posted
Someone (I think it was TerraZ, if not, then someone else) mentioned that they had seen "Platoon" and thought that it perfectly illustrated the brainwashed military mindset. I pointed out that watching a non-documentary movie (or most documentary ones, for that matter) is not a good way to judge anything. You have to be careful that you detect the director's bias and compensate for it.
I just watched a documentary on American Cinema on PBSU (a PBS sattellite channel). It was about how Hollywood has portrayed war and the military over the years. Very interesting, indeed.
They mentioned three movies in particular as examples typical of their era:
The Sands of Iwo Jima This movie typifies the change in war movies that took place during WW II. In previous movies (invariably anti-war in tone), the hero is the lone iconoclast; he's the guy who doesn't see why wars should be fought (WW I was exceptionally disillusioning).
During WW II, the hero was not the individual, but the platoon, company, tank crew, bomber crew, etc. The team was the important element, and was often portrayed as being much better integrated across racial and social lines than in real life.
In TSOIJ, John Wayne (an American military stereotype unto himself) is a Marine Sergeant. He is both leader and father figure to his men. By the end of the movie, the unit's cohesion and sense of purpose have come together so completely that the father figure (John Wayn) can be killed (by a sniper), and the audience knows that the platoon will survive. The death of any individual is portrayed as having meaning -- a sacrifice gladly made for ideals and a purpose which is furthered by either his death, or the actions leading to them -- he (whoever it is) dies a hero.
Steel Helmet This movie confounded everyone with a political agenda when it was released. The American Communist Party believed it must have been funded by Senator McCarthy's supporters, while the extreme "better dead than red" faction viewed it as almost treasonably anti-American for its depiction of a confusing war with unclear objectives.
The units are not racially integrated, though the main characters are a small group of disparate social and racial origins, thrown together by circumstance. They display more interpersonal friction than their WW II bretheren, and are less uniformly idealistic. One of them even shoots a prisoner of war due to his unreasoning hatred of communists.
Platoon They interviewed the director of this movie, since he was still alive when they made this documentary. He hated Master Sergeants because they never put themselves in danger, and never seemed to be as concerned for their men's safety as they were about their own chances for advancement.
The heroes are not particularly admirable. Some are amoral, and at least one is either homicidal or sociopathic (possibly both). When anyone dies, it is portrayed as a profoundly pointless event; a terrible waste of life for no good reason.
One thing I thought was interesting: the U.S. Marine Corps' Officer Candidate School uses clips from "Platoon" as a "how not to" example in it's class on Moral (not Morale, there's a difference!) Leadership.
Class assignment: Go watch these movies and compare the different ways warfare is portrayed. Then comment.
Or comment on movies you have seen.
At it's best, the military is a bastion against agression and a stronghold of values it's country holds dear. At it's worst, the military is the tool of choice for the power-mad. To properly portray the military in cinema form would require hundreds of hours of film. That's because the military is just as varied as humanity, in microcosm.
I think the reason that the military is often portrayed as evil incarnate is that war itself is hell on Earth. It's difficult to imagine a normal, intelligent person voluntarily allowing himself to be subject to rules, laws, and restrictions that are barely comprehensible to those who do not live with them every day.
--Baloo
------------------ "Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly, for the same reason." --(Unknown)[B] Come Hither and Yawn...
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited January 11, 2000).]
posted
Baloo, just curious, have you been in combat? I'm guessing 99% of people here can't realistically judge how ones mindset would be effected by the continual conflict. But I guess after awhile anyone would notice that men think for themselves when they are faced with the realities of the situation. From what I understand your average grunt joins up either for a steady job or for paitriotic reasons. Neither of those reasons make them bad people. The level to which they thikn over their orders or the actions of their nation may vary, but IMHO if the govt goes too far into the seedier part of human nature the troops of most democracies would revolt. As happened in Russia during the failed coup.
Take Baloo for instance. He's in the military, and not a bad sort really!
------------------ Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".
Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".
-From some movie.
[This message has been edited by Daryus Aden (edited January 11, 2000).]
posted
Viewing Platoon was one of the important steps in my reassessment of American military policy in Vietnam, and likewise, American policy in general.
Now, I'm not one of those people who think that you should base your opinions on a movie. But the key for me was how well it dramatized events which I knew to be typical (further confirmed by my further research into the war, including talking to a friend of mine in the army whose uncle was connected to the My Lai Massacre). Seeing them unfold on the screen like that merely gave them the shock value they lacked.
In the realm of war movies though, none is Patton. It was a Greek tragedy, in my mind, but it also showcased one of the principles of American military movies: superiors are idiots and beauracrats should burn in hell.
Also, everyone should see Paths of Glory. I cannot put into words how excellent that movie was, and it is, to me, the perfect WWI movie (although I've yet to find a copy of AQotWF) and it is much like what the Big Bear Man said, although it was made in a post-WWII era.
Furthermore, if anyone wants to hate Germans (which is a great feeling) watch Stalingrad, which unfortunately is dubbed in English. This is a great example of European cinema in relation to war. Europeans are, for the most part, more enlightened than Americans. You can tell here. Essentially, this film portrays war not only as hell, but as an inexcusable hell, and its practitioners not just as men put in a bad situation, but as men who have control over their destiny but allow themselves to be in that bad situation and do the cowardly thing. A stunning statement that few Yanks would make.
------------------ "Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain Blew, Nirvana
posted
Baloo makes a very good point. War movies do not represent the military, rather they represent certain cultural values that the director wants to get across. Whether those values are anti war, and use the military as an example of things gone bad, or they can use the military as an example of the rightness of a particular cause.
It's interesting to view films from the point of view of the director. Some very good war films have been made by veterns of the conflicts who later went to Holywood. John Ford, for example, was in the Navy during WWII and worked on films for the War Department, such as The Battle of Midway (1942) and Torpedo Squadron (1942) during the war. However, his WWII opus was They Were Expendable (1945).
While this film certainly didn't take they wholly patrioticly correct view of the war (for more on that, read The Best War Ever: America In WWII by Michael Adams) that The Sands of Iwo Jima did. Not to say that The Sands of Iwo Jima was a bad movie, it does however fall more directly into a genre of war propaganda. John Wayne being killed just after the flag went up by the sinister Japanese character probable sold a ton of war bonds. Most fall into the uber patriotic category, Back to Bataan (1945) also with John Wayne, Bataan (1943) staring Robert Taylor, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944) with Spencer Tracy, or The Purple Heart (1944) with Dana Andrews.
All of which leave no doubts in the minds of the audience that who the audience was and that it was the job of the entire country to see the job through. So the film makers went a bit overboard with the slanty-eyed coke bottle glasses Japanese thing...and with the sinister dark Nazis, their intent was to use the medium as propaganda, not to show how the military works or the effects of war on the soldiers. Save for a couple of important and overlooked movies, A Walk in the Sun (1945), which follows a patrol of scared men who do a nasty job and The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), which dealt head on with the issues of a sailor loosing his hands, a flyer with no job to come home to and looses his wife, and a soldier who battles drinking and memories after returning home. A must see.
The movies made during the Korean War reflect the same things, only the evil reds are in the place of sinister Nazis...and the same Asian stereotypes are back. Once again the military serves as a teaching tool to the American public about the values that caused us to enter the war in the first place. Movies like The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954) staring William Holden and The McConnell Story (1955) with Alan Ladd. However there are exceptions that include movies that go a bit deeper. Steel Helmet, mentioned above...but also The Defiant Ones (1958) with Sidney Poitier as a soldier in a mix race unit trying to overcome the hatred of his own comrads. Men in War (1957) like A Walk In The Sun looks at a group of men and the way that fear of battle can affect them.
Well, I am tired and that is enough for now, but later, we'll get into how the Western was a surrogate for actual Cold War battle...and the Vietnam War and the Reagan "we really won the war" era.
Oh, and if you are looking for a cold war farce, see Jet Pilot (1957) with John Wayne.
------------------ Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one. ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 11, 2000).]
posted
The best war picture I ever saw was "The Battle of Springfield," where Bart gives that bully kid a good soaking.
Incidentally, I've recently been reading an interesting book on military history that shows how little things like the decisions made by individual men and leaders, and weather, can drastically change the course of wars, and thusly, history.
F'rinstance, bad weather on D-Day could have led to an allied slaughter, the use of Nukes on German soil, and possibly war with a Communist Europe.
The building of the Berlin Wall probably prevented WWIII.
The world might have been spared Korea and Vietnam, and communism might have collapsed decades sooner, if Chiang Kai-shek had simply listened to his allies and let the Red Chinese have Manchuria, onced he had pushed their forces back that far.
------------------ Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
posted
My favorite war movie was Saving Private Ryan....where would that fall in catagory?
------------------ "I suppose you thought I was dead? No such thing. Don't flatter yourselves that I haven't got my eye upon you. I am wide awake, and you give plenty to look at." Household Words, Aug. 24, 1850 From the Raven in the Happy Family
posted
Jeff, no insult intended but I absolutely hated that movie. I was expecting it to make some sort of deep statement, instead all we got was a chap snivelling and minor glorification about the American role in the war. The Thin Red Line was far far better, IMHO.
------------------ Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".
Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".
The Manchuria Army was not allowed to have an official destination in the "Central Army" system under the rule of the Nationalist party in China (the "south" people always thought the north are barbaric for some reason); this decision was made by Chiang Kai-shek's most trusted general (don't ask me for his name, I don't think there's a translation, but he later became prime minister of Taiwan, and yes Taiwan have "BOTH" president and prime minister).
The Chinese Communist use this as a advange and offer an offical standing for the Manchuria forces under the People's Army; this may very well be the reason that Manchuria forces decided to turn against the Nationalist(although it is arguable).
This incident contribute most to the defeat of Nationalist in mainland China (Manchuria army was one of the best fighting forces in China at the time), not to mentions the hatred of the people for Nationalist corruption.
P.S. The guy I mention before became one of the best prime minister at Taiwan as he introduced the "375 tax reduction" and contribute greatly for Taiwan's economic boom.
posted
SPR started out good but it became a simple heroic-as-ever war movie nearer the end, not unlike all the other war movies. Yet it pretended to be anti-war straight till the end. Which was, of course, bullshit.
TTRL was just a boring movie with a voice over speaking out loud the most ridiculous and clich�d pieces of so-called philosophy in way more time than was strictly necessary.
So, they were both flawed, SPR is just better.
Hey, at least they aren't like Iron Eagle IV (yes, they made a fourth, I din't know either till I saw it.) :]
posted
I loved Saving Private Ryan originally. But as I become more versed in film, I tend to only like it as a war movie. That is a bit of an insult, I must say. The movie makes no statement except:
a) War is hell b) Wars are won through the bravery of men c) World War II was won by strong Americans
Well, let's look at these.
A is clearly correct. We know that. If the whole movie was just driving that point home, it would've been better. Unfortunately...
B is somewhat correct. But this runs into the next one...
C is a farce. This was the most blatant problem. I remember saying that on my drive home from the film. As much as I was in awe of it, I was somewhat upset that there was not a single British accent. IIRC, they simply rip Monty in it. This movie was patriotic shite, and for that, it will be eternally damned.
------------------ "No, I don't have a gun" - Kurt Cobain Come As You Are, Nirvana
posted
Since SPR was ABOUT Americans, an American Private and an American platoon, hearing a British accent would rather be totally out of place, don't you think?
And whether you heard Brits among the rest of the bit characters would depend on where and on what beachhead they landed on, wouldn't it? I doubt the Allies just threw guys together in makeshift platoons.
Montgomery was a fine general. He was also political, pushy, and every bit as arrogant as Patton was. Friendly competition gets like that in wartime. At least there were no "Monty.. only has one ****" songs, like Adolf got.
------------------ Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
Printer-friendly view of this topic
