Talk:City of Life and Death
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Basis for the screenplay?
editIs the film a fictionalised story based on historical facts? I am interested to know whether some of the characters were composites of real people or just "everyman" types created to produce an overall picture? The plot acknowledges real Westerners such as John Rabe, but what about the other Chinese and Japanese characters?
Did any Japanese soldiers really commit suicide out of the shame of what happened at Nanking or is that, again, a cinematic version of events? Films like this, which try and show *real* history need to have more than just narrative about plot and reception. Who cares whether people liked it or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.41 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Propaganda ?
editSo you're saying that because the Chinese Film Bureau delayed the film's release, that means it's a propaganda film? Extraordinarily shaky argument. I've never seen it, but the sources seem to show that the film was noted for angering ("What has ignited so much fury among nationalistic Chinese is the fact that one of the film’s protagonists, a Japanese soldier witnessing the atrocities committed by his countrymen during the occupation of Nanjing, is shown in a sympathetic light") Chinese viewers. If you want we can elicit some opinions from the Film Wikiproject. Jonathanfu (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I watched the film twice and, in my personal opinion, I don't think it counts as a propaganda film. Of course, one doesn't need to be very familiar with the Nanking Massacre to be able to tell that many events depicted in the film may not necessarily be true and may have been dramatised to a certain extent. I'm interested to see the sources that you (IP user 121.44...) will be providing which point out that City of Life and Death is a propaganda film. LDS contact me 15:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I do not think that "propaganda film" is warranted in the lead sentence, I would not oppose coverage from reliable sources that consider the film to be propagandistic. For example, The New Yorker and Cineaste make such observations. It can be covered in some form, with WP:NPOV appropriately applied. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've no issues with including views (from reliable sources) that City of Life and Death is a propaganda film. That can go into the "Critical reception" section. What irks me is the IP user's edit warring behaviour and apparent refusal to provide references and discuss the problem here. LDS contact me 16:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I do not think that "propaganda film" is warranted in the lead sentence, I would not oppose coverage from reliable sources that consider the film to be propagandistic. For example, The New Yorker and Cineaste make such observations. It can be covered in some form, with WP:NPOV appropriately applied. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
1. Media Asia Entertainment Group
2. China Film Group
3. Stellar Megamedia Group
4. Jiangsu Broadcasting System
5. Chuan Production Film Studio
All state agencies, China is a police state, ergo IT IS PROPAGANDA! Financed by a police state.
China cracks down on over-the-top anti-Japan dramas
China periodically tries reining in its state-operated television channels, still seen as an important propaganda tool, <==================== same as their movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.95.249 (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- So much original research. Listed Reuters article doesn't mention this film Jonathanfu (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)