Sun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"However, viewers of the film realise the point to be made, that the cruelty on the cat eaten alive by starved rats was only a metaphor of the suffering that the Chinese had to go through under the Japanese occupation when their war brutalities could be compared to throwing the Chinese to be eaten alive by starved rats."

This sentence is poorly worded, and I did not wish to rewrite it. I also strongly disagree with the statement.

I am strongly disagree with this statement at all. It's not NPOV and immaterial to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.93.88.17 (talk • contribs).

As a viewer, I did not realize the point of this lengthy, brutal scene in which a domestic cat is tortured to death by being thrown into and obviously trapped within a room of starving rats... from the viewing of the footage, which itself was over a minute long (1:01) with several cuts, we can see that the cat was obviously in extreme fright and torment for much longer than the minute that actually made it into the film.

I am not trying to confront this from the perspective of a crazy PETA animal lover. I am attempting to bring this to an NPOV. The article directly supports this kind of animal cruelty when used to symbolize human-related atrocities by saying that we, the viewers, "realize the point".

I'm saying that this film should be properly documented as a type of exploitation film... and, while I enjoy this genre personally, there are basic animal rights that have been trampled in the production of these films. Just as in Cannibal Holocaust, and several other movies.

I believe it can be argued that the point was moreso to shock and exploit at the time of the filming, relaxed animal cruelty laws. The director has not expressed any remorse for the murder of this animal in this fashion, and in many countries, doing this type of thing for the purpose of entertainment would be followed by a jail sentence and an animal cruelty.

Simply put, it is wrong to shed blood to make a point, human or animal, and presuming that we all "understand the message" and putting that in an article completely denigrates every viewer of the film who walked away upset with the real animal cruelty in the film... Instead, this film should be labeled, documented, and studied for the reasons that this kind of filmmaking has since been eliminated. That would make this wiki entry more valuable, as it would link the law, morality and the present to the travesty of the past, which is what most other history-based encyclopaedia entries attempt to do.

-JX

No. Just.. No.

This movie is great, and that scene DOES make a point. A cat is a cat buddy, get over it.

Yes. Just.. Yes.

An opinion is an opinion, buddy... you get over it. Your primitive viewpoint is flimsy. An animal was killed for entertainment. That is barbarism and unnecessary in modern society and cinema, no matter how you slice it. I could also make a scene that made a point by throwing a live baby to a pack of wild dogs in my film... and then when someone argued it simply go "no. just no... this movie rawks! that scene makes a point. A baby is a baby, buddy, get over it..." and I'd only be SLIGHTLY more wrong than you, sir.

I would like to point out here that the review linked as "Robert Firsching's Review" is not, in fact, the exact text of the review that I, Robert Firsching, submitted to All-Movie Guide before that review was licensed to the New York Times. In particular, the sentence "While the film was one of the first to explore the subjectmatter of what was known as Unit 731, critics have noted that the film's depiction of such unspeakably horrific war crimes is too shocking for the film to deliver any particular message." was not mine, nor was the terribly edited sentence "Controversy over the film has extended beyond its mere portrayal of such cruelty, as its open use of animal cruelty, as well as actual autopsy footage, is unlawful in many countries including the U.S. and China." Apparently, anyone can edit 10-year old reviews on The New York Times now as well. - Robert Firsching.