MovieChat Forums > Joan of Arc (1999) Discussion > Are English get bad treatment in movies?

Are English get bad treatment in movies?


Well they are portrayed pretty badly in several movies.
Examples:
Joan of Arc
Braveheart
Patriot
Gandhi

But that is NOT because Englishmen are evil. It is the way all nations behave when invading another country. Soldiers are not exactly angles when fighting in another country. All invading nations are portrayed badly in movies.
Example:
Germans in Shindler's List
Americans in Platoon
Romans in King Author

English get the bad treatment more often because they invaded more countries than any other in recent history. It is not that English are evil. its just that they did it more often.

The world doesn't hate you English

reply

[deleted]

The English invented slavery eh? So those people the Romans dragged off to pave their roads or work in their brothels went of their own accord?

reply

lol ur looking at it too early, just look at egypte, the first empire, they didn't built those pyramids on employees ;P

reply

lol urp 4 u d00d

reply

"Besides, it was the English who invented slavery & concentration camps, so their history is not exactly 'innocent' as to not warrent this kind of portrayal."

For clarification.

Concentration camp
From Wikipedia


A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people set up for confinement, extermination or forced labour.

The first large-scale confinement of a specific ethnic group in detention centers began in the summer of 1838, when President Jackson ordered the U.S. Army to enforce the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by rounding up the Cherokee into prison camps before relocating them.

The term "concentration camp" was first used by the British military during the Boer War. British forces rounded up the Boer women and children as well as black people living on Boer land, and sent them to camps scattered around South Africa.

Although neither of these examples were extermination camps, the poor nutrition and bad hygiene of the camps resulted in high mortality rates. The Boer situation was only relieved when Emily Hobhouse brought the conditions in the camps to the attention of the British public; the Cherokee situation culminated in the Trail of Tears.

reply

lol mate, the english nation didn't even exist when slavery was invented, how do you think the egyptian pyramids got built for example? on employees? ;P

reply

lol mate, the english nation didn't even exist when slavery was invented, how do you think the egyptian pyramids got built for example? on employees? ;P


....erm, actually, the "slaves" used to build the pyramids weren't really slaves, the were sheltered, fed and paid. So there.

...you see, stars that clear have been dead for years, but the idea just lives on.

reply

so the jews were actually employees in egypt? yet they wanted to be set free on an exodus, there were slaves as far as the first empires, so there

reply

There's no evidence outside the bible of Hebrew slaves in great numbers in Egypt.

Current historical thought is that the pyramids were built by paid workers and that a lot of the heavy, unskilled work would have been slaves or indentured servants.

Many ancient cultures had slaves, the Chinese built amazing things with slave labour as did the meso-american cultures. English common law actually declared there are no slaves in England which led to slavery being abolished in the British Empire decades before it was abolished in the USA.

The Arabs and Africans are still practising slavery in some parts. It seems that people are only interested when white people enslave black people though. Not when non-whites enslave each other or enslave whites...nor when whites enslave each other.

Slavery is primarily economic not racial. Any racism tends to come as a result of slavery rather than it being a cause of slavery.

reply

Slavery was invented just when humanity started to produce surplus of food, and one family was able to feed more people than themselves.

reply

>Besides, it was the English who invented slavery & concentration camps,

Slavery dates back to the ancient world of Greeks, Romans, and so on. It always existed in Europe, but was rather uncommon in England (the English used sailing ships rather than slave gallies like the Spanish). It was the Spanish, Portuguese and Berber's (North Africans) who created the international trade in African slaves. The English were the first country to ban slavery. So, its hardly possible to blame slavery on the English.

Concentration camps in the Boer war in South Africa were not used to kill off the people, so you can't compare them with concentration camps used by Germany during WWII.

RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.

reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
Tell me about these concentrattion camps.

Waffles Anyone
rstory-3
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731

reply

The concentration camps in the Boer war were a response to the Boers not fighting man to man (because they tended to always loose against the better trained and equipped British). Unlike the colonists in America the Boers didn't have the help of world powers like France to fight Britain.

Rounding up their families in camps tended to have the effect of causing Boer guerrillas to surrender. Sadly these camps were not well run and many people died, including a number of native Africans. When people in London found out about the camps there was public outrage at the actions of the British administration.

But the camps were not set up to deliberately kill people or for slave labour like the Turks and German camps were. The Americans often rounded up the families of tribal people who fought to force surrender.

It's not pleasant but hardly outside the norms of that age...indeed given we had the Ottomans deliberately killing millions of Greeks, Kurds and Armenian people just a few decades later I think the Boers were treated badly but within the standards of the day. I make no attempt to condone any of these actions though - only to understand them in the light of the times. They are a still a stain on Britain's long history.

N.

reply

The British did have concentration camps that very much were like death camps in India, in the island chains (Andaman islands) off the coast of the Subcontinent. They may not have been called that but they were a heck of a lot like the 20th-century concentration camps, just a century earlier. and they were very, very ugly, British history books didn't talk about them a lot until Indian historians began to dig up a lot of the records by people within Palmerston's own administration. The British wanted to put down Indian resistance after several rebellions, and so the death camps became a way to do that.

As bad as the British concentration camps in the Boer War were-- and they were very nasty, they were used not just against Boers but also many of the African tribes thought to be disloyal or not fully cooperative-- the British camps off India's coastline were atrocious. And even genocidal, as the British emptied some of the towns and villages they wanted to subdue and threw the people into the death camps.

I don't know how much this is filtering into British or US history these days. But Indian history books aren't letting the British Andaman camps slide anymore.

reply

all imperialists (whether they are roman, persian, greek, english, american, german, chinese, russian, japanese, etc.) deserve this kind of bad portrait

reply

It is difficult to imagine a worse story of jeanne d'Arc. This is not the place to give a lecture about the war but Obviously, Luc Besson didn't go to school at all, because the story of Jeann d'Arc is very well known and there is nothing good in this movie. It is a shame because Besson is not a hollywood american guy, and he SHOULD know the history of his own country. Poor guy !

Forget it as soon as possible and read the book of Regine Pernoud on Jeann d'Arc, or watch another film on Jeanne d'Arc.

reply

This is not the place to give a lecture about the war but Obviously, Luc Besson didn't go to school at all,
Please do give your lecture, though kindly show the accuracy in battles, dress (for which Besson's film won a Cesar [the French equivalent of the American Oscar), language, and behavior as evident in her trial and eyewitness testimony while she was alive (as opposed to the hagiography a generation after her death) evident in other films about her.

With the exception of Jacques Rivette's rendition, all pick and choose and create from whole cloth just as Besson did. He was better than all others in showing the religious elements called into question in her trial.

reply

[deleted]

america was the first country to abolish this evil practise of slavery which britain had promoted."

Go read a book mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery#Slavery_in_Britain

Hungary: Stephen I of Hungary the first Hungarian Christian king declared in his laws (near 1000) that any slave that lives, stays or enters the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary would become free immediately.

British Empire: 1833, including all colonies (with effect from 1 August 1834; in East Indies from 1 August 1838). Slavery was ruled illegal in England in 1772. In 1807 slave trading was abolished, and Royal Navy tasked with suppressing it, even when carried on by non-British subjects.

The United States: 1865, after the U.S. Civil War (Many states abolished slavery for themselves at various dates between 1777 and 1864)

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

"CHILD LABOR IS APUNISHABLE CRIME IN INDIA AND POLICE AND LAW PUNISHES ALL THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT."

LOL, the sheer irony of your comment on Britain's anti-slavery laws shine out here. You said that Britain's abolition on slavery was just on paper but not in reality.

Well, India's so called child labour laws and child/arrainged marriage laws are exactly that. You may say its illegal but you still don't do a thing about it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/01/news/india.php

'INDORE, India: While India has been waging a campaign against the traditional practice of child marriage, many people here consider it a failed, half-hearted effort. The government's defeat has been symbolized by the image of Shakuntala Verma, a 48-year-old social worker who lies in a hospital, both arms crudely severed above the wrists.

Verma believes her limbs were slashed by a local villager, angry at the work she was doing in rural Madhya Pradesh, a state in central India, to prevent about 20 child weddings from going ahead.

Statistics are elusive, but estimates are that 40 to 50 percent of marriages in India involve a girl under 18 or a boy under 21, the legal ages for marriage.

According to Unicef, 82 percent of girls in Rajasthan, where the practice is particularly widespread, are married by 18; 15 percent of girls in rural areas across the country are married before 13; and 52 percent of girls have their first pregnancy between 15 and 19.

Child support agencies catalogue the dire consequences that follow early marriage, particularly for girls: The child's education is sacrificed; girls become more vulnerable to domestic violence and are weakened by early pregnancies; and babies born to girls under 17 are 60 percent are more likely to die during their first year of life. Unicef describes child marriage as a "gross violation of all categories of child rights."

The government appears unwilling to crack down on the practice with any great energy, however, and its ambivalence toward the issue is echoed with equal lethargy at every level.'

AND WE DON'T HAVE A SLAVE TREATY WITH ANY NATION LIKETHOSE OF PAST BRITAIN.

Treaty or no treaty the fact is its 2008 and you still have slave labour in India so don't go around telling other countries about shameful deeds until you clean up your own act.

You know, for a guy who talks so much about Jesus you sure are a lousy student. After all, didnt your SAVIOUR say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

It was a movie. The english were the enemy in this movie. For god's sakes, let it go. It wasn't personal.

The gene pool could use a little chlorine......

reply

Could always be said better them than us! During empire building time we were in competition with several other empire building nations- France, Spain, Holland etc if it wasnt grabbed by England one of the others could have grabbed and with less resource maybe Britain could have been invaded again?

According to some authors Edward III was chasing war away from his own country!

Most nations tell horror stories of "the other side" to raise patriotism and xenophobia- babies on bayonets etc

The box, you opened it we came.

reply

Yeah, after Hungary, the Danes were the first western nation to abolish slavery whole-sale, though Spain actually passed a number of laws to shut down and minimize the slave trade even earlier. The USA came much later on that.

reply

"English get the bad treatment more often because they invaded more countries than any other in recent history. It is not that English are evil. its just that they did it more often."

Odd that you say that, and it's the reason you asked what you did in the thread title. But what are the sources for your brief summary of history there - are they British sources?

You can't make a comment that simplistically without having to back it up, and there is always the chance that you've made some very wrong assumptions there. In fact, that short statement might be loaded with quite a few assumptions.

Also, you state it as if the act of invading lands and annexing them wasn't the evil other people might take it to be, you distinguish between 'invading' and 'being evil'. Did it occur to you that people around the world will take the invading of their country as an evil (including those looking back at it as an historical event), even if the British weren't always as sadistic and brutal as other invading nations have been in the history of the world?

If other nations took those invasions as an evil, then that DOES put the British right up there on the list of those who will be attracting flak now in media like cinema.

reply

While English where quite a disaster for France in 100 years war, movie contains some very detailed irony about Joan's revenge against English - especially when they *didn't* raid her village when she was a child, those where their allies came from Burgundy. However, in significant parts Luc indicated that Joan is simply focused on English, while harsh reality that all sides where involved brutal killing. In first battle which they started without her, there's episode that she is sleeping, and battle already going on. One of her brother in arms slashes some poor sod's stomach and she wakes up with 'French blood is spilling'. Also in revelations with Conscience there's several nice cuts to increase confusion about which side is "right" or "wrong" in all this.

But to be sure, English were very brutal in this war.

reply

Lol, ALL war is brutal, and ALL sides have instances of cruelty, to single out England is adolescent and typical of a Hollywood run by Jewish people who have a hatred of Great Britain because they refused to let the Jewish steal Arab lands for a homeland, a comparison would be how the British tried to stop rebels in America from grabbing Indian lands, the same lands that the British had agreed through treaty were Indian in perpetuity.

Washington, a poor young man married into wealth and proceeded to rebel against the British for a single reason: land grab.
The rebels prettied it up as a fight for 'freedom', the same freedoms that already existed in America thanks to English Common Law, the same law that is the basis and foundation to laws in civilised countries around the world.

WAKE UP YOU ARE BEING PROGRAMMED BY A HATEFUL PEOPLE WHO WISH TO TWIST THE TRUTH.

Imagine a powerful China enforcing the rights of the indigenous Indian to take back the USA because 2000 years ago they owned it, Americans are rounded up and either put in camps or squeezed into a tiny area with no sanitation or amenities.
That's exactly what happening in the Middle East and the cause of all recent wars and terrorism.
Israel with hatred in its heart is burning the world around us because it believes a 2000 year old supernatural prophecy which the USA promotes and one which the British stands up against.
Madness? Utter insanity.

England, who has steadfastly stood by America when all others refused or made weak excuses is painted as the bad guy by a Jewish Hollywood as thanks. Thankfully, the Brits have started saying no to America and about time too when it receives no thanks and portrayed as monsters in their Jewish-dominated entertainment industry.

reply

You do know that Jews have lived all over the Middle East before Islam existed and the Arabs were as spread as they are now? Some 700,000 Jews had to leave their lands and property behind in the late 1940s because of Arab persecution. About half went to Israel and the rest spread out elsewhere. We always hear about Palestinians wanting their land back but never hear that about these Jews from all over the region, who lost at least as much. Why is that?

N.

reply

You do realise this film is a french production and did not have anyrhing to do with hollywood until they got columbia to distribute it internationally.

reply

[deleted]

Maybe, maybe not. You, however are doing a great hack job on their language.

reply

The English did it more often yes, hence they are big headed(like to control everything) people. The reason they get a bad name is
Cos they tried to rule Scotland, France etc!! I hate the English, sorry but I do. I have never met a nice English person ever!!

reply