Sunday, April 17, 2011
Hiroshima mon Amour
I wanted to talk about the begining of the film when it is stated that she doesnt know what she is talking about and that she did not see anything. I agree with the idea that it is not him telling her that she does not know what happened but instead that she just only knows basic facts because she was not there. He was not their but he has family that was so he feels more tied to the incident he knows more about the details and feels more intimately tied to the whole thing. When she says that she was the things at the museum and he tells her that she didnt he is doing the same thing again. He is telling her that seeing something in a museum is not like seeing the distruction in person it does not even compare. Does anyone think differently?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that the difference between being at an event versus seeing artifacts or the aftermath of stories is vastly different, but I do also think that someone can still fully appreciate and absorb an event based on second hand knowledge. I think this is where our human capacity for empathy comes in, we may never know exactly how a certain event felt first hand, but something in our own history allows for us to relate and learn and feel for those that were more directly affected.
ReplyDelete