detano inipo wrote:Most war movies are propaganda. The hero is either a terrorist who does good work against the devil, or he is the sleuth who finds the bad guy and eliminates him.
I'd say you mean 'resistance fighter' rather than terrorist, given that a terrorist uses atrocities to communicate a message he believes in. No hero commits atrocities, since there can be no sympathy for such a character.
detano inipo wrote:
If Hitler, Stalin, Osama or Saddam had been killed by a man wearing a white hat, the world would have been better off. When a criminal plans a heinous crime; why not stop him with a bullet before he can set the fuse?
While I find the premise appealing, it is of course more tricky then this. Let's look at the three people mentioned seperately.
1. Hitler eliminated would not necessarily mean that World War II would not happen. Germany was crushed under the depression, there was a great bitterness induced by the false propaganda delivered by the millitary at the end of WW I, which led to the mistaken belief that the country had been 'stabbed in the back' by the jews which had lost the war they were otherwise winning. Anyone able to cash in on that resentment could have risen to greatness.
But let's say he did start the war all by himself. Eliminating him, then would prevent the war. It would, however, also prevent the United Nations for example. Also, I'd say much of the anti-racism movement has gained it's momentum by this war. Not just that, but new technologies and inventions made during the war are for a good part at the root of current modern day devices (For instance, computers).
2. Stalin eliminated might well have resulted in Hitler winning WW II. The Russian war effort is not to be underestimated. Surely, he was paranoid, and ruthless, causing the deaths of millions of Russians, but the disastrous campaign in Russian was IMHO one of the most vital turning points in WWII for Hitler. Besides, fear of Russia and it's leader played a huge part in the creation of the network of political alliances that has endured for quite a long time (The NATO for example). Part of the reason for the Marshall help provided to Western Europe by the US of A had to do with staving of this threat...
3. Osama? I'm not sure how vital this man is. Would eliminating him prevent 9/11 ? I don't know enough of the power structures of such groups to give a well grounded answer, but my strong suspicion is that it is not. They need to be fluid and flexible, since the members are usually hunted and leaders are especially wanted, so 'free' positions would in all probability be quickly replaced.
detano inipo wrote:
Terrorists are smoothies, not ugly, smelly monsters. In the little Drummer Girl, Samy Frey is quite sympatico.
.
My favourite Spy is Sam Neill as: 'Reilly Ace of Spies.'
.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E6D91E38F93AA25752C0A962948260
.........................................
The Little Drummer Girl (1984)
.
A Palestinian bomber has killed an Israeli diplomat and his family and the Israeli plot to neutralise him becomes convoluted as they select an American Actress (Charlie, Diane Keaton) to impersonate the Bomber's brother's girlfriend after the Israeli's capture and kill the brother. Charlie is placed into a world where she begins being an actress, then becomes a spy, then is trained by the Palestinians as a guerrilla and finally is sent to deliver a bomb. She is chronically confused by how far she is really supposed to go in her impersonations and how much of herself she must give up.
From the book by John Le Carre.
.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087629/plotsummary
Sounds good, especially that part of the little Drummer Girl. But how do you feel about this? Is it OK to simply use terrorists in movies, or should the movie industry try to be more understanding of the undercurrents in society, by respecting them rather then by profiting from them?