séamuis
Established
A product is a product is a product. The movie is the product in SPR's case. Always find when matters get down to semantics, then its much akin to desperation to prove an unnecessary point, instead of just being reasonable and admitting the fact.
No point on climbing atop of ones high horse about what is probably an amateur unauthorised advert that uses a romanticised version of someones story to sell a product then spending a few bucks to watch a movie that, morally, does exactly the same thing. There would be a whiff of hypocrisy of about that...
Addendum - after a few lazy seconds thinking about it, movies are in fact worse. With the ad, it was free to view and you have a choice to purchase the product it is promoting. With movies, you hand over the money before the opportunity to ascend the moral high ground.
So, yes, I think I do have to point, even sans the ugly German built car
I disagree. a movie is a story. when you pay money to go see a movie you are paying for the story and the experience and feelings that story may or may not have on you. sure, in the broadest definition of the word, its a ‘product’ and you could probably even go so far as to be able to prove that all involved in creating the visual story did so only to sell it to you. (though that may not be the case, and we can all point to movies where hat isn’t the case, if we want to) so going back to your definition, its a ‘product’. thus, there is no difference. and in a broad rational, I agree with you. but thats as far as I can do so. the reason is, and what I think you haven’t taken into account, is the consumer of the ‘product’. because as a ‘consumer’ I paid my money to see and hear and experience the story, and only for the story. I HAD to pay, to see the director, the screenwriter, the actors, portrayal and telling of that story. because, you know we live in a capitalist, everything is done for profit society. I didn’t pay that money because I was trying to procure a product, I was trying to bear witness to fellow human beings telling of human story. if you don’t or can’t distinguish between how the ‘consumer’ interacts with the product and market, between a product ad and a movie, I think you are
looking at this from an entirely too broad viewpoint. maybe some of the eventual methods to bring about an emotional response are the same, between and ad such as this, and a movie. maybe some of the reason behind telling or showing things in a certain way is the same i.e. ‘romanticising’ things often things, that should not be so, to illicit an emotional response and attachment. but that doesn’t mean that the ‘consumer’ looks at, takes part in or pays money for the same reasons and in the same ways, to bear witness to these two things. there is a very real difference, and I don’t think painting them both as ‘product selling’ is fair. I will certainly agree though that in this example (saving private ryan and the leica ad) are both deplorable, as they both purposely romanticise and glorify things that shouldn’t be. and that explicit targeting of human voyerism and curiosity is gross. not because they both do it for profit, not because one is selling a artistic retelling of actual history, not because the other is trying to sell me a camera. but because humans enjoy such voyerism at all. disgusting but interesting.
I think another poster already mentioned that its ‘not particularly tasteful.’ and that what I like most about this ad. the fact that its not tasteful and pushes buttons is what makes it artistic. even if the history it portrays is ultimately, pure fiction. most people who see this, will not even know who robert capa was, much less that this was portraying his life. so that fact that its historically inaccurate, is irrelevant. pushing buttons is what art has always been about. we call that ‘expression.’ so my opinion is that, as art, its brilliant. is visual poetry is beautiful presented. but its dull because it doesn’t do anything new. its pushes the same buttons and pisses off the same minded people.
i do find it interesting though that so many people found it wonderful in its romanticising mankind’s most dark and destructive attributes and that was ok, only until they knew they were being sold something. thats brilliant. for those that feel disgusted by this. I have to ask, are you disgusted at the person(s) who served you romanticised war, death and voyerism or yourselves for the fact that you’re human and capable of all of the above?
thegman
Veteran
Only just got around to watching this, it's much like most advertising: Use something that matters to sell something that does not.
I can't say I found it offensive, but it's certainly a bit distasteful. Using war and death to lend credibility to the latest bundle of electronics does not sit that well with me.
I can't say I found it offensive, but it's certainly a bit distasteful. Using war and death to lend credibility to the latest bundle of electronics does not sit that well with me.
Addy101
Well-known
Thank you, I will look into these.
This is the collective responsibility theory.
However, these Leica cameras were also used by allied photographers. And the film depicts the allied side, not the Axis (German) side.
I don't take it too personal :angel:
I do agree with you, however, the British bombing campaign by "Bomber Harris" also was coldly and industrial.....
For those people who wonder what Capa would think of it, look into the history of the "falling soldier" from 1936 - I don't expect he would have had much problems with this film
To be clear, I can understand that some people find this film difficult, because of the war theme and/or the link with Capa's death. I really do. Just don't expect me to feel the same.
sanmich
Veteran
Giving it another thought, I would add that they could have done so much better with the same type of movie but associating it with beauty and humanism in the hands of HCB. So simple, and pushing the right buttons.
bushwick1234
Well-known
You got to be kidding me!
CCCPcamera
Established
It's sappy garbage. It's bad enough to be a car commercial.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Honestly if it were simply a short film I wouldn't find it objectionable - even that it so closely and obviously alludes to Capa would not bother me. It is only because it is a commercial (well a pretend commercial) that it comes off as nasty and exploitative. Commercials though cross into blatant bad taste all the time, I don't know how copy writers and ad men can live with themselves really, they probably do more harm to culture and society than the entirety of hollywood.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Is Capa the only war correpondent to step on a landmine? Of course not, but he is simply the best known. Most war photographers are anonymous. I see this as an archetype more than an actual person. This advertisement is generalized and people "in the know" are jumping to conclusions. Outrage based on an assumption.
Whether it is tasteful to use romanticized war for advertising is another matter, but then it is certainly not a first.
Whether it is tasteful to use romanticized war for advertising is another matter, but then it is certainly not a first.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I am slightly surprised by the misplaced anti german sentiment expressed by some, especially the mention of the genocide which has nothing to do with the context in question. The only offense I find in this ad is the obvious misrepresentation of Robert Capa as a Leica photographer. The rest, I don't give a damn.
valdas
Veteran
Countries have not distinguished themselves, some people and regimes have.
Murchu
Well-known
Context is everything I think. As a piece to show the importance to recording war, or the utility of photography/ cameras in doing so, yes, it works for me. As a piece used to promote/ sell a camera, using war & the story of a famous war photographer, repugnant.
Richard G
Veteran
Interesting polarity of views still on this video/ad. I would like to know what Don McCullin would make of it. I think he would walk away in disbelief without commenting.
Sparrow
Veteran
... or what Capa would? I think it would offend both Capa and Mc Cullin myself
Rodchenko
Olympian
McCullin would most likely grunt in a grumpy way, and, yes, walk away.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It's wrong-headed on so many levels that Leica should go after the filmmakers to remove it.
redisburning
Well-known
please, black face is wrong-headed.
some people - and not Leica's people - made a short film that fictionalizes the lives of some war photographers. if you can't wrap your head around that then you seriously need to ask yourself what you are doing with your lives that you are so uncultured that the distinction between fact and fiction exists only when giant robots are trouncing around.
Sparrow
Veteran
I don't understand this statement, sorry.
However I agree with Frank, except I'm cynical enough to believe Leica had already sanctioned the thing in the first place
redisburning
Well-known
people are getting their jimmies seriously rustled by a harmless piece of fiction.
this is as sad as trying to go after Anne Rice or JK Rowling for witchcraft.
this is as sad as trying to go after Anne Rice or JK Rowling for witchcraft.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I believe the point is that this is a commercial. It does not claim to be documentary, it does not name any real persons. It is obviously fictional.
Sparrow
Veteran
... that's the problem I have with it, they are misrepresenting reality for commercial purposes ... presenting a fictional link between Robert Capa and Leica that never existed in fact.
Leica have form in this respect with their gratuitous "Leica Hall of Fame" awards