The main problem with studying history is that people who live in the present are teaching it. As an avid history buff I always try to remember this simple point whenever I read, watch or listen to someone's take on our past. This lesson of filtering the contemporary mores and attitudes is even more important when dealing with Hollywood's version of the truth. The personal experiences, bias, agendas and political philosophies all too often lay a heavy hand on the teller's version of past events. While we may want to grant the authors, producers and directors of these venues some literary license for entertainment purposes, far too often this literary license is used as an excuse to propagandize an otherwise unrelated goal.

Likewise this same personal baggage will almost always come through when reviewing such historical works. Very often these reviewers miss the entire point of the project because of the critic's own mindset.

As an example I remember reading Roger Ebert's review of the 2003 Civil War epic "Gods And Generals" based on the book by Jeffery Shaara, which was a sequel to one of my favorite books, "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara.

Ebert had a problem with "Gods" explaining the historical fact that the Civil War was not just about freeing the Slaves, as if State's rights and preserving the Union had nothing to do with it. So, in his mind even though "Gods" was about white men fighting the Civil War, Ebert's main criticism of the movie was that there were "no African-American speaking parts for the first 70 minutes" of the movie. It is amazing how so many people actually get paid to make such idiotic observations. Ebert's statement is as brainless as complaining that there were not enough White speaking parts in "The Color Purple," but then no one would ever complain about that.

People like Ebert think that the only difference between the 19th Century the 20th Century was Technicolor film, or technology in general. So the rest of us should forget the historical facts as we now live in a society where a historically accurate drama concerning the struggle of two predominantly white armies, commanded exclusively by white officers, can be 'seriously' criticized for not having enough African-American speaking parts.

See what I mean about dealing with history through the eyes of contemporary educated, elitist Liberals?

Another thing that we students of history must always be aware of is who is footing the bill? In the case of "The Pacific" it is a made for HBO series, therefore as the moneyman HBO, which is owned by the every sliding leftward Time-Warner, is the one who is ultimately calling the shots. Corporations such as Time-Warner do not put up 200 million dollars without having some influence on what becomes the end product.

HBO has long ago stopped trying to hide its Liberal bias with a multitude of Leftist propaganda made for HBO productions ranging from Bill Maher's "Real Time" and Spike Lee's "When The Levees Broke" to Rosie McDonnell's "A Family Is A Family" and last year's HBO documentary, "By The People: The Election of Barack Obama." Productions such as these along with their 'comedy specials', which are merely constant repulsive attempts at making America laugh by using vulgarity and smut for humor is why I do not normally subscribe to HBO.

As you can see I too have my personal biases and beliefs.

However once in a great while HBO will surprise us by showing something worthwhile such as the outstanding 2001 "Band Of Brothers", 2008's "Generation Kill" and in 2009 the excellent "Taking Chance." It is at these times that I will subscribe to HBO. In being selective of what I will pay them to see it is my hope that if enough of us do this HBO may get the hint that we are looking for more quality in our viewing choices, not just Liberal ideology, nudity, vulgarity and smut.

As a Vietnam Marine Veteran who has been studying the Pacific Theater of WW II since I was a boy I was anxious to see this epic struggle come to the screen, especially under the masterful eye of Steven Spielberg. Presently, in Hollywood this time in our history has been an almost forgotten period. As the son of a WW II Navy Veteran who served in this Theater it was also my hope that this series would treat these Heroes with the respect and honor that they so richly deserve.

So with such expectations it was disappointing to have "Pacific" co-producer Tom Hanks state just days before the series' premier that the United States' war in the Pacific "was one of racism and terror." He added that our intent was "to kill them all," and then went on to compare the Pacific war with our present war on terrorism, claiming it too is a war of racism and terror. By uttering such simplistic statements on what was a very complicated and complex situation, Hanks has apparently come out of the Liberal closet. Such limited 'deep thinking' can only come from a Liberal's slanted logic and has no place in serious discussions of history.

A fellow Marine, whom I admire and respect, has pointed out that it should not matter what Hanks believes or says about this subject. By ignoring Hanks' ramblings it will be forgotten. In most cases he would be right. But for years Hanks has been very involved with Veterans' organizations and has until now always spoken very highly of our Veterans, especially those from WW II. It is Hanks' long time involvement with Veterans, which now lends credibility to his erratic and false statements in the public's conscience, otherwise Hanks could be judged as just another brain dead, liberal actor. After all, if Tom Hanks, who has been involved in Veterans' causes for years and thus has taken on an air of authority concerning such matters, feels that these men fought this war because of racism, then many others will falsely believe that Hanks should know what he is talking about.

If Hanks was trying to create 'buzz' for the upcoming premier he failed miserably as the ratings for the first episode were nowhere near those for the opening of "Band Of Brothers." Be as it may this series has just begun and it still is my hope that "Pacific" can match the high standards set by "Brothers" and to honorably show the story of the Veterans of the Pacific Campaign as much as "Brothers" honored those Heroes of the European Campaign.

But as the first episode began, Hanks' recent comments of racism distracted from his opening commentary, which were spoken over actual photos of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. With the relationship of Hanks' voice and the Pearl Harbor photos you are immediately distracted from the mood that he is supposed to be setting by wondering if Hanks even knows why we were in WW II or is he just really that ignorant to think it was nothing more than racism?

As the story progresses viewers are introduced to two Marine Corps' legends, John Basilone and Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller. Finally some screen time for real American heroes. Why these men, and so many others like them, have not had a major motion picture made about their lives is a mystery. When was the last time an American war hero had a full-length feature movie made about his life? Well there was 1977 's "MacArthur", 1970's "Patton", Audie Murphy's 1955 "To Hell And Back," "The Fighting Sullivans" in 1944 and of course "Sergeant York" in 1941. There are probably a few others, but very few.

Certainly General Puller's life story of serving our country for almost half a century, including the tragic story of his Vietnam Veteran son, would be of interest and inspiring to millions of viewers. But instead what we get from Hollywood is a formulated series of rags to riches to drug addiction celebrity bios, or a four hour biopic of Che' Guevara, all of whom are pushed off as heroes to today's younger generations. With little reference in today's schoolbooks of WW II and our national heroes, is it any wonder why our country no longer knows who we really are?

I have to question the prolific use of the 'F-word' in the opening episode of "The Pacific." While I may be mistaken, because I was not there among these Marines in 1942, but it seems to me that the writers of this episode has allowed the current familiarity of this 'F-word' to become too prevalent in the dialogue among men from the 1940's, even if they were Marines. I grew up among these men of that generation and I never heard them use this word, even in heated arguments. I also do not remember this word being used in "Brothers" back in 2001.

Yet in this opening episode of about forty-eight minutes of actual story line, the 'F-bomb' was dropped about a dozen times, and never in a heated moment. By the time it was again being uttered as one of the last words spoken in this episode I was wondering if the writers where trying to surpass the record for the use of this word which is, or was, held by 1998's "The Big Lebowski"? That dubious record may now very well be held by the current made for HBO series, "Deadwood."

It seems to me that although this 'F-word' has been around for a long time, here the writers are a generation ahead of reality with such an abundant use of this profanity. As I recall this "universal adjective" became 'popular' when my generation came of age and was used primarily to shock the very previous generation, which this film now depicts was freely using.

As I stated, I may be wrong about this and would stand corrected if any of that Greatest Generation would care to comment otherwise. But this could very well be a case of the aforementioned present attitudes, mindset and vocabulary being interjected into our history. Then again, as this is HBO, a well-known source for any profanity junkie's daily dose of the 'F-word', they could just have a quota for each show.

To the Ladies and Gentlemen of our Military's Officers' Corps I have to tell you that you are all badly in need of some serious PR in Hollywood. As in "Brothers", "Generation Kill" and in the overrated "Platoon", "The Pacific" has to trash at least one officer right from the get-go as a coward or at least an incompetent.

In "Brothers" the officer was a sadistic company CO who was relieved of duty after training the men. In "Generation" the officer was a coward who found someplace else to be whenever things were going to get hairy. And in "Platoon" the officer was shown as a too goodie-two-shoes Christian, college boy who was too naïve to know when the men were making fun of him, and/or, didn't have the courage to apply the necessary punishment for this disrespect to instill discipline. Not to mention that he allowed his sergeant to physically and verbally abuse him in front of the men.

In "Pacific's" case this 'bad' officer is a Marine Captain.

This Captain, is a poster image of the rough, tough ready Marine, a tall, muscular Germanic type individual, he is shown as a boisterous, hard charger, who is also the second person in this episode to echo Tom Hanks' now famous military strategy of "kill them all." (The first person to repeat Hanks' was none other than Chesty himself.)

The Captain is shown in two or three scenes talking tough until what the viewers are led to believe is the company's first engagement, wherein this gung-oh Captain is immediately turned into a whining mass of muscular, emancipated manhood curled up in a fetal position at the bottom of a foxhole as soon as the fighting begins. The next morning it is explained that he has been relieved of command.

Now this may happen to some people, but it is not that common and the problem here is that in Hollywood this 'bad officer' has become epidemic. It is no longer just a movie cliché as it is now a Hollywood ritual! In "Pacific" you could actually sense how the writers were setting this guy up for a fall, perhaps because we have now seen it too many times. I also get the feeling that the writers love to see somebody like this fall apart. It is almost like they are getting even with some bully from their past, or perhaps they don't like people in the military who can not only talk the talk but walk the walk and here they get to change that.

Anyway it wasn't realistic, as an officer in the 1942 Marine Corps would have had to be around for a long time to become a captain when rank was harder to get than a cab ride home from Guadalcanal. Somewhere along the line this captain would have been tested before this. Without any clue given as to this man's past experiences there is no explanation for him falling apart like he did.

The other scene that I did not find convincing was the taunting of a Japanese soldier who had survived an attack. In this scene a Marine and a Corpsman have just been blown apart while helping a wounded Japanese soldier who was hiding a grenade. (By the way, that is pronounced kors-man, not corpse-man.)

Immediately five or six other Japanese soldiers run out to attack some Marines and all but one is killed. This last soldier is then taunted and fired upon by the rest of the Marines as they snipe away, shooting him in his arms and shoulders but not applying that last lethal shot. One of the main characters then raises his .45 to put an end to this inhumane treatment and the soldier's life.

My problems with this scene are many and not just because it shows the Marines in a bad light. First of all these were basically inexperienced combat Marines who supposedly had just had their first taste of war in the previous night's attack. I do not believe they would have been feeling all that foolhardy at this particular time in their young lives as to be so bold. For another two of their men had just been savagely killed while trying to help one of the enemy, if "kill them all" was the rule then this last soldier would not have lived very long.

I always have a problem when there is supposed to be a large group of individuals doing something that is obviously wrong yet there is only one person among them with the courage to do something about it and this scene fits that scenario. Not one officer or NCO said or did anything to stop this, and that just isn't how it works.

Lastly as these Japanese soldiers had just seemed to come out of nowhere, and the Marines did not know how many more Japanese soldiers may be hiding just behind the trees, I doubt that they would all stand up and take pot shots at this one guy. If realism is what this series is all about then this unwarranted attempt to shock the audience with the inhumanity and crassness of the Marines was unnecessary.

In reality the Marines would have turned this guy into what would look like a human block of Swiss cheese, then lowered their weapons and gone about their business.

I will continue to watch the series, and then I will again unsubscribe from HBO. My expectations are lower now, and I do hope it gets better than the first episode. But it doesn't matter. No show, book or anything that is said by some Hollywood co-producer will make a difference to the actual history of that time. The Honor and Courage displayed by the men who fought in The Pacific can not be tarnished or questioned. History will remain clear on that, even if that history has to be retold by some future civilization other than ours.

People will never forget what they did in The Pacific.

God Bless America

And:

"Good Night Chesty! Where ever you are!"

Semper Fidelis,
Mike

"Copyright 2010.  Michael E. Tank   All rights reserved. No part of this document may be copied, faxed, electronically transmitted, or in any other manner duplicated without express written permission of the author."