thomas-leitha
A rejoint le févr. 2008
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges3
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis73
Note de thomas-leitha
The production is a hybrid between documentary and a drama. Apart from minor errors the story appears faithful to what we know about the facts but fails to explain the motivations of the principle charecters.
Goebbels was a cynical intellectual, making jokes about Hitler in the early days. We get no explanation what turned him into one of Hitler's most faithful follower. Was it because he really believed in him or because he promised a key to power for both of them. May be nobody will ever know but if one decides to retell the story at least a hypothesis should be provided.
In spite of all the acting we are left with just another documentary.
Goebbels was a cynical intellectual, making jokes about Hitler in the early days. We get no explanation what turned him into one of Hitler's most faithful follower. Was it because he really believed in him or because he promised a key to power for both of them. May be nobody will ever know but if one decides to retell the story at least a hypothesis should be provided.
In spite of all the acting we are left with just another documentary.
Therefore the first question will be: is it worth to watch?
To make it short: Yes, today more than some years ago It is of course primarily from an US point of view, in spite of several Vietnamese interview partners.
Does it miss possibly important details as some critics here argue? Most likely as all major conflicts have deeper roots and more sideways as you have footage to make a documentary about, but IMHO the series provides such a plethora of footage that most of us will see something new and disturbing.
The Vietnam War, as many conflicts before and afterward are presented as an array of conflicting political and military decisions, when in the end they are just killing humans on both sides for no reason. 50 years from now we'll see a similar documentary about the Ukraine, if free speech is still possible.
To make it short: Yes, today more than some years ago It is of course primarily from an US point of view, in spite of several Vietnamese interview partners.
Does it miss possibly important details as some critics here argue? Most likely as all major conflicts have deeper roots and more sideways as you have footage to make a documentary about, but IMHO the series provides such a plethora of footage that most of us will see something new and disturbing.
The Vietnam War, as many conflicts before and afterward are presented as an array of conflicting political and military decisions, when in the end they are just killing humans on both sides for no reason. 50 years from now we'll see a similar documentary about the Ukraine, if free speech is still possible.
Horwath is a great film historian and a regular presenter of the Oscar's. His ample knowledge of Fonda's and Ford's movies apparently forced him to play tribute to his heros and make them the backbone of US history. The problem with all this was that the biography of a single actor can't explain a whole nation, even if in this special case he has acted some of its most important politicians.
I understand a historian's ambition but the historian in Horwath should have realized that his end ever was doomed from the be3. Regardless of using 6 hours of his material or "just" the final three. With all his tricks in finding references in almost every clip to his hero's true nature and the history of the US, you can't use any line in a 12h interview to explain everything. He should have trusted Fonda himself, repeatedly saying" no" to suggestions of his interviewer and falling back to being just an actor saying his lines.
I understand a historian's ambition but the historian in Horwath should have realized that his end ever was doomed from the be3. Regardless of using 6 hours of his material or "just" the final three. With all his tricks in finding references in almost every clip to his hero's true nature and the history of the US, you can't use any line in a 12h interview to explain everything. He should have trusted Fonda himself, repeatedly saying" no" to suggestions of his interviewer and falling back to being just an actor saying his lines.