There is a lot to say about this film. In Germany some critics complained about the depiction of Germans as victims without mentioning that Germans also were committing atrocities. This is a typical pc-criticism. Of course everybody knows about German atrocities, but frankly, these are two different stories and why mingle them? Those Germans who suffered from atrocities typically did not commit atrocities.So these boys or young men who are forced to disarm land mines in this movie, very likely did not commit atrocities in other places. They were even to young to have voted for Nazis, they were indoctrinated since the first day of their lives, victims of the regime in short.
These men, soldiers, enlisted during the last days of the war, were POW's. POW's have rights; to force them to do such a dangerous work is a war crime. It is understandable, but still a war crime. Of course else other people, Danish people would have had to "tidy up" after the Germans. Yes, it was a risky job. Yes, the hatred on the Danish side was understandable, but was it also excusable? A historian should be able to record facts without putting them in an equation. Those who hated "the Germans" and took private revenge were maybe generic victims of the occupation and not definite victims of a specific persecution. Again, this sentiment is understandable. However we don't have to offer excuses also.
Usually I don't watch films about WWII or Holocaust movies.I have seen too many of them. However, sometimes a director can transcend the description of a certain historical event into something general, from the specific the window to universally valid is opened. Is Under sandet such a film? At least the director attempts to say something generic about being in the wrong uniform on the wrong side of the front. Some user reviews I have seen don't extend the formulation of the question - they see only the illustration of a forgotten or even suppressed event. If a viewer can be convinced to think again about pre-conceptions and prejudices, then the film obviously int that category.
8/10
These men, soldiers, enlisted during the last days of the war, were POW's. POW's have rights; to force them to do such a dangerous work is a war crime. It is understandable, but still a war crime. Of course else other people, Danish people would have had to "tidy up" after the Germans. Yes, it was a risky job. Yes, the hatred on the Danish side was understandable, but was it also excusable? A historian should be able to record facts without putting them in an equation. Those who hated "the Germans" and took private revenge were maybe generic victims of the occupation and not definite victims of a specific persecution. Again, this sentiment is understandable. However we don't have to offer excuses also.
Usually I don't watch films about WWII or Holocaust movies.I have seen too many of them. However, sometimes a director can transcend the description of a certain historical event into something general, from the specific the window to universally valid is opened. Is Under sandet such a film? At least the director attempts to say something generic about being in the wrong uniform on the wrong side of the front. Some user reviews I have seen don't extend the formulation of the question - they see only the illustration of a forgotten or even suppressed event. If a viewer can be convinced to think again about pre-conceptions and prejudices, then the film obviously int that category.
8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment