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:
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.
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.
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).]
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).]
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
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
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).]
--Baloo
------------------
"Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly, for the same reason."
--(Unknown)[B]
Come Hither and Yawn...
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
------------------
"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
------------------
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.
(Unlike, of course, ANY of the damn 'Delta Force' movies with Chuck 'Has to be shirtless while killing inumerable vietnamese' Norris)
------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee
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.
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.) :]
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
Look for it here: http://flare.solareclipse.net/Forum3/HTML/001022.html
--Baloo
------------------
"Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly, for the same reason."
--(Unknown)[B]
Come Hither and Yawn...
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
------------------
"Never met a wise man, if so it was a woman" - Kurt Cobain
Territorial Pissings, Nirvana
By showing a localized company and it's landing, Speilberg has the chance to deal in specifics rather than generalities. Picking an US company is for the memories his father instilled in him and not some scheme to eliminate the Brits.
------------------
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts, and plagues and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing...well I say "Hard Cheese"!
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 14, 2000).]
Or a movie set in any big city, with an all-black cast (Friday).
Sheesh, the negativity.
Personally, I think you're offended because you want to be.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
To quote the great Monty Python, let's not argue about who killed who. Rather let's understand that the scope of SPR is limited.
Whereas TRL is a meditation on war. A deeply philosophical movie which examines the conflict within mankind and wonders if it is inherent. Terrence Malick uses nature itself to ask the question and it makes for an interesting non-answer.
------------------
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts, and plagues and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing...well I say "Hard Cheese"!
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 14, 2000).]
Jay: Yes, but then, what was the POINT of SPR? What was Spielberg trying to tell us? War is hell? No shit! I've known that for years! Everyone who has seen Platoon has known that. Go back further! All Quite on the Western Front! Let's just remake that. If Spielberg wanted to make a "shoot-em-up action adventure romp" then he succeeded. That's why I say it is a good war movie. But it's not a good movie. It has, to again quote Chris Cornell, nothing to say.
That's why I liked TTRL, in part. It examined the metaphysical nature of war, more or less. Sure, it told us war is hell. But it never needed to be so obvious. It was more about nature than war itself. Man vs nature, man in nature, man as nature.
Here is a good example of TTRL's superiority over SPR. In the latter, the German soldier they capture and are going to kill is released. He then comes back to be the guy who kills Yanks at Remagen. Thus, our hero who earlier had let him guy smites the evil German! DIE DIE DIE MY DARLING! Germans are evil!!! Okay, so he never shouted that, but... why not? It made GREAT drama, but lousy for the point of the movie. Contrast that with TTRL, which presented the Japanese as being, essentially, the same as the Americans. What makes this all the more frustrating is SPR came close at times. Remember the scene on D-Day where the Yanks executed the German prisoners? That was a step in the right direction. But that was it. A step, one that was not appropriately followed up. No one ever really stopped to ask the question "How much worse are they than we? Wouldn't we be doing the same thing as the Germans if we were on the other side?"
Another problem was the view of the military high command. Aside from Monty, they were supposedly geniuses. Look at George Marshall, presented as this wonderful sagely, carely, fatherly figure who, in the end, was right. How can you have an anti-war film which is pro-establishment? What he's essentially telling us is "war is hell, but the people who run it are good people" which is... well, it's not surprising considering the sort of limp liberalism Spielberg promotes. Let me provide a quote from Spielberg
Of course every war movie, good or bad, is an antiwar movie. Saving Private Ryan will always be that, but I took a very personal approach in telling this particular war story. The film is based on a number of true stories from the second world war and even from the Civil War about brothers who have died in combat.... What first attracted me to the story was its obvious human interest. This was a mission of mercy, not the charge up San Juan Hill. At its core, it is also a morality play. I was intrigued with what makes any of these working-class guys heroes. I think when we fight, war is no longer about a greater good but becomes intensely personal. Kids in combat are simply fighting to survive, fighting to save the guys next to them.... When they became heroes it wasn't because they wanted to be like John Wayne, it was because they were
not thinking at all. They were acting instinctively, from the gut. These dogfaces who freed the world were a bunch of decent guys. It's their story that now should be told.
Could we get any more pro-establishment? This man is claiming to make an anti-war film, but essentially tells us that the elite make decisions to "free the world" and they send the unthinking grunts (openly said by him to be the proletariat) off to do the fighting. They don't think about what's going on, they only try to survive. Could this have been any more pleasing to the government? No wonder Steve gets to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom! Churning out more parts of the Why We Fight series has to please the Pentagon.
In this respect, we can contrast it to TTRL, which was truly anti-war in that it was anti-military. Like the kid who constantly deserts. Or, Captain Staros, the untrained grunt who makes the call on his own, and comes in contrast with the Lt Colonel. That's even further exploded as the latter is himself acting like such a prick because of his need to get a promotion and his conflict with the command.
Another contrast is in how the "war as hell" idea is presented. In TTRL, it is never as glorified as in SPR. In SPR, we have the patriotic music, the death of our hero at the end while saving his men, the re-assuring epilogue where we realize all is right and it was worth it. TTRL is devoid of that. Death is far more cruel and meaningless. We have no "well, it was all worth it" speech. Instead, we have the the next captain preparing his men for what's going to be going on (Guadalcanal is never taken in the film).
As a straight ahead piece of entertainment, I would prefer SPR. TTRL is very poorly paced, and some of the dialogue (particularly the voiceovers) are tilted. But movies are not entertainment, they're art. That's why, to me, TTRL is far superior. The Thin Red Line is an All Quite on the Western Front for the modern day. Saving Private Ryan is a Sands of Iwo Jima for the modern day.
------------------
"I'm so happy cause today I found my friends. They're in my head." - Kurt Cobain
Lithium, Nirvana
Er. why? Historically, things like that DO happen. Frequently. One guy makes a decision not to kill someone, who later beats up on his side. George Washington is an example. A Brit had him in his sights early on during the revolution, but didn't shoot him. And the new US won a war. Would you be upset if they showed that fact in a movie about the Revolutionary War?
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
In your movie, the point that scene should express is:
Show no mercy, people are scum.
Now, that may work for you. But it doesn't for me. Particularly since the further thought is, well, the Germans did it. "We showed mercy to the enemy, the enemy payed us back with bullets." Now, sure, that's great when you consider we're bombing the hell out of the Iraqis and Serbs. But that's why when a director becomes more concerned with getting an invitation to the White House than making art, he should retire.
------------------
"I'm so happy cause today I found my friends. They're in my head." - Kurt Cobain
Lithium, Nirvana
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
That is an anti-war movie. Not "Hey, wasn't that bloody?"
------------------
"She's just as bored as me." - Kurt Cobain
Polly, Nirvana
However, the film is ultimately about redemption. Rather than hold the cynical view of the mission, Miller looks at the task at hand as a way to redeem not only himself but those around him. For in war, some sort of redemption is necessary for the things done, even in the name of freedom.
Miller knows that and wonders about what he has become in juxtaposition to his past rather idyllic life. In war no one comes away clean. No matter which side you are on. That is seen clearly in the scenes showing the Americans shooting unarmed German soldats.
Miller address this redemption both during the Steamboat Willie scene and during the transending scene in the movie, in the church at night. The squad talks about innocents killed, about the fear at what they are becoming, and the death that may lay ahead.
But back to motivation. What makes a man walk into an area where men are waiting to kill him? SPR addresses motivation better than any other film that I can think of. I would say The Red Badge of Courage, but the filmed versions never quite equaled the book in regard to Henry's transending fear to stan in front of people trying to kill him.
As to realism, I think SPR goes beyond the war is hell gig. Violence in movies can serve a purpose. War can never truley be mirrored on the movie screen, but films like SPR do a remarkable job of it. Generations need to be reminded of how horrifying war is and rather than throwing kids in front of guns, film can be a way to do that. The other film that comes to mind the matches the level of realism appraoched by SPR is Das Boot (1981) (The Boat).
In a very real way SPR is a direct answer to the films of the Reagan 80's (Rambo and the Missing in Action flicks) where millions of bullets were sprayed across the screen and only the evil Russian or Vietnamese stereotypes get killed. There are no real consequences to the violence. The antithesis to the characters in SPR and Das Boot are Chuck Norris' Braddock and Sylvester Stallone's Rambo were represent the Reagan era's wanting to win the Vietnam war on-screen.
------------------
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts, and plagues and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing...well I say "Hard Cheese"!
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 17, 2000).]
For a good movie about why men fight, I think one need look no further than Platoon. Charlie Sheen's character (whose name escapes me) goes over to Nam for a reason. I may have forgotten it, but did we even have a discussion of the war? Keep in mind, these men were all suitably brainwashed prior. Frank Capra, anyone? Now, granted, the American fighting man was inferior to the Russian fighting man, who used to shout "For Stalin and Motherland!" while going into battle. But I still cannot believe that all those guys were fighting for was to stay alive. What's more frustrating is that the movie hints at that (revenge, the Jew thing for the Jew, etc) but never actually explores it. It's far too concerned with the matter of Saving Private Ryan then why they're there in the first place.
------------------
"She's just as bored as me." - Kurt Cobain
Polly, Nirvana