snood wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/20/usa.film
While the battle scene's in the film - which opens today in the US - show scores of young soldiers in combat, none of them are African-American. Yet almost 900 African-American troops took part in the battle of Iwo Jima, including Sgt McPhatter.
<snip>
"It would take only a couple of extras and everyone would be happy," she said. "No one's asking for them to be the stars of the movies, but at least show that they were there. This is the way a new generation will think about Iwo Jima. Once again it will be that African-American people did not serve, that we were absent. It's a lie."
O.K., worse case scenario is that the perception might be by many a movie goer that African-Americans didn't serve in this battle. And, if that's not true, is that germane to the story in the movie? It is germane to those that find the movie less than historically accurate in that regard.
If it was a documentary, I would agree that the inaccuracy is germane, regardless of who is seeing the movie. But, if it is a movie that highlights another story, what is the difference, other than giving a false perception to people that were focusing on the movie's story? Like in the movie The Ten Commandments, Moses was a few shades lighter than what he was in reality, very likely. That's Hollywood making a movie that makes a profit. Perhaps, some African-Americans should have made a complaint that people of color weren't getting credit for being essential in the development of monotheism?
My point is complaining has more merit, I believe, when it isn't just perceived as self-serving, or ethnocentric.
