Outrageous film created independently by Sentimental Filme / Saatchi & Saatchi agency

[airfrogusmc]

This is really bad taste. I wonder what Capa would think of it. Then, far from being in favour of collective responsibility theory, I think that the Germans should always think twice, when they are referring to war, WWII in particular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train

Not all Germans or German companies were monsters.

Members of his Leitz's own family were imprisoned trying to help.

 

[peterm1]

It is silly. I does misrepresent history at least by inference. But I don't say that I find it offensive as such. I think we should all take a chill pill.

 

[willie_901]

It is silly. I does misrepresent history at least by inference. But I don't say that I find it offensive as such. I think we should all take a chill pill.

Sorry that I expressed my reaction.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Who cares.

The OP and lots of replies in here - that's who.

 

[semilog]

Who cares. It's an ad, not a film for history class. BTW the terms "Kalaschnikov" and "french troops" are the only named facts in this film.

"Despite his promise of never photographing a war again, there we were, following the French convoy. Halfway there, landmine. I died.

Those are the facts of Robert Capa's death.

It's absolutely repellent, for reasons already articulated by others on this thread.

 

[Addy101]

This is really bad taste. I wonder what Capa would think of it. Then, far from being in favour of collective responsibility theory, I think that the Germans should always think twice, when they are referring to war, WWII in particular.

Saying you're not in favour of collective responsibility theory doesn't make it true. You clearly have a different set of rules for Germans then you have for everbody else. To me the film is tastefully done and I found it inspiring!

Are you kidding?
First of all its inaccurate: Capa stopped using Leica in May 1937.
Second its tacky: it ties death to advertisement by re-enacting Capas death and pictures such as the one of a soldier killed by German snipers Leipzig Germany April 18 1945.

Well, it might be obvious for you, but that doesn't mean it is obvious for everybody else. As you might have guessed, I've got a completely different feeling towards this little film then you do.

As I said above, I can't understand the moral outcry 😕

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I can understand why some posters are outraged and I can understand why other posters are puzzled by the outrage.

We just need to remember that different people, of different ages, living in different places, have different views. I think that if we remember that, we'll learn the lesson that many photojournalists were trying to teach.

 

[andersju]

Moral outcry? I just find it tasteless. Romanticizing war and exploiting Capa's legacy to hawk a camera by a brand whose cameras he didn't even use for most of his career.

 

[mfogiel]

@Addy101

Recent studies on human morality, concentrating on what is "inborn" and what is acquired through cultural upbringing in a family and society, have observed an interesting phenomenon: kids that are in first infancy ALREADY KNOW, how to distinguish the basic good and evil acts, and even when already grown up to the point of understanding what the adults are telling them, can still distinguish an evil act, EVEN IF THE ADULT TELLS THEM IT IS PERMITTED. In other words, we are all born with a notion, that inflicting pain and death to another human being is intrinsically wrong, even if an "authority" tells us to do so, in particular, when there is no evident case for any grounds for punishment.
When somebody orders you to kill other people, you always have a choice to refuse to execute the order. If this implies, that you will be punished with death, so be it. If ALL soldiers refuse to shoot, eventually nobody will get hurt.
Coming back to the point: I happen not to be born in Germany, Russia, Cambodia or any of the other countries, that have distinguished themselves in the recent history in the field of genocide. If I was, I would probably prefer to abstain from referencing acts of war in order to advertise any commercial product, both for question of good taste, and for fear, that other people could associate this with historical facts in a negative manner.

 

[Tijmendal]

I enjoyed it until a the last few seconds. Then waves of disgust washed over me.

Wow. Couldn't have said it better...

 

[Godfrey]

Silly perhaps.
Outrageous, eh? no.

Beautiful little marketing video, tho.

G

 

[Black]

Silly perhaps.
Outrageous, eh? no.

Beautiful little marketing video, tho.

G

Couldn't agree more. I liked it. It romanticises a product, as good ads should. Its not a documentary - get over it. People worry too much about inconsequential matters.

 

[akptc]

...Then, far from being in favour of collective responsibility theory, I think that the Germans should always think twice, when they are referring to war, WWII in particular.

My feeling exactly

 

[akptc]

...
Coming back to the point: I happen not to be born in Germany, Russia, Cambodia or any of the other countries, that have distinguished themselves in the recent history in the field of genocide. If I was, I would probably prefer to abstain from referencing acts of war in order to advertise any commercial product, both for question of good taste, and for fear, that other people could associate this with historical facts in a negative manner.

Very well put. +1

 

[mansio]

while i find the video was ok quality-wise, the director's obvious lack of historical context, misintepretation of the dead, timeframe and lack of respect for the WW2 make it an awfully bad video.
the poor choice of parallelism is also daunting as the photo was film based, that's leica-independent, whereas the MM is tuned by leica themselves. let alone the BW films has no relation to the choice of the lack of color filter.

i believe the whole story is that the clip was made by a brazilian for some brailian leica festival not hosted by leica.

capas shot with contax in the later days too, that's really not the best person to be portrayed as using IIIf either

 

[msbarnes]

Makes me want to buy a Leica M Monochrom.

 

[alistair.o]

I can understand why some posters are outraged and I can understand why other posters are puzzled by the outrage.

We just need to remember that different people, of different ages, living in different places, have different views. I think that if we remember that, we'll learn the lesson that many photojournalists were trying to teach.

Let us just say for the sake of clarification: If Leica was still at the Barnack 111 stage as the must have camera and this 'promotional film' was aired and people were induced to purchase only to find it was lies, how would you be then?

The film is a clear misrepresentation of absolute fact! What are you all banging on about? If it was a bloody car or bike you would be waving your bloody spears in anger!

 

[seanathan]

I can't say that I have strong emotions against this video (it is definitely a well made short film), but in the last instant when we are shown the glory of the death of a photographer, whilst being told that we should buy the new Leica Monochrom... it leaves a pretty foul taste in the mouth.

 

[Godfrey]

Makes me want to buy a Leica M Monochrom.

I didn't need this video to want to buy a Monochrom. ;-)

G

 

[Addy101]

@Addy101

Recent studies on human morality, concentrating on what is "inborn" and what is acquired through cultural upbringing in a family and society, have observed an interesting phenomenon: kids that are in first infancy ALREADY KNOW, how to distinguish the basic good and evil acts, and even when already grown up to the point of understanding what the adults are telling them, can still distinguish an evil act, EVEN IF THE ADULT TELLS THEM IT IS PERMITTED. In other words, we are all born with a notion, that inflicting pain and death to another human being is intrinsically wrong, even if an "authority" tells us to do so, in particular, when there is no evident case for any grounds for punishment.

Do you have a source? This doesn't comply with other evidence. The most famous being the Milgram experiment. However, international law doesn't recognise the duress (I had to do this or else...) defence as the ICTY made clear in the Erdemović ruling.

When somebody orders you to kill other people, you always have a choice to refuse to execute the order. If this implies, that you will be punished with death, so be it. If ALL soldiers refuse to shoot, eventually nobody will get hurt.

Well, that only happened once, during christmas 1914 in the trenches in France. You know btw that socialists expected that the labourers wouldn't fight with each other in WWI and that the labourers would refuse to shoot? They were wrong.

This, however, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Coming back to the point: I happen not to be born in Germany, Russia, Cambodia or any of the other countries, that have distinguished themselves in the recent history in the field of genocide. If I was, I would probably prefer to abstain from referencing acts of war in order to advertise any commercial product, both for question of good taste, and for fear, that other people could associate this with historical facts in a negative manner.

Well, you can add almost all countries to that list: almost all European countries have a shady colonial history. The US murdered many native americans and have committed war crimes in Vietnam. A lot of African countries have had civil wars and most South American countries were a dictatorship at one point or another. So, I expect you mean that IN GENERAL people should abstain from referencing acts of war in order to advertise any commercial product, both for question of good taste, and for fear, that other people could associate this with historical facts in a negative manner. Is this a correct assumption?

And of course, I still like the film :angel: