Talk:The Beast (1988 film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Mi-8" used for filming may well have been a western helicopter (indeed most likely was, although the Mi-8 was exported widely throughout the globe). It is, however, worth noting that the helicopter is, I think, modeled on a helicopter known as the Mi-18, a version of the Mi-8 with a sliding door, fuselage extended by about a metre, and, if memory serves, retractable landing gear. Two Mi-18s were used for trials in Afghanistan; today they are either scrapped or serving as training units. See: http://www.fsdome.com/aviation-encyclopedia/helis/country/russia/helis/60.htm http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/mi-18-r.html
Anyone who can provide further information, it'd be appreciated.
- The helicopter in the film looks like an Aérospatiale Super Frelon, but I'm not sure if that's what it is.
GagHalfrunt 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] The tank
It would be good if someone with expert knowledge about Soviet tanks could settle the question of whether the tank in the film is a T-55 or T-62 and edit the text to identify it correctly thoughout the entry. At the moment there are several inconsistent statements about which type it is. GagHalfrunt 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Global Security.org has information on all military vehichles. The tank in the Beast is a modified T-55 just as Mr. Dye states. An Israeli modified T-55 is called a Ti-67. And if you want I will modify the article if someone else reads this agrees that this tank is a Ti-67 ( modified T-55) Goto globalsecurity.org to confirm what kind of tank this is.
-
- The tank on the poster is clearly a T-55. Having seen the movie two times, I have the clear recollection that the tank used was a T-62 though — but we all know memories can be deceptive :o)--MWAK 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The tank in The Beast is obviously an Israeli modified T-55 (Ti-67), hull and turret shape, bogie spacing (1st bogie spaced farther forward relative to last 4) are characteristic of the T-55 and the gun tube is obviously the Israeli variant...
[edit] The politcs
How about the politics?. Whether it was a T-55 or T-62 is a somewhat autistic perspective on the movie. I saw this film when it was released in 1988 or 89. It seemed obvious to me that the film was classically propagandistic. Whether or not the Soviet atrocities took place, the Soviets were presented in the worst possible light and the mujaheddin as romantic and honorable, if primitive, avenging heroes. No mention of flaying Russian prisoners alive of course. Was there an agenda behind the production team? Of course, other films of the time hewed to the same tenor, as in Rambo 3. And remember the Bond film from 1987, The Living Daylights, where the leader of the local mujaheddin band is actually a romantic westernised Oxbridge educated adventurer. Of course, Islamic guerrillas, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, do not evoke the same images in the West today. I suppose they are all completely different now, or perhaps it is because their Kalashnikov's and RPG's are pointed in a different direction?
172.193.251.136 Petroleum
The Soviets DID commit appalling atrocities during their occupation. No ifs about that!195.92.194.11 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, because we can take your infallible and objective view on that. Obviously the man that co-wrote Red Dawn will have bias view on the Soviets. No reasonable person should take this film beyond fiction.
-G
-
- Atrocities are unavoidable and are a function of the size of the military force and the length of the war. (The more people involved and the longer the war, the more atrocities will happen.) Americans have also committed appalling atrocities in Vietnam and Iraq. Just because things happen doesn't make them standard or sanctioned actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.58.51 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] as a film...
This movie is not quite about the righteousness of one side in a military struggle over another. Rather, it appears clear, no matter who wrote it, that it is about the emotional weight of foreign combat and the kinds of relationships which are constants in all human interaction. And considering when it was made, I don't think anyone can fault it for having portrayed Soviets, at least one Soviet officer, in a poor light; the Cold War was still technically "on." Further, despite the insanity of Daskal, there are elements of his character which inspire compassion: his passion as a former Red Army hero, his dedication to military-political authority, however malformed, and his will against understanding that he has obviously abandoned his duties as a commander in the midst of the moral schizophrenia that is war. War is war, war is war--and it is one of war's many ironies that it is almost compulsory that combatants commit atrocitaries against one another, whether Russian, Afghan, American, Japanese, German, Angolan, South African, etc., etc, ad nauseum. Soldiers are put in a position of alternate power (their rifle, their tank) and subordination (an officer, perhaps psychotic like Daskal, or the very fact of the war itself controlling their lives), which is somehow both compelling and dissonant in the way it upsets people's moral groundings. If there is one thing this film tells us about war, agency, and human emotion, it is that war has been most often fought by men little more than children, who are given only a vague understanding of what they are fighting for, and are led in a hugely variable and haphazard set of ways (i.e. the next tank over might have a completely different type of dynamic; soldiers, even in lock-step, are still individuals). It is unclear to me why we must constantly size the sides up against each other as if it were some kind of enormous murder mystery, where we search and search for who was the one did the most dirty deeds and then put the entire onus of the war's impact on them. Rest assured both sides did horrible things, and as we uncover these things the recognition of the significance of the fact of mutual sin and abuse (which is a taske that has been far from mastered) is the only path to reconciliation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrschum (talk • contribs)
140.77.129.213 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I saw just only 5 minits part of this film. And I saw 5 stupid things: 1. Soviet forces have never using the tank for destroyng the village. Only helicopters and aviation! 2. Why tank went to the village without motorized forces or paratroopers? Its impossible. Read the soviet war instructions. 3. Soviet soldiers have never using a poison gazes in Afhanistan. 4. Tankmans weared as motorized forces. 5. I have never hearing about situation, when soviet soldiers used tank for punish. Soviet soldiers wasn't beasts. They was normal mans.
I think film is stupid american propaganda. Why you don't saying something about it?
Though it was a fictional account, not a documentary, that's not a bad list.
6. Seems unlikely that the rest of the "tankmen" would simply not notice that one of the tanks had fallen behind the others. Were they in that much of a hurry? C d h (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pashtu
Some years ago when I saw the film the first time I asked a co-student of mine who was of Afghan origin and had also seen the film about the language. She told me that they didn't speak any Afghan language in that film! Nor Pashtu nor any other language, it was just some fantasy language just like those ‘African’ or ‘Indian’ languages you can hear in many Hollywood films. So it would be good if someone who speaks Pashtu could confirm this. Based on my meager knowledge of Persian I can at least confirm that they don't speak Dari the major Afghan language of the region of Kabul. Driss 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Thebeast.jpg
Image:Thebeast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)