發信人: "Nickel" <nickel_deja@yahoo.com.hk>, 看板: history
標  題: 以一敵幾百
發信站:  (Tue May 22 22:47:59 2007)
轉信站: Lion!news.nsysu!ctu-gate!news.nctu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews.googl
Origin: n219078129218.netvigator.com

香港的教科書好像沒有提起過這個人, 以一敵幾百 -

Maj. John Robert Osborn

http://imdb.com/title/tt0386064/board/thread/64340965?d=67001046&p=1#67001046

I understand your point, probably because you phrased it far more eloquently
than the OP. I agree to an extent, but personally, at least in this case, I
found the scene to be more... emotional than contrived. The other thing I
found was that this movie, for the most part, did a very good job of showing
how people 'really die' in war, that is, suddenly, messily, and tragically.
For the most part. The thing is that often times, individuals do make last
stands of that kind, in which they are able to kill or wound a truly
unbelievable number of enemy soldiers single handedly, and quite often they
die in the act. For instance, in the Korean War there was an American
soldier (Cpl. Tibor Rubin) who did this exact thing several times, on one
occasion singlehandedly holding a hill with a machine gun against an entire
comany (150-200) of enemy soldiers for 24 hours without reinforcement,
eventually forcing them to retreat. He survived, but there are countless
examples of the opposite, such as a soldier in world war two in the battle
of Hong Kong (Sgt.Maj. John Robert Osborn) who, also using a machine gun,
allowed his unit to retreat while holding off several hundred japanese
soldiers. After miraculously escaping and rejoining his unit, they came
under attack again, and he again fought with superhuman strength, killing
dozens of enemy soldiers and throwing back grenades they had tossed into
their midst, until finally one landed that he could not reach in time, and
he threw himself on it to save his comrades. Obviously, this is not the case
for the majority of soldiers, but for some it is. As I was trying to point
out, perhaps ineefectively, Jin-Tae had already been established as an
exceptionally brave and skilled soldier, so in my mind, it wasn't far
fetched at all that he should find it in within himself to sacrifice his
life that way, or that he should be able to take down a few dozen enemy
soldiers in the process. After all, he did die, rather, than miraculously
wiping out the entire enemy force and limping back home to live happily ever
after with his brother. Not only does he die, but he dies rather
ingloriously. That may seem antithetical, given the mood of the scene in the
film, but think about it; his brother doesn't know what he did. No-one knows
what he did. He doesn't get any medals, he doesn't get a memorial ceremony,
he doesn't even get a funeral: his body just sits in the mud and decays
until someone digs it up 50 years later. Some end for a hero.

Given that, I really don't have a problem with that sort of scene, that sort
of death for a main character, as long as it actually serves a purpose,
makes sense, and is well/tastefully done. When it's tacked on just to be
cool, or to fit some 'hollywood rule', then it's stupid. I suppose you could
see this that way, but I don't really see how, personally. At any rate, I
appreciate your even and well-worded response.