您有新信

 
以一敵幾百
#1
發信站: (yahoo.com.hk>)
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.
Tue May 22 22:47:59 2007
回覆 | 轉寄 | 返回

Re: 以一敵幾百
#2
發信站: (yahoo.com.hk>)
-------------------

1999年10月1日,北京天安門廣場舉行了慶祝建國50周年的盛大慶典活動,當我人民解放軍的各兵種戰鬥分隊英姿勃勃地通過天安門城樓前,當各式戰車與新型坦克轟隆隆駛過寬闊的長安街,在國慶觀禮臺上的一位76歲的老人激動得淚水漣漣,因為,在這位古稀老翁的心中,國旗、軍隊,尤其是坦克,有著非同一般的份量與意義…… 他,就是我軍歷史上赫赫有名的反坦克英雄譚秉
雲。一個人,一支槍,三顆手雷,竟將美騎二師堵截整整八個小時!


1951年的5月下旬,朝鮮戰爭第五次戰役後期,以美國為首的聯合國軍利用志願軍前突太猛,戰線延伸太長的機會,出動大批機械化部隊,企圖與一支巳突破我軍北漢江防線的摩托化部隊會合,斬斷江南我軍後撤之路。


5月24日這天傍晚,班長譚秉雲帶著新戰士毛和在三九0高地下面的公路旁邊挖好了散兵坑。這地形是譚秉雲精心選擇的,這一段公路很窄,一邊是小河,另一邊是山岩。河岸和岩壁都很陡峭,打壞敵人一輛坦克,其餘的坦克很容易被堵塞。作為一班之長,譚秉雲深知這次阻擊任務的重大意義。趕到三九0高地後,他立帶領全班戰士到指定地點構築工事。稍後,他又把其餘戰士留在山腰上的戰壕堨敢酷@,自己則帶著毛和下了公路。譚秉雲睜著警惕的眼睛,注視著公路盡頭處的動靜。只見遠處的天幕上,掠動闃一道道光柱。不一會兒,隨著光柱越來越來越近,轟響聲也越來越大。有一道光柱穿過前面的一片樹林,射到了隱蔽著千軍萬馬的三九0高地上,再從高地移向河面,又突然移到了譚秉雲藏身的地方。幸虧他早巳用樹枝將自己隱蔽好,敵人看不見他。從樹葉的縫隙望出去,光柱一道連著一道,數不清有多少,在公路上不停地晃動,一個個龐然大物從遠處疾馳而來。遠看,仿佛扭動著一條巨大的鐵鎖鏈。公路上塵土沖天,把那一道道光柱也染成了橙黃色。"班長,看清了嗎?有多少輛坦克?"新戰士毛和緊張地問。"還看不清楚,"譚秉雲從腰間取下一個手雷遞給毛和說道,"我先上,你在這" 這時,從
轟響的引擎聲巳經分辨得出履帶的鏗鏘聲,車上的光柱還直直地射到了隱蔽著班媥啎耵漸b山腰上。譚秉雲離開用樹枝遮擋著的散兵坑,在灌木叢中向前爬去。坦克越來越近。譚秉雲雖然是個參加過解放戰爭的老兵,但打坦克比畢竟是生平第一次,心中也不免有些緊張。坦克離他不到二十米了,他一動不動;十五米了,他直起身單腿跪地,右手緊握著手雷,左手食指套在插圈堙A繼續耐心地等待著 . . .

( 來源:溯古追風世界歷史論壇 )



"Nickel" <nickel_deja@yahoo.com.hk> 撰寫於郵件新聞:465302cc$1@127.0.0.1...
> 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.
>
>
>
Wed Jun 6 00:36:39 2007
回覆 | 轉寄 | 返回

卍 台大獅子吼佛學專站  http://buddhaspace.org