Holden Caulfield
10th January 2010, 15:28
Hollywood films have ranged from providing patriotic support for war, to supposedly being anti-war. However given the genre relies on spectacle, tales of heroism, and simplistic portrayals of good and evil is it possible for any film to be anti-war?
In this essay we shall aim to dissect and evaluate the war film genre in order to discover if an ‘anti-war’ film does, or indeed can, exist. That is to say a film which stands as a polemic against war in itself, and which successfully reaches the audience with the intended message. However before even turning our attention to any alleged ‘anti-war’ films it is first necessary to consider two ideas; if it is possible for a film to be ‘pro-war’, and if it is possible for film (being essentially a form of entertainment) to portray to war and its horrors without the use of such narrative and cinematic devices such as those mentioned in the title.
One film considered to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from the ‘anti-war’ film would be 1968’s ‘Green Berets’, directed by, starred in, and the brain child of John Wayne. As the only major war film produced at the height of American intervention in Vietnam the film was a box office success, however was widely met with critical reproach for being overtly propagandistic, being called “a long cliché ridden lecture in defence of war”[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn1). In the years around 1968 the Vietnam War was appearing less and less winnable to a growingly sceptical American public, with no sight of a quick victory President Johnson sought a way to boost popular support, war reports in the news decreased, operations increased and a letter arrived for Johnson directly from John Wayne: “It’s extremely important that not only the people of the US, but those all over the world should know why we are there”[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn2). The product of this correspondence being the production of the Green Berets, with the support of the government, and the aid of the military
The production employs an out-dated WW2 style narrative and portrayal of combat, the Americans are seen as entirely ‘good’ and the Communist Vietnamese as ‘evil’ or barbaric, akin to the portrayal of native Americans in Wayne’s earlier work. Two key sections highlight the intended pro-war message of the film: The first being the opening of the film, a ‘liberal’ journalist is heard questioning American intervention in the conflict, the reply for the reporter, and the audience, being simply ‘come and see for yourself why we are fighting’. Upon arrival in Vietnam the reporter, and the audience, witness a sneak attack by the Viet Cong (VC), upon seeing the tactics and savagery of this foe the reporter joins the fight, this attempt to dehumanise the enemy is common in war films, but the involvement of an anti-war figure (the journalist) tries to imply that the sceptics at home cannot fully comprehend the war and that if they could they too, like the journalist, would support intervention.
The second pinnacle of propaganda occurs after a VC booby-trap kills an American soldier, Wayne’s character explains to the camps adopted Vietnamese orphan (who is upset at the death) “You’re who we are fighting for[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn3)” further trying to justify the war to the audience through emotional appeals. The cruel irony of this being the news of the ‘My-Lai’ was about to break while the film was still in cinemas. This films relation to the war genre can be summed up with Michael Cimino’s words “any good picture about war is an anti-war picture[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn4)”, critically disregarded as “nothing more than flag waving propaganda[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn5)” this film cannot, and has not been classed as “a good picture”.
Another question is whether or not film can, or would even want to, represent war without the use of cinematic devices such as spectacle and tales of heroism etc. Perhaps this is because the horror of war, if shown to people would be disturbing and ‘too real’ and therefore audience need to be shielded with familiar concepts such as, for example, personal stories. Or because war cannot be portrayed or even fully comprehended, even General Eisenhower was noted to say that war in the nuclear age “just makes no sense at all[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn6)”. The cinematic reflection of this outlook is Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 satirical ‘comedy’ ‘Dr Strangelove’, the film has been, contentiously, labelled “the most shattering sick joke I’ve ever come across[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn7)” Ian Scott also suggests that Dr Strangelove is just a satire of the JKF/Cuban Missile Crisis era fascination on conspiracy and nuclear was. However as director James Harris reveals “we were working on the script as a serious piece”. Kubrick thought it impossible to portray a real world situation where all life could be ended at the push of a button. The use of comedy is seen in this film as humans could not face their own destruction face-on, and so the comedy ‘shields’ us from reality. Similarly ‘Apocalypse Now’ has been called “More surrealistic than realistic[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn8)”, the use of the plot is to distract us from the everyday horror of the war, and detaches us, the audience, from the war itself. The old maxim that “war is a delightful thing to those who have had no experience of it[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn9)” is the main point here, even if war could be realistically transferred to film without the use of cinematic devices, it would not be financially sensible or socially conscious to produce such a film (as exposure to war can cause psychological problems such as PTSD).
Anti-war films do exist; ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ is seen as the quintessential example of an anti-war film, viewed by many to be to cinema what Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ is for art. Released in 1930, it follows the fates of a German student and his class mates as they join up, fight and die together in the trenches of the Western Front in World War One. Although the entirety of the film can be seen as giving a staunch anti-war message the scene of the soldiers discussing the reasons behind the war can be seen as an especially meaningful scene: This scene goes far beyond the simple ‘war is a waste of youth’ of films such as ‘Paths of Glory’ etc, and actually implies that war is for the benefit of the ruling classes, the rich, and those who seek glory at the expense of the common man, this scene highlights the absurdity of the very concept of war itself. The film also “vividly portrays the senseless horror of trench warfare”, in a scene where Paul (the central character) kills a French soldier who enters the shell hole he is hiding in no justification is given, the enemy is not dehumanised, the scene strips away clichés of war films and shows the raw ‘Hobbesian’ fear that motives men to fight, to fear of being killed leads Paul to kill a man, no other reason is implied or portrayed. The emotional effects of war are seen in Paul’s guilt and during his speech to his old class, where he seems a different man, unable to communicate with ‘civilians’.
The film was banned in Weimar and Nazi Germany as well as France, Italy, Australia, Austria and many others, which serves to show the fear of governments of such anti-war, and anti-ruling-class sentiments expressed by the film through its characters conversations.
‘Jarhead’ (2005 ) contains similar sentiments to ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’, the film contains a similar scene where the soldiers discuss the justification of the Gulf War, again finding that the war is to benefit the oil companies, however the poignant mood is changed by an interjection of “Fuck politics. We’re here. All the rest is bullshit”[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn10). Never-the-less the anti-war message is clear; the psychological deterioration of the main character is stark, and highlights the human cost of wars, the forgotten wounded who suffer psychological trauma, (also seen in ‘All Quiet...’).
As we have discovered it is possible for films to be anti-war, but the reason behind this anti-war message is often unclear. That is to say, are the films created to be anti-war to send a message? Or are they created with that message simply to reach their target audiences? John Frankenheimer (a Hollywood director of ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ fame) stated that “Hollywood has nothing against message films as long as they make money” suggesting the message of major production films is not the ends, but in fact the means to make profit. A Marxist view (as expressed in sort by Ang) would support this ‘for profit only’ stance. This factor throws doubt over whether a film can be anti-war, or whether is merely uses anti-war sentiments to reach an audience and to make money, however even if this is true, it is still a gray area, i.e. the director and the producer may think differently about the use of any message in a film.
Although I have concluded that anti-war films can, and do exist, it is prudent not to forget that it is, in my view, impossible to represent war in film without the use of at least some cinematic devices, due to the fact war is not entertainment and would be extremely unsettling if it ever was, or ever could be, realistically represented in its rawest form. Also the motive behind the anti-war message cannot be fully derived, that is, we cannot know whether the film is intended to sway people opinions or simply to make money.
[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref1) Terry Christensen, ‘Reel Politics’, (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc. 1987) 149.
[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref2) Lawrence Suid Guts & glory (Kentucky: Kentucky University Press 2002) 248.
[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref3)The Green Berets. Film. Directed by John Wayne, Ray Kellogg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kellogg) & John Gaddis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gaddis) (USA: Warner Bros. 1968)
[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref4) Michal Cimino, Guardian Lecture, National Film Theatre, London, 11 August 1983
[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref5) Beverly Merrill-Krllry, ‘Reelpolitik II’,( Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Inc. 2004) 155
[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref6) General Andrew Goodpaster, ‘Interview with...’ PBS (www.pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org))
[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref7) Bosley Crowther, ‘Dr Strangelove’ The New York Times Film Reviews: 1913-1970 (New York: Arno, 1971) 374
[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref8) Christensen, ‘Reel Politics’ 154
[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref9) Desiderius Erasmus/Pindar (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pindar)
[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref10)Jarhead. Film. Directed by Sam Mendes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Mendes) (USA: Universal Pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Pictures), 2005)
In this essay we shall aim to dissect and evaluate the war film genre in order to discover if an ‘anti-war’ film does, or indeed can, exist. That is to say a film which stands as a polemic against war in itself, and which successfully reaches the audience with the intended message. However before even turning our attention to any alleged ‘anti-war’ films it is first necessary to consider two ideas; if it is possible for a film to be ‘pro-war’, and if it is possible for film (being essentially a form of entertainment) to portray to war and its horrors without the use of such narrative and cinematic devices such as those mentioned in the title.
One film considered to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from the ‘anti-war’ film would be 1968’s ‘Green Berets’, directed by, starred in, and the brain child of John Wayne. As the only major war film produced at the height of American intervention in Vietnam the film was a box office success, however was widely met with critical reproach for being overtly propagandistic, being called “a long cliché ridden lecture in defence of war”[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn1). In the years around 1968 the Vietnam War was appearing less and less winnable to a growingly sceptical American public, with no sight of a quick victory President Johnson sought a way to boost popular support, war reports in the news decreased, operations increased and a letter arrived for Johnson directly from John Wayne: “It’s extremely important that not only the people of the US, but those all over the world should know why we are there”[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn2). The product of this correspondence being the production of the Green Berets, with the support of the government, and the aid of the military
The production employs an out-dated WW2 style narrative and portrayal of combat, the Americans are seen as entirely ‘good’ and the Communist Vietnamese as ‘evil’ or barbaric, akin to the portrayal of native Americans in Wayne’s earlier work. Two key sections highlight the intended pro-war message of the film: The first being the opening of the film, a ‘liberal’ journalist is heard questioning American intervention in the conflict, the reply for the reporter, and the audience, being simply ‘come and see for yourself why we are fighting’. Upon arrival in Vietnam the reporter, and the audience, witness a sneak attack by the Viet Cong (VC), upon seeing the tactics and savagery of this foe the reporter joins the fight, this attempt to dehumanise the enemy is common in war films, but the involvement of an anti-war figure (the journalist) tries to imply that the sceptics at home cannot fully comprehend the war and that if they could they too, like the journalist, would support intervention.
The second pinnacle of propaganda occurs after a VC booby-trap kills an American soldier, Wayne’s character explains to the camps adopted Vietnamese orphan (who is upset at the death) “You’re who we are fighting for[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn3)” further trying to justify the war to the audience through emotional appeals. The cruel irony of this being the news of the ‘My-Lai’ was about to break while the film was still in cinemas. This films relation to the war genre can be summed up with Michael Cimino’s words “any good picture about war is an anti-war picture[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn4)”, critically disregarded as “nothing more than flag waving propaganda[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn5)” this film cannot, and has not been classed as “a good picture”.
Another question is whether or not film can, or would even want to, represent war without the use of cinematic devices such as spectacle and tales of heroism etc. Perhaps this is because the horror of war, if shown to people would be disturbing and ‘too real’ and therefore audience need to be shielded with familiar concepts such as, for example, personal stories. Or because war cannot be portrayed or even fully comprehended, even General Eisenhower was noted to say that war in the nuclear age “just makes no sense at all[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn6)”. The cinematic reflection of this outlook is Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 satirical ‘comedy’ ‘Dr Strangelove’, the film has been, contentiously, labelled “the most shattering sick joke I’ve ever come across[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn7)” Ian Scott also suggests that Dr Strangelove is just a satire of the JKF/Cuban Missile Crisis era fascination on conspiracy and nuclear was. However as director James Harris reveals “we were working on the script as a serious piece”. Kubrick thought it impossible to portray a real world situation where all life could be ended at the push of a button. The use of comedy is seen in this film as humans could not face their own destruction face-on, and so the comedy ‘shields’ us from reality. Similarly ‘Apocalypse Now’ has been called “More surrealistic than realistic[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn8)”, the use of the plot is to distract us from the everyday horror of the war, and detaches us, the audience, from the war itself. The old maxim that “war is a delightful thing to those who have had no experience of it[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn9)” is the main point here, even if war could be realistically transferred to film without the use of cinematic devices, it would not be financially sensible or socially conscious to produce such a film (as exposure to war can cause psychological problems such as PTSD).
Anti-war films do exist; ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ is seen as the quintessential example of an anti-war film, viewed by many to be to cinema what Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ is for art. Released in 1930, it follows the fates of a German student and his class mates as they join up, fight and die together in the trenches of the Western Front in World War One. Although the entirety of the film can be seen as giving a staunch anti-war message the scene of the soldiers discussing the reasons behind the war can be seen as an especially meaningful scene: This scene goes far beyond the simple ‘war is a waste of youth’ of films such as ‘Paths of Glory’ etc, and actually implies that war is for the benefit of the ruling classes, the rich, and those who seek glory at the expense of the common man, this scene highlights the absurdity of the very concept of war itself. The film also “vividly portrays the senseless horror of trench warfare”, in a scene where Paul (the central character) kills a French soldier who enters the shell hole he is hiding in no justification is given, the enemy is not dehumanised, the scene strips away clichés of war films and shows the raw ‘Hobbesian’ fear that motives men to fight, to fear of being killed leads Paul to kill a man, no other reason is implied or portrayed. The emotional effects of war are seen in Paul’s guilt and during his speech to his old class, where he seems a different man, unable to communicate with ‘civilians’.
The film was banned in Weimar and Nazi Germany as well as France, Italy, Australia, Austria and many others, which serves to show the fear of governments of such anti-war, and anti-ruling-class sentiments expressed by the film through its characters conversations.
‘Jarhead’ (2005 ) contains similar sentiments to ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’, the film contains a similar scene where the soldiers discuss the justification of the Gulf War, again finding that the war is to benefit the oil companies, however the poignant mood is changed by an interjection of “Fuck politics. We’re here. All the rest is bullshit”[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftn10). Never-the-less the anti-war message is clear; the psychological deterioration of the main character is stark, and highlights the human cost of wars, the forgotten wounded who suffer psychological trauma, (also seen in ‘All Quiet...’).
As we have discovered it is possible for films to be anti-war, but the reason behind this anti-war message is often unclear. That is to say, are the films created to be anti-war to send a message? Or are they created with that message simply to reach their target audiences? John Frankenheimer (a Hollywood director of ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ fame) stated that “Hollywood has nothing against message films as long as they make money” suggesting the message of major production films is not the ends, but in fact the means to make profit. A Marxist view (as expressed in sort by Ang) would support this ‘for profit only’ stance. This factor throws doubt over whether a film can be anti-war, or whether is merely uses anti-war sentiments to reach an audience and to make money, however even if this is true, it is still a gray area, i.e. the director and the producer may think differently about the use of any message in a film.
Although I have concluded that anti-war films can, and do exist, it is prudent not to forget that it is, in my view, impossible to represent war in film without the use of at least some cinematic devices, due to the fact war is not entertainment and would be extremely unsettling if it ever was, or ever could be, realistically represented in its rawest form. Also the motive behind the anti-war message cannot be fully derived, that is, we cannot know whether the film is intended to sway people opinions or simply to make money.
[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref1) Terry Christensen, ‘Reel Politics’, (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc. 1987) 149.
[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref2) Lawrence Suid Guts & glory (Kentucky: Kentucky University Press 2002) 248.
[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref3)The Green Berets. Film. Directed by John Wayne, Ray Kellogg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kellogg) & John Gaddis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gaddis) (USA: Warner Bros. 1968)
[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref4) Michal Cimino, Guardian Lecture, National Film Theatre, London, 11 August 1983
[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref5) Beverly Merrill-Krllry, ‘Reelpolitik II’,( Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Inc. 2004) 155
[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref6) General Andrew Goodpaster, ‘Interview with...’ PBS (www.pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org))
[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref7) Bosley Crowther, ‘Dr Strangelove’ The New York Times Film Reviews: 1913-1970 (New York: Arno, 1971) 374
[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref8) Christensen, ‘Reel Politics’ 154
[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref9) Desiderius Erasmus/Pindar (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pindar)
[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=21#_ftnref10)Jarhead. Film. Directed by Sam Mendes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Mendes) (USA: Universal Pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Pictures), 2005)