• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

How much time needs to pass before a war can be well portrayed in a movie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter McG
  • Start date Start date

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,079
Points
1,160
How soon is too soon to make movies about a war?
Finlo Rohrer
BBC News Magazine
07 February 2014

When people imagine what it was like to land on Omaha Beach on D-Day, what do they think of?

The odds are that most remember the opening of Saving Private Ryan (1998) - men wracked by seasickness, many cut down before they could even get out of the water, blood washing the shoreline and open-mouthed agony as limbs were blown off.

When people think of what it was like to be a "grunt", an ordinary American infantryman in the Vietnam War, what do they think of? Perhaps they think of Private Chris Taylor, played by Charlie Sheen, descending into a jungle hell in Platoon (1986).

War movies shape the way we see wars.

Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers (1966) is a gritty, intense portrayal of French operations against militants in the warren-like streets of the Casbah at the height of the Algerian War. The film was reportedly shown at the Pentagon at the beginning of the Iraq War in order to stimulate debate.

There's always a question over how long it takes for war films to capture the essence of a conflict.

"When it comes to fiction, to film and movies, you can say generally those done very close to the war, or shortly afterwards in the case of WW2, look very different to later depictions," says Dr Peter Busch, of King's College London's Department of War Studies and author of All the Way with JFK: Britain and the Vietnam War.

The reasons are part practical. Film-makers planning to be realistic and critical face obstacles - the military may choose not to co-operate over technical advice and the provision of materiel. But there are other sensitivities.

"In the UK we have a very strong tradition of supporting our military," says The Patrol's director and writer Tom Petch. "Can you question the policy and the strategy while our soldiers are still dying and putting their lives on the line?"

The Patrol and Lone Survivor have reached cinemas shortly before the planned US and UK withdrawal from Afghanistan after nearly 13 years of fighting. Lone Survivor, already a success at the box office, tells the true story of a failed US mission against a militant leader. The Patrol, not based on real events, focuses on British soldiers struggling to fight the Taliban in Helmand province.

"The Patrol is about seven men, a small number of people under pressure," says Petch, himself an officer in the Army from 1989 to 1997. "The soldiers wonder: 'What are we doing here?'"

Timing is key. How many of the best and most realistic WW2 movies were made before 1945? Inevitably, the tendency towards boosting morale and propaganda dominates.

After 50 years had passed, Saving Private Ryan was able to show D-Day as it was, something that would have been "unthinkable in the 1950s or 1960s", says Busch. Though it was filmed docudrama-style, blockbuster The Longest Day (1962) didn't come close to portraying the brutal reality of the landings. "Changed attitudes towards war allowed us to show the horrible side and not to glorify it."

In the fullness of time, the viewer wants to have assumptions challenged. Even just a decade after WW1, All Quiet On The Western Front (1930) captured the horror of the conflict, but proved controversial in Germany. And four decades after the war, Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory (1957), which depicts the trial of men accused of refusing orders to launch a suicidal attack, was criticised in France.

With the passage of time, viewers can even enjoy films told from the "enemy" perspective.

Das Boot (1981), the hours-long claustrophobic submarine epic, was a German production that rapidly became a cult classic outside Germany. Its sympathetic portrayal of the German U-boat crew might not have been appreciated in the US or UK in quite the same way in the 1950s or even 1960s when the memories of submarine warfare were still fresh.

But many movies made during wartime have not stood the test of time. Take Green Berets from 1968. Star John Wayne strongly supported the Vietnam War.

"It is a propaganda film. Very one sided. You get a very distorted view of what the war was about," says Busch.

Wayne was angry at the anti-war movement and was able to enlist the support of the US military.

"Hollywood didn't want to go near the Vietnam War because it was so controversial. Green Berets got made because John Wayne had this tremendous clout," says John Hellmann, of Ohio State University and author of American Myth and the Legacy of Vietnam.

Although successful at the box office it was ridiculed by critics.

The movies that came a few years after the war fared better. Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, with its portrayal of a disaffected special operative, a conniving and duplicitous military hierarchy and apathetic servicemen bewildered by the maelstrom they have been thrown into, remains venerated by movie buffs.

There was also Michael Cimino's Oscar-winning The Deer Hunter (1978), and Hal Ashby's Coming Home (1978), about the rehabilitation of a disabled veteran. Less high-profile examples included Go Tell The Spartans (1978), about the futile defence of an outpost, and Who'll Stop the Rain (1978), dealing with a conspiracy to traffick heroin back to the US.

Another crop in the late 1980s - Platoon, Full Metal Jacket (1987), Hamburger Hill (1987) and Good Morning, Vietnam (1987) - were all broadly anti-war.

"Platoon got a huge reception," says Hellmann. "It seemed like now we are finally getting a film that seems realistic about the 'gruntside experience' of the war."

But these films were still missing something.

"[In the films], it was bad because of how hard it was for the American troops," says Marc DiPaolo, author of War, Politics and Superheroes. "There was very little attention paid to how much damage was done to the Vietnamese."

Today, it does seem to be possible for film-makers to be brutal and realistic before the conflict is over. The Hurt Locker (2008), which won several Oscars for its portrayal of US bomb disposal experts in Iraq, was downbeat and intense, but was released during a period of optimism about the war in the wake of the 2007 surge in troop numbers. Paul Greengrass's Green Zone (2010) was well-received by critics but fared less well at the box office.

Some wars generate very few films. The Falklands War only produced a handful - a few BBC dramas, Tumbledown, An Ungentlemanly Act and The Falklands Play, and the Argentine film Blessed by Fire among them. The Gulf War has also produced very few - the heist drama Three Kings (1999) and Jarhead (2005) are perhaps the only notable examples. But it could be argued that neither war was an epoch-defining event in the way that the Vietnam War was.

And the movies do shape perception for later generations. "That is where students are getting their vivid image of what the Vietnam War was about," says Hellmann.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26030435
 
There are some excellent films listed here.  However, it is a mystery to me why The Hurt Locker is included.  That was one of the unrealistic pieces of unadulterated crap I've ever seen.  Why it was even nominated for any Oscars, let win any is beyond my understanding.
 
I think the Hurt Locker was just one of those stories where Hollywood could point to itself and say ‘hey look, we care too!’ I think that is one of the few reasons that something so unrealistic can make it through the selection process. That said, I do not know if I would suggest that there is a timeframe on when a movie can be ‘good or appropriate’
 
I personally think that there is no "best" time for a movie about a conflict. 

You could make a "how we did it" movie during, or soon after, a conflict without too much philosophical debate about the conflict itself (e.g. the D-Day beach landing scene for Saving Private Ryan had there been the film tech, or Black Hawk Down).  However, if you are looking to make a "why we did it" movie, then it's probably best to wait a significant time after the conflict so both good and bad effects can be fairly portrayed (Flags of Our Fathers with Letters from Iwo Jima, etc.) 
 
So howcum the only "good movies" are the "anti-war movies"?

Howcum the only the "pro-war movies" are "propaganda"?

I would remind folks that "propaganda" is about the propagation of beliefs - of any and all sorts.

The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, whose official title is "sacra congregatio christiano nomini propagando" is the department of the pontifical administration charged with the spread of Catholicism and with the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in non-Catholic countries. The intrinsic importance of its duties and the extraordinary extent of its authority and of the territory under its jurisdiction have caused the cardinal prefect of Propaganda to be known as the "red pope".
  Catholic Encyclopedia 1911 Online

Once upon a time the Congregation of Propaganda was the world's critic and determined what should be seen and what should be read (Index Librorum Prohibitorum)

Actual List 1949

Now we have "independent" film critics who all live the same lifestyle, live in the same places, go to the same schools..... and coincidentally believe the same things.

All movies and books are allegories for their times.  And that goes double for documentaries. 
 
I would point out that "good" or "bad" movies (or stories of any sort) have a lot to do with the skill of the story teller and the ability to use the medium. A Stanley Kubrick would craft the story and the visual means of telling it in ways that would captivate the viewer and reach down and tug on the underlying emotions and beliefs of the viewer. If get the chance, scroll around the internet and see if you can find a copy of Kubrick's script for "Napoleon", and realize that this is only the foundation.

OF course an unskilled person can wreak a movie even with good source material. "Gettysburg" is a movie adaptation of "The Killer Angels", which is a fantastic book. The film makers were so captivated by the book they literally filmed it page by page, which totally sinks the film, since they are not using the visual medium to tell the story. (This does not mean every scene is terrible, Joshua Chamberlain's speech to the impressed soldiers assigned to his unit is movie magic). Glory, another Civil War movie, uses the medium much better in telling that story.

So in the end, I think it is much more about the story teller to ensure a war (or any action) is "well portrayed"

 
To make good art is to write only for oneself.

One of the best Japanese novelist ,Yukio Mishima, unashamedly promoted his far right ideals through his literature.

Robert Heinlein was often accused of drafting characters that were little more then mouthpieces. That did not prevent him from earning several Nebulla awards.

"Casablanca" is a great "war" flick and arguably a classic. It is also a pack of lies and a subtle pro-war film.

By necessity, a movie has to cherry pick which parts of a war it is going to portray.The format doesn't lend itself for "impartiality".

We as a society put too much faith in the opinion of artists especially those of the left-wing sort.
 
I'm watching "Theirs is the Glory", a docudrama of Op Market Garden in/around Arnhem during WW2.  It's nothing but footage from the battle itself, and re-enactments in Osterbeek and Arnhem involving nothing but people who were in the battle itself - this, caveats considered, from Wikipedia:
.... Weaving original footage from the battle with re-enactments shot on location at Oosterbeek and Arnhem, the film was shot a year after the battle had ravaged the Dutch streets. As well as veterans, the film also features local people like Father Dyker (a Dutch civilian priest who conducts the service in the movie) and Kate ter Horst (who reads a psalm to the wounded men in the cellar) re-enacting their roles and what they did for the airborne troops during the battle.

Though no credits appear before or after the film, over 200 veterans appeared as actors including Majors CFH "Freddie" Gough and Richard "Dickie" Lonsdale, Lieutenant Hugh Ashmore, Sergeants Jack Bateman and John Daley, Corporal Pearce and Privates Tommy Scullion, Peter Holt, David Parker, George ‘Titch’ Preston, Frank ‘Butch’ Dixon, and war correspondents Stanley Maxted and Alan Wood ....

It was shot a year after the battle, and it's a good movie -- no actors, but it still feels real (probably because it's real soldiers).  It would be good to watch back to back with that other Market Garden flick.

Thucydides said:
I would point out that "good" or "bad" movies (or stories of any sort) have a lot to do with the skill of the story teller and the ability to use the medium .... OF course an unskilled person can wreak a movie even with good source material .... So in the end, I think it is much more about the story teller to ensure a war (or any action) is "well portrayed"
True enough - similar to a good cook being able to pull together a great meal with next to nothing, while a crappy cook can ruin the hell out of even the best ingredients.
 
milnews.ca said:
I'm watching "Theirs is the Glory", a docudrama of Op Market Garden in/around Arnhem during WW2.  It's nothing but footage from the battle itself, and re-enactments in Osterbeek and Arnhem involving nothing but people who were in the battle itself - this, caveats considered, from Wikipedia:
It was shot a year after the battle, and it's a good movie -- no actors, but it still feels real (probably because it's real soldiers).  It would be good to watch back to back with that other Market Garden flick ...
Bumped with this discovery:  you can download the flick for free from archive.org - enjoy!

P.S. - If you watch until the end, you'll see how Canada helped save the bacon of some of the British troops.
 
I discovered this movie myself last year.  It is different to any other war movie I've ever seen exactly because the actors are not actors but the men who were there, either playing themselves or someone who didn't survive.  Their reactions to threats and ambushes are still sharp, honed by real combat experience and are nothing like a Hollywood actor pretending at being a soldier. Outstanding movie. 
 
jollyjacktar said:
I discovered this movie myself last year.  It is different to any other war movie I've ever seen exactly because the actors are not actors but the men who were there, either playing themselves or someone who didn't survive.  Their reactions to threats and ambushes are still sharp, honed by real combat experience and are nothing like a Hollywood actor pretending at being a soldier. Outstanding movie.
And no sets - they did it in Holland, in & around Arnhem and environs.  A year after the fighting was over.  Holy crap!
 
So true.  You could see the place was beat to shit by the battle even after a year had passed.  The only bit of window dressing was a mock up in the distance of the bridge IIRC, understandable, under the circumstance.
 
There's another element in this issue which hasn't been touched upon yet. In the modern era, we're accustomed to hyper-violence in movies. Also, audiences expect to see plenty of blood. SPR has been mentioned several times as a touchstone, but I got up and left after the German flak gun vaporized the American soldiers in the town fight. After the beach scenes, it was just too much. No thanks.

Some of the greatest war movies were made in black and white. These examples are American-centric, and no slight is intended to other nations' notion pictures.

Twelve o'clock High To me, this is the single best film depiction of the price of war. Gregory Peck is absolutely believable as General Frank Savage.

Battleground  It's had to imagine that most of this movie was filmed on sound stages. James Whitmore plays the platoon sergeant of a rifle platoon in the 101st Airborne during the defense of Bastogne.

The Story of GI Joe  Burgess Meredith plays Ernie Pyle, the GI Journalist in World War II. This movie was based on Ernie's book of the same name.

Another brilliant film was Tunes of Glory, which wasn't exactly a war picture. But it WAS a picture about war.

Veterans are a tough crowd when we watch movies about our own time in the forces. Because we know what we and our buddies looked like, how we walked, what we said and wore, we look at all of that with a critical eye. Hurt Locker misses on almost every level for us, yet it achieved huge commercial and artistic success. I read just the other day that veterans represent 1% of the population in the US. (I wonder what it is in Canada) Anyway, for the other 99% of viewers, most of what we see goes totally unseen by them.
 
Tunes of Glory - brilliant film.  Another of the era (60's production) is The Sand Pebbles.
 
Red 6 said:
Twelve o'clock High To me, this is the single best film depiction of the price of war. Gregory Peck is absolutely believable as General Frank Savage.

"Stop making plans. Forget about going home. Consider yourselves already dead. Once you accept that idea, it won't be so tough."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVbnDBBtg3I

Pretty much the same way as Bomber Harris put it, "Bomber Harris bounded up on the platform and his very first words were, "Most of you people won't be here in a few months. We are about to begin a series of raids that will demand the best from all of you. We know there will be tremendous losses, but it has to be done."
RCAF 6 Group Stn Linton-on-Ouse, England. 408 Goose and 426 Thunderbird Squadrons . The 426 Squadron history confirms the date of the visit as 14 Sept 1943.

 
Based on this piece of garbage, almost 50 years isn't long enough :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2771_(film)

Sadly, it seems to have received some good reviews. Oh well....
 
daftandbarmy said:
Based on this piece of garbage, almost 50 years isn't long enough :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2771_(film)

Sadly, it seems to have received some good reviews. Oh well....

I have pirated a copy of it, but haven't watched it yet.  It can't be any worse than Passchendaele or Hyena Road
 
jollyjacktar said:
I have pirated a copy of it, but haven't watched it yet.  It can't be any worse than Passchendaele or Hyena Road

About the only things they got right were the weapons and equipment.
 
I don't necessarily think some films that are seen as being "anti-war" films are actually "anti-war" in that I don't believe people watching them necessarily think any differently about war after watching them.  I think part of the reason people (generally men) watch war films is because we are attracted to violence.  People sometimes watch war films because combat footage is exciting and entertaining.  It doesn't really matter what the director's intent was in making the film because each audience member interprets the film in their own way.

I prefer documentaries with actual footage from the conflict.  One of my favourite documentaries is the BBC's The World At War about World War II (WWII).  It has no re-enactments.  All of the footage of the war is genuine.  The series was made in 1973 if I recall correctly and it gives a decent, coherent narrative of WWII.  That's 28 years after the end of the war.

I don't particularly like war films, though I do watch them sometimes, hoping they'll be good and often I'm disappointed.  I don't think Platoon was all that good.  I liked Full Metal Jacket much more, largely because I like how structured Kubrick's films are visually and I think Vincent D'Onofrio's portrayal of Private Pyle was excellent and so was R Lee Ermey as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.  I have a copy of The Short Timers, which Full Metal Jacket was based on, but I haven't read it.  I thought Saving Private Ryan was awful. 

I think it takes about ten years after a war ends for a film maker to be able to make a film that can provide a decent narrative of a conflict, if that's what the film aims for - but usually a war film isn't about explaining why a given war happened and all of its details.  Take a look at a film like The Thin Red Line  (the 1998 version directed by Terrence Malick, not the 1962 version): I think Guadalcanal is only said once in the entire film.  The film isn't meant to explain WWII or the Pacific theatre or even the significance of Guadalcanal.  I see the film as being about how ordinary men react to extraordinary circumstances and being close to death.  It explores a few other ideas, but the point is that I don't see it as really being a film about WWII or even necessarily about war itself.  The book, The Thin Red Line by James Jones is excellent.  It is part of a trilogy and it follows From Here to Eternity which is my favourite fictional novel.

On the other hand, a film like Der Untergang (Downfall) which came out 60 years after the end of WWII is about the last two weeks or so of the war in Europe, largely as it was experienced in Hitler's bunker.  I think the film tries to explain why the Germans kept fighting even though the war was clearly lost.  One of the books it was based on, Inside Hitler's Bunker by Joachim Fest, was excellent.  I guess I prefer books about wars and I think it takes some time for people to be able to look back, gather a lot of information about the war in question and synthesize it into a coherent narrative.
 
Back
Top