Before "Pearl Harbor" was filmed the producers said they wanted to make the film as close to real life as possible, but to also use some artistic licence.
But why would anyone want to make a film of the Pearl Harbour attack, particularly a romantic film? I believe that it has something to do with the year in which it was released, 2001. A "new Pearl Harbour" occured on 11th September of that year when several planes flew into the WTC, and something hit the Pentagon, and something hit the ground in Pennsylvania. The phrase "a new Pearl Harbour" was used by PNAC in a document of theirs which called for exactly what the USA is doing now, with war, Iraq, Iran etc etc etc.
I have already identified a potential message in "Pearl Harbor". In real life towards the end of the attack several Curtiss P40's did manage to get airborne and shoot some Japanese planes down. In the film a reference is made to this when the heroes Hartnett and Affleck manage to get airborne in planes with numbers 306 (=3+0+6=9) and 308 (=3+0+8=11). The message is that on 9/11 America would be attacked and retaliate. I need to establish the historical accuracy of this, if 306 and 308 were at Pearl Harbour and if so were they were flown on that day. We also need to ask Bay why he used 306 and 308 in that scene, because there are around 20 different P40s visible during the attack scenes, all with different numbers. 302 appears a lot (a reference to the Pentagon? 302 = 3+0+2 = 5)
You may think this is not a particularly decisive piece of evidence. I would agree, but would add that there is a potential for it to be a message, or even a warning.
So what else is there in the film of "Pearl Harbor"?
OK, Bay said he wanted to make the events of 7th December 1941 as real as possible in the film. When you watch the film see how many numbers of the ships in the harbour you can see. There were, according to official sources, over 100 ships in the harbour. See http://www.navsource.org/Naval/pearl.htm for ship hull numbers. During the attack scenes, and I have watched it many times now with pen and paper at the ready, I can see only one ship hull number. In fact if you watch carefully the hull numbers on all the ships are painted over in steel grey and blanked out. The only hull number you see is 1062. But when you check the navsource link above 1062 is not there. And that's because 1062 was a sub chaser and was not floated until 1943!
So why, if Bay wanted to be so historically accurate, is he blanking out all the ship hull numbers and allowing us to see one ship hull number which was not officially floated until 1943?
Well, 1062 = 1+0+6+2 = 9.
Another 9 to add to the 9 and 11 on the planes Hartnett and Affleck fly in.
But there's more.
After Pearl Harbour America decided to bomb Tokyo in what became known as the Doolittle Raid. In the film the pilots who are forced to land in occupied China return to the USA on a plane with the tail number 17265. This can also be made into 9/11.
17265 = 1/72/65 = 1/9/11 = 11th September 2001.
Again I need to establish the historical accuracy of this. Did the pilots return on a plane with tail number 17265? If not, then why is Bay using that particular number?
This may seem wild and wacky, but Pearl Harbour was the blockbuster of that year.
However another film won more awards that year, "Traffic". That film contains the most blatant message that 9/11 was going to occur that year. There are two scenes in which the foreground is dominated by several boxes, each with 911 stamped on them. YOU CAN'T MISS 'EM!
So put all this together.
The film which walked away from the Oscar's was "Traffic" which contains two scenes with boxes stamped with 911 dominating the scenes.
The blockbuster "Pearl Harbor", said to be historically accurate, uses a ship which had not been built, and had pilots in planes 306 and 308 shooting down Japanese planes.
I would argue that blanking out all ship hull numbers and allowing us to see the hull number of one that had not even been built is way, way beyond "artistic licence", and that there is something going on that should be researched. This I intend to do.
2 comments:
Truthman, there's no reason why I should waste too much breath on you, but I came here via the comments thread on Rachel's blog, where you stated: "Why do you think films are made? Are they just to entertain, or do they change society? If they change society then is someone trying to change society?"
Films are made for all sorts of reasons, Truthman. I should know, I'm a film-maker. Most films are made because the film-maker wants to tell an interesting and/or exciting story. If the people behind 'Traffic' wanted to send a message about 9/11, they'd have done it in a more mainstream, high-profile movie.
The only film that is most overtly about 9/11 is Michael Moore's 'Farenheit 9/11' (there's a clue in the title). Film-makers these days are far too busy trying to make money than having any interest in making political points. The only exceptions to that rule are people like Moore, who are outside the system.
Now do leave Rachel alone.
oscar
you said it,"Films are made for all sorts of reasons".
You mention Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. THAT WAS MADE AFTER 9/11.
I'm talking about the two major movies of 2001 made BEFORE 9/11.
If you don't think that some types of people would do such a thing, put such a message up there on the silver screen so that only a select few know, then you are unaware of the inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram directly North of the White House.
See my post "Why is the world so wrong?" for the sick significance of this. The people who put that pentagram there are the sort of people who would put a message in a film made before a horrific event that they were planning. Hidden but in plain sight so that it creates some sort of bond between them, that they have this power to do such a thing and tell us before they do it, but tell us in a way that only a few understand what the message is.
BTW what films have you made?
Post a Comment