Talk:Men Behind the Sun

Untitled
"However, viewers of the film realise the point to be made, that the cruelty on the cat eaten alive by starved rats was only a metaphor of the suffering that the Chinese had to go through under the Japanese occupation when their war brutalities could be compared to throwing the Chinese to be eaten alive by starved rats."

This sentence is poorly worded, and I did not wish to rewrite it. I also strongly disagree with the statement.


 * "the cruelty on the cat eaten alive by starved rats" was filmed very inhumanly, cat was alive and helpless while the rats were eating it. It was one of the coldest death scenes. pity. Same message could have been filmed without killing an actual animal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.252.76 (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am strongly disagree with this statement at all. It's not NPOV and immaterial to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.88.17 (talk • contribs)

As a viewer, I did not realize the point of this lengthy, brutal scene in which a domestic cat is tortured to death by being thrown into and obviously trapped within a room of starving rats... from the viewing of the footage, which itself was over a minute long (1:01) with several cuts, we can see that the cat was obviously in extreme fright and torment for much longer than the minute that actually made it into the film.

I am not trying to confront this from the perspective of a crazy PETA animal lover. I am attempting to bring this to an NPOV. The article directly supports this kind of animal cruelty when used to symbolize human-related atrocities by saying that we, the viewers, "realize the point".

I'm saying that this film should be properly documented as a type of exploitation film... and, while I enjoy this genre personally, there are basic animal rights that have been trampled in the production of these films. Just as in Cannibal Holocaust, and several other movies.

I believe it can be argued that the point was moreso to shock and exploit at the time of the filming, relaxed animal cruelty laws. The director has not expressed any remorse for the murder of this animal in this fashion, and in many countries, doing this type of thing for the purpose of entertainment would be followed by a jail sentence and an animal cruelty.

Simply put, it is wrong to shed blood to make a point, human or animal, and presuming that we all "understand the message" and putting that in an article completely denigrates every viewer of the film who walked away upset with the real animal cruelty in the film... Instead, this film should be labeled, documented, and studied for the reasons that this kind of filmmaking has since been eliminated. That would make this wiki entry more valuable, as it would link the law, morality and the present to the travesty of the past, which is what most other history-based encyclopaedia entries attempt to do.

-JX

No. Just.. No.

This movie is great, and that scene DOES make a point. A cat is a cat buddy, get over it.

- For those interested the cat wasn't even harmed in the film - recent comments by the film's makers point out that red dyed honey was put on the cat which the rats were attracted to (and licked). AFAIK rats are vegetarians anyway. Rats were set alight in one scene though, although apparently local farmers appreciated this as a cull of an issue in the area. Having said that - burning to death wouldn't be my choice of humane cull method 205.177.176.242 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Just.. Yes.

An opinion is an opinion, buddy... you get over it. Your primitive viewpoint is flimsy. An animal was killed for entertainment. That is barbarism and unnecessary in modern society and cinema, no matter how you slice it. I could also make a scene that made a point by throwing a live baby to a pack of wild dogs in my film... and then when someone argued it simply go "no. just no... this movie rawks!  that scene makes a point.  A baby is a baby, buddy, get over it..." and I'd only be SLIGHTLY more wrong than you, sir.


 * I would like to point out here that the review linked as "Robert Firsching's Review" is not, in fact, the exact text of the review that I, Robert Firsching, submitted to All-Movie Guide before that review was licensed to the New York Times. In particular, the sentence "While the film was one of the first to explore the subjectmatter of what was known as Unit 731, critics have noted that the film's depiction of such unspeakably horrific war crimes is too shocking for the film to deliver any particular message." was not mine, nor was the terribly edited sentence "Controversy over the film has extended beyond its mere portrayal of such cruelty, as its open use of animal cruelty, as well as actual autopsy footage, is unlawful in many countries including the U.S. and China."  Apparently, anyone can edit 10-year old reviews on The New York Times now as well. - Robert Firsching.

Fair use rationale for Image:MBTSDVD.jpg
Image:MBTSDVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wiki state 105 minutes for this movie yet it is stated as only 95 minutes at Amazon?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.112.89 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
This film was controversial due to its graphic images of an autopsy. But it is also controversial as a work of anti-Japanese - and anti-American - propaganda.

For instance the claim - repeated as if a fact - that "Dr. Ishii cooperates with the Americans, giving them his research and agreeing to work for them. Years later, he is moved to the Korean front, and biological weapons appear on the battlefield shortly thereafter" is simply wrong.

Ishii actually worked for the Soviets, and then continued peacefully in post-war Japan. He didn't work for the Americans, and biological weapons were not used in Korea by the Americans. This is manifestly wrong, and worse, clearly Communist propaganda. Wikipedia should not be used to promote such lies.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire sentence : "The closing passages reveal that Dr. Ishii cooperates with the Americans, giving them his research and agreeing to work for them. Years later, he is moved to the Korean front, and biological weapons appear on the battlefield shortly thereafter." is false, very misleading, and essentially can only be seen as Communist propaganda. There is not citation given, nor there can be. Unless there are any objections, I propose to delete the sentence in a month. Alternatively, I suggest that the sentence be modified to say that the producers falsely make the claim that, etc.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Even though it's been months since the last message, I would like to loudly yell, "I object!" The claim needs no editing for two specific reasons:

1) It's written within the synopsis of the movie. If an addendum was to be made, it would be put outside of the synopsis. It certainly wouldn't have the effect of deleting part of the movie plot, because you believe it's not true.

2) While it does not seem to be dead-on truthful, it certainly contains more truth than you let on. I will admit that I am not an expert in this area, but as I recall, while he most likely didn't "work" for the Americans (although some have claimed so), Douglas MacArthur did give him complete immunity for his crimes in exchange for his scientific data. Furthermore, I don't see how this qualifies in any way as Communist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffraff913 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Animal Deaths
Can we please get a reliable source for the claim that the cat and rats were killed? I've heard multiple versions of this story (they were all really killed, it was all fake, the cat was a producer's cat and wasn't killed but the rats were, etc.), and while it's certainly worth mentioning on the page, it needs a source. At the moment, it has none. I'd do it myself, but I haven't been able to find a good source. If it says the director claims that the cat/rat scene is real, then it's easier to source. But I can't recall any source I've seen that has given any undeniable proof. Riffraff913 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Men Behind the Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102232129/http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1082341/reviews.php?critic=movies&sortby=default&page=1&rid=186984 to http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1082341/reviews.php?critic=movies&sortby=default&page=1&rid=186984

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)