D
Darryl_Revok
Guest
As I said, I don’t think it’s a question of over-sensitivity. It’s a question of tone and taste. The issues and events which Little Boy deals with are incredibly weighty, and it fails to do justice to them. It turned the events of the war into a cheesy prop for a flimsy story. It was akin a standard Up TV movie about 9/11, or a Hallmark Movie about the Khmer Rouge.I agree that maybe he should have really thought this over or maybe he didn’t realize that in bringing this into the movie he was touching the left that feels if we had just not dropped the bomb everything would be fine… He maybe did not realize how over sensitive many are on this matter still today. In a major war, it is often pretty difficult come up with something that is not objectionable.
(In some ways, it’s like “The Day The Clown Cried”, a movie made by Jerry Lewis set in a concentration camp during the holocaust, and it was an abomination–so much so that it was thrown in a safe, never to see the light of day. It wasn’t because it wasn’t funny, or that people were oversensitive. It just tackled an issue in a hugely tacky, inappropriate way.)
Part of it is the nature of the genre, I think. The mainstream “faith-based film”–stuff like this, and God’s Not Dead, and Heaven is For Real–is not known for subtlety or moderation in tone. The limitations of the genre are more easily acceptable when dealing with modern fantasy, but become painfully apparent when cast against actual historical events.
Thus, the problem: if he allowed something like this to overwhelm the point of the story, perhaps he was unsuccessful in making the point. That’s more of an artistic failure on the part of the director, rather than any oversensitivity on the part of the audience.He was looking for something that was cataclysmic. That was his point of the story not the bomb.