Life in Vietnam before it was destroyed

This movie takes place in Saigon right before the war in 1951.

I thought it was a beautiful movie..

I was taken aback by their culture - at how quaint, peaceful and beautiful it was.

Quite the different picture you would imagine from say a movie like Full Metal Jacket or Platoon.

Its sad to imagine that a world like this ended up like those movies, in such a tragedy.

----

The film won the Caméra d'Or prize at the 1993 Cannes Film Festival. It was directed by Vietnamese-French director Tran Anh Hung.

I haven't seen it in a while. I'm about to watch it now.. enjoy.

Not quite the whole story of the communist take over of their country. And the two movies that you reference take place in a time of war. From what I'm told both are acutely portrayed.a reply to: nOraKat

Vietnam today is once again a beautiful and friendly place. Communism still has its ugly grip on the country, but they aren't some cratered out shell of a country anymore. Asians rebuild pretty quickly.



It would be nice if the asians lost communism...it really hampers their growth. Chinas communism being the worst due to them destroying their history because of it.

Vietnam has notoriously fantastic street food.

a reply to: WUNK22

I figured somebody will come out to defend themselves as though I were making an accusation, or if that were the purpose of my thread.

I am just showing you, look this is Vietnam before the war. What a pity of what happened.

----

I never said anything about how accurately portrayed any of the movies were. I said what a contrast before and during the war.

----

While the US focused on the communism aspect. Ho Chi Min's war was mainly to gain independence from the French colonialists.

a reply to: SaturnFX

It would be nice if the asians lost communism

Not all Asians are communists.

Depending on specifics, communism does not have to be ugly. I think what makes a government ugly is the intention of their leaders, regardless of the structure of the government. I think various forms of government can work with the right intentions.

I happened to be in Kerala and many of the people there spoke about how communism saved their country and greatly improved their living conditions. I think it all depends on a lot of things.

originally posted by: nOraKat
Depending on specifics, communism does not have to be ugly.

Unfortunately, in all incarnations, communism has been ugly. It has existed in the squalor of repression, violence and abuse. The Vietnamese communists were no different. The toll on life and misery in all communist regimes is incalculable.

a reply to: nOraKat

I remember hearing story's of Cuba from my friends who escaped when Castro took over,and also some from middle eastern countrys,they were beaufiful before we bombed them,pretty sad,for love of oil

a reply to: paraphi

Unfortunately, in all incarnations, communism has been ugly.

I guess you are all knowing and have seen everything throughout time.

First, just the definition of communism is very vague.

How bout a self sustaining village who does not use money, and nobody necessarily owns anything but they all work together to support the community. I am sure somewhere in time it has worked, probably with good leaders which led to good citizens.

Also I mentioned the people of Kerala who speak fondly of whatever it was they called 'communism' that saved their communities.

Maybe what the ruling classes fear most of communism is that they won't continue to able to earn a living by being a leech on their community, only consuming and not providing or producing anything for it (the community).

If for example, a person like Mao or Lenin does something harmful to his people, you have to separate that act from the structure of governing (rules of how to live together). The structure of governing in itself, does not cause one to do harm to his people.

originally posted by: nOraKat
I guess you are all knowing and have seen everything throughout time.

The evidence is there that all communist regimes and their variants, have failed their populations big time. Granted the select elite have flourished, but they have done that over the bodies of anyone who opposed their ideology. They have either been swept away by progress by their dissatisfied population, or are surviving through continued social repression.

There are five one-party-state, Marxist-Leninist and variant communist regimes still plodding along: China, Cuba, Vietnam and Lao. North Korea is a further variant, but still based on the Marxist-Leninist model with a "cult leader" flavour. All the others have thankfully gone, but not before imposing misery on their populations.

Now hippy communes and some communities may choose to live in a particular way, but these are not countries. If you live in a community, you can leave if you don't like it. If you live in a communist country you may end up in prison, or worse. Kerala is a state of India, so subject to the wider democratic forces of the world's largest democracy.

Anyway, communism does cover a spectrum of types, but they share the same features: Basically a one party state governed by a select few known as the proletariat, and who follow the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The proletariat is basically the "common man", but you won't find many of those heading up communist states! These people keep themselves in power through repressing alternate political and social expression, often brutally. It is why so many people died under Stalin and Mao, and why human rights in all communist countries, that have failed and remain are poor.

Marxist-Leninist ideology is all about control. Control of industry. Control of society. Control of the person. Control of thought. Everyone yapping the same happy tune. Would the Chinese Communist Party still be in charge if there was a free press and the Chinese were able to freely read about the crimes, excesses and abuses of their single-party-state? China is kept together by control.

Is there anything I have said that is wrong?

a reply to: paraphi

ideology is all about control. Control of industry. Control of society.

So if that is the case, then it must be the case that if the control was given to a benign, well meaning and intelligent leader that listens to his people and pats attention to what is going on, than things would work out well for that society.

a reply to: nOraKat

Ah, do you mean a benevolent dictatorship? That's not communism. Communism is about dictatorship through a particular route based on a Marxist-Leninist idesology. Anyway, has there ever been a dictator who benefitted society without abuse?

a reply to: paraphi

Ah, do you mean a benevolent dictatorship? That's not communism.

No I mean communism. Lets imagine the same exact government structure as communism, only you have somebody nice in there. Somebody who is sincerely in there for the best interest of the people, and even takes suggestions on improvements.

Anyway, has there ever been a dictator who benefitted society ?

I'm sure somewhere in time there must have been.

This article lists some supposed benevolent dictators.

Lee Kuan Yew - Known to be the man who transformed Singapore from a poor agrarian society into one of Asia's wealthiest nations, Lee Kuan Yew is often called a 'benevolent dictator.' As a leader who was in power for thirty-one years from 1959 until 1990, he implemented some laws that were deemed to be autocratic, and attempted to dismantle political opposition. Despite this, he is often looked upon favorably for his transformation of Singapore, and is considered by many to be one of the most successful political pragmatists

a reply to: nOraKat

We're getting into hypotheticals, in a "this could only happen if the world was different" type of way.

Would you have a nice communist leader and proletariat? Probably not.

The feature of an ideology-driven government is that everyone have to think in the same way, and differece is expunged. People don't all think in the same way, and some will even resist, and such dissent cannot be tolerated because it goes against the principle of what you are trying to do.

For example, you would not be able to tolerate classes in your classless idyll, or individualism in you collectivism. If a group (and it could be the majority) don't think that state run agricultre will work, then what are you going to d about it? Tickle them into submission?

Communism and facism are two forms of government that ensure barbarity.

a reply to: paraphi

If a group (and it could be the majority) don't think that state run agricultre will work, then what are you going to d about it? Tickle them into submission?

That may be a good point.

But what if this system were run in a way that was sincerely for everyone's best interests? Then maybe you would not have anyone that opposes the system. They might welcome it.

But I have to to agree, if a system of government is not somewhat flexible, and open to suggestions it probably won't work.

That said, I still have to stand by my point that a system of government does not make a leader barbaric; if he is, he is so inherently. But I have to agree, if you are going to try to shove a form of government down someone's throat, against their will, that is not going to work. A government has to be flexible, and based on observable results. If something doesn't work, you have to be able to fix it.