Tom W. Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Not really, in Warhorse the Germans are shown executing deserters out of hand, and looting a French farm But being kind to horses. Isn't there a scene where they help the British cut Joey out of barbed wire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 I find this strange because I don't see the film as being about the Great War, I see it as being a film about a horse, whose story happens to be set in the Great War. If we were to restrict ourselves to an assessment of the film as a film about a nice horsey, then it would be off topic for the main board of this forum. The Great War context is the sole point of relevance for a discussion of this film on this particular forum. In any case, Spielberg's own claims that it will educate about the Great War are at odds with what you say. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Didn't you take heart, George, from the tone of the article in the Sunday Times Cuture ? I don't have it in front of me now, but IIRC Dan Todman was cited , desribing how much more skilfull British tactics were then is generally depicted on screen, even when the First Day on the Somme is the theme. I think that it augurs well in so far as widespred perceptions are concerned. If interest in the Great War is stimulated by an emotionally schmaltzy film about a horse, then so be it. Let the technical accuracy follow later. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Didn't you take heart, George, from the tone of the article in the Sunday Times Cuture ? I don't have it in front of me now, but IIRC Dan Todman was cited , desribing how much more skilfull British tactics were then is generally depicted on screen, even when the First Day on the Somme is the theme. I think that it augurs well in so far as widespred perceptions are concerned. If interest in the Great War is stimulated by an emotionally schmaltzy film about a horse, then so be it. Let the technical accuracy follow later. Phil (PJA) That is the exact opposite of what George and others have been saying throughout this thread. History shows that accuracy does not follow, The original mistakes are perpetuated and passed on. They are the source of myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Then the very article which I allude to refutes that view, Tom. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Then I refute the article's view. Actually, talking of anthro whattsit (I can't spell long words), I started a row at work when our Press people kept talking about the "brave horses". I argued that as horses are not capable of human emotions, they couldn't actually be brave. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 I argued that as horses are not capable of human emotions, they couldn't actually be brave. All mammals are capable of humanlike emotions. Horses can certainly feel anger, affection, jealousy, fear, happiness, etc. But war horses are mostly responding to their training when carrying out their missions. They've been trained to not run away when the guns start shooting. If a mother horse attacks a predator in defense of her foal, or a stallion attacks a predator in defense of his herd, it's not bravery, per se. It's mostly instinct. And when cavalry horses charge, they're not being brave. They doing it because they've been trained and they're under the control of their riders. Bravery is choosing to do something you know full well is dangerous because you feel the benefits outweigh the risks. A lot of people who perform extremely brave acts will tell you that they just acted on instinct. In the case of police officers and soldiers, they'll often tell you "The training took over." They're still brave people to have chosen to move forward into a situation, knowing the dangers, but when the actual crisis occurs, their actions often become instinctual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 A lot of people who perform extremely brave acts will tell you that they just acted on instinct. As, for example, a horse might do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 All mammals are capable of humanlike emotions. ...................Edit......................... Can you quote me some references for that statement? I help out at a local livery and have become attached to two or three of the horses there but I do not believe that the horses react other than through instinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Later in the movie, the clerk drafted by Tom Hanks because he speaks French and German persuades Hanks to let a German prisoner go rather than kill him, even though the rest of the squad say that the German will just rejoin his unit and fight them again. When this clerk later encounters the same German soldier in the final battle scene, and the German surrenders, the clerk shoots him dead and lets his comrades go. Why? He knew full well the German would continue fighting, yet he murders him as though the German had committed an atrocity. And then he lets the others go, knowing that those men will rejoin their units and keep fighting like the guy he just killed!.... Then, after the epic upstairs battle between the Jewish American soldier and an SS goon, in which the SS goon slowly stabs the Jewish guy to death, hushing him tenderly as he dies, the clerk who later shoots the German prisoner is cowering on the stairs, and the SS goon who moments earlier had killed the Jewish soldier in a terrible, inhuman way simply walks past the clerk, sparing his life for no reason..) Tom, in all cases it's the same German - the one they release earlier on, the one who stabs the Jewish guy to death in the final fight, and the one in the line-up at the end. The clerk and the German suddenly recognize each other in the line-up from the earlier release, but the clerk also makes the connection with him to the death of the Jewish guy, which the German doesn't. The German soldier starts acting friendly to him, playing on their rapport from the release, where he had basically claimed he didn't want to be a soldier, had been forced to fight, doesn't want to kill anyone, etc etc. But the clerk now knows this was a complete lie - he has seen a friend killed as a result of his earlier mistakes and isn't going to make the same mistakes again. Hence killing the German (as it has become extremely personal). The scene on the stairs where the German doesn't kill the clerk isn't an act of humanity - an enemy soldier cowering before him, seemingly incapable of fighting back, to him simply isn't worthy of his attention as he isn't a threat to him or any other German soldier... It helps reinforce the idea of war brutalising and dehumanising people, and seeing people in various stages of the process. The final line-up isn't released - the town/bridge has been taken, they have no-where to go but into the waiting American hands. The clerk only shoots the one German to settle the score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Is this now the most meandering and pointless thread that there has ever been? It has strayed off topic on several occasions. Only fit for Skindles now. Over and out. Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Can you quote me some references for that statement? I help out at a local livery and have become attached to two or three of the horses there but I do not believe that the horses react other than through instinct. All you have to do to know that mammals feel humanlike (I didn't say human) emotions is read their body language. You work at a livery and have never seen an angry horse? A depressed horse? A happy horse? What instinct is directing the horse to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Tom, in all cases it's the same German - the one they release earlier on, the one who stabs the Jewish guy to death in the final fight, and the one in the line-up at the end. Well, if it's supposed to be the same guy, it's terrible editing, because he goes from a Wehrmacht soldier to an SS soldier back to a Wehrmacht soldier. P.S. I just looked at IMDb, and it's two different actors. "Steamboat Willie" is played by Joerg Stadler, and "Waffen SS Soldier" is played by German stuntman Mac Steinmeier. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/fullcredits So my original point stands. None of it makes any sense. P.P.S. http://www.sproe.com/s/steamboat-comparison.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJanman Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 If we were to restrict ourselves to an assessment of the film as a film about a nice horsey, then it would be off topic for the main board of this forum. The Great War context is the sole point of relevance for a discussion of this film on this particular forum. In any case, Spielberg's own claims that it will educate about the Great War are at odds with what you say. George It is a horse George, not a nice horsey. You are patronising me. Spielberg's claim (if he made such a claim) has nothing to do with what I was saying - I was referring to Cosmo Landesmans claim that the film contains a depressing and deeply cynical strand etc. You point out that the Great War context is the sole point for discussion of the film on this forum, I’m not sure why you feel the need to do that, I can only conclude that you’re assuming I don’t understand that. So you patronize, misunderstand and assume. Not the best qualities to bring to an open forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 So you patronize, misunderstand and assume. Not the best qualities to bring to an open forum. That's quite a list, but I'm only responsible for what I write not for what you understand. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Can you quote me some references for that statement? I help out at a local livery and have become attached to two or three of the horses there but I do not believe that the horses react other than through instinct. I think you'll find that you have quite forgotten Mr. Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 All you have to do to know that mammals feel humanlike (I didn't say human) emotions is read their body language. You work at a livery and have never seen an angry horse? A depressed horse? A happy horse? What instinct is directing the horse to do this? Usually it is food. It can be pecking order but that is strongly associated with food, In the livery, the males are geldings so sex only rears its head to any great extent with the mares. The lads are not entirely impervious to the ladies but grub is definiely the driving force most of the time. Of course, they are easily frightened and have good memories so they can be frightened of things which are no longer dangerous. The horse is either asserting himself or submitting. He is not angry or happy or depressed. He is maintaining or establishing his position in the herd. Most of the time he is trying to get into a pocket in case there is a carrot or a polo mint in there. They don't seem to mind little dogs so corgis and jack russels are OK but they do not like large dogs. They will either run away or, if in a group, become aggressive to large dogs. I have been chased out of a field when leading a lurcher. They are very unpredictable. They will stroll past a tractor making a din then shy at a plastic bag flapping in the wind. All in all, fascinating creatures but most definitely devoid of human attributes except for those we insist on projecting on to them. Edit: I forgot about Mr. Ed but have no explanation for that phenomenon. I can only assume that being American, he is smarter than our horses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 The horse is either asserting himself or submitting. He is not angry or happy or depressed. How do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Over and out. Roger Roger, did Mercury die in vain? "Over and out" belongs only in movies* and TV Cop shows. "Over" means "Over to you to carry on a conversation", whereas "Out" signals that you are ending the conversation. "Over and out" is an oxymoron. I'm pretty convinced Lord reith knew that Oh, and in case you thought I was chastising you. * Not necessarily made by Spielberg. Other Directors are available I think you'll find that you have quite forgotten Mr. Ed. Well, if this thread ever gets to page 94, we'll know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 "Over" means "Over to you to carry on a conversation", whereas "Out" signals that you are ending the conversation. Exactly what I meant...........................Oh bug*er. By responding I fell in to the trap Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Shropshires Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 It would have to be a very large rat to eat a corps, a corpse however, that would be another matter. S**t now we need a bloody spelling expert too, seeing that I plan to be the person who wrote the script, do not want the actors coming out with the wrong word, come be . Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azureus Posted 18 January , 2012 Share Posted 18 January , 2012 How did Anthony worrel Thompson get the role of the French farmer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJanman Posted 18 January , 2012 Share Posted 18 January , 2012 but I'm only responsible for what I write not for what you understand. George Well I'll happily agree with you there. And I'll be forever grateful to those who are commemorated here for that. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exuser1 Posted 18 January , 2012 Share Posted 18 January , 2012 if animals do not show bravery and courage why do they award the Dicken medal ? and if you state horses dont show courage you should have been back at the yard when Sefton returned from the carnage in the Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 18 January , 2012 Share Posted 18 January , 2012 How did Anthony worrel Thompson get the role of the French farmer ? Picked it up at his local Tesco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now