I've noticed that journalists and others with an agenda like to use tramatic images of children in war to prove a point. IE, the famous one from WW2 was the shot of the baby in shanghai. I remember during my early teens, my grandmother showed me a book of hers (translated into English from Japanese) about the Hiroshima. The front and back cover were filled with snapshots of children maimed and deformed by the blast. The book itself was very much anti-American and denounced the bomb droppings as a criminal and unnecessary act. My grandmother read this book and was a true believer. The Japanese Film "Grave of the Fireflies" repeats the same tactic and is about two children who die from the war. A few years ago, I remember traumatic images of a children in the Iraq wars repeatedly used as imagery for antiwar protests and other materials. But to me, all of this did not achieve any special effect. I do not value a child's life more than that of an adult, nor do I have a special emotional reaction to such imagery. One could show me a maimed adult and I would not regard it any more or less. How about you? What is your opinion in regards to using children for shock effect? Do you have a special reaction to seeing pictures of children in war or seeing them maimed?
Dead mothers and babies is the islamic secret weapon, beloved of the western media. And if they are not dead, the Taliban will oblige. John.
Depends. If it's done for a propanganda or other really, really obvious nonsensical effect, it disgusts me. This includes...well, pretty much half of any Army recruitment posters out there, as well as 90% of all life insurance ads. "Daddy what did you do in the War?"...ugh. Goebbels' methodology in action. I dislike Saikano for this reason as well, too. If it's done for a point that I deem to be pertinent and relevant, I appreciate its use and empathize with them. For instance, I don't take Grave of the Fireflies to be particularly anti-war. I consider Grave of the Fireflies to use WWII as the backdrop, to realistically explain why the two children are in the scenario that they are in. From there, the use of children illustrates the movies main theme: the danger of pride and short-term gain. The use of children instead of adults is perfect for what this movie is trying to say in terms of human nature, and makes the story much more believable. It's very easy to emphasize with their choices, and mourn their deaths... If the children are used in something that's completely and utterly historically accurate (as can be), I feel for them. Ever see the shoes outside Auschwitz? Vladek's children in Maus? How about orphans from Dresden? Doesn't matter if I agree with the decision or not, I feel because it's important to know what the price is, the ideal you are buying. If you burn down a town to end the war sooner, you'd better know what you paid for the effect, regardless of personal agreement/disagreement. To a limited extent, this also extends to the third paragraph. For instance, children were orphaned and did die in the firebombing of Tokyo depicted in Grave of the Fireflies. The movie itself is based on the personal biography of a certain Japanese man whose sister starved to death in 1945. It's very easy to put blinders on and only look at the greater good, but I'd rather not... That said, it's also important to understand why these people died.
Well said. We feel sympathetic towards children who are victims in any war since they have had nothing to do with the conflict their nation may be involved in.
Before photography the drawn or printed image of such scenes were used and before that the mental image. Propaganda, PR is perhaps the second oldest profession. The Photo Journalist at the sharp end decides in a split second to shoot the scene, that is the honest bit. The use that image is subsequently put to decides your view and opinion of the matter. I find television is a media now using children to pressure adults into a certain course of action. I do find some of those particularly upsetting. As far as war photographs of injured, dead or orphaned children I just accept that this has happened. The picture is a past moment, it may be usefull as evidence but no one can change what has happened. Being 60 years of age I have not lived through a world war but my life has been full of the images of countless nasty , dirty little wars throughout the world. Innocents aplenty have been the victims. Call me cynical but I look more at the reason for the picture being shown than the circumstances in which it was taken. I have respect for combat/ war photographers. I think they are a brave and honest breed.Some time ago I came across a series of pictures taken of sick and dying children taken in the Warsaw Ghetto simply for recording purposes..........I have sat for a short time and cannot find words to descibe my disgust for photographer or the agency they worked for. They had the ability to help at that moment but chose not to.
When I was watching Schindler's List, one of the tactics that weirded me out was the fact that the director chose to use the girl in the red dress to display Schindler's epiphany. But, to me, there were so many greater horrors that were committed towards innocent adults. They could have focused on those instead.
