By Unmutual

 1 comments

This may suddenly strike you as a wilful act of defiance in light of the weekend's lecture, but I assure you I've had this bubbling under for a while before. Which is why I objected so loudly to the suggestion that watching war films is somehow a dirty activity - it offended the core of my very being. Naturally.

So tune up the audio for the first part of a series of excellent movie recommendations (probably about 3 mini-episodes, although probably I'll post one and then get bored. Twas meant to be video, but if you've ever tried to edit video, then you'll know what a frustrating process it is then you'll sympathise with me giving up) to discover what's made the cut.

For this first episode, I'll be promoting 4 of my favourite war films, regardless of period or placing to get you in the mood. If you like the sound of any of them, and it'd make my day if you did, all you have to do is ask to borrow them...


And if you were sold on Grant's comments at the IWM, keep reading for my defence of the war film...


Folks, do any of you enjoy murder mysteries? Action movies? Anything with sex or death? Yeh, they might not be based on actual events, but for every Poirot about a man clubbed to death with an antique vase, I can find you a real life incident. And while it might not be bad to see a fictional story about X, it is at some level based on fact. One of the strands of “In America” focuses on the grief of parents who have lost a child. Of course, it’s not based on a particular true story. But that doesn’t mean that feeling isn’t universal, and there are many out there who are dealing with it at this very moment. Even within far-out fantasy like Lord Of The Rings big themes can be found – losing friends, the struggle to do what is right.

This isn’t wrong. I can’t think of a single film that isn’t about humanity. Even “Watership Down” tells us more about men than bunnies. War happens. So does murder. So does rape and torture and ballroom dancing. If we were to say just because these actions are wrong in real life, we cannot show them on screen for fear of offending, then we’ve just destroyed half of the world’s fiction. Name me a film without a single piece of bad behaviour and I’ll give you a cookie. Even Bambi starts with violence. The fear of death is something none of us can get away from. Clint Eastwood says this of murder in Unforgiven: “you take away all a man has, and all he’s going to have”, which is a ponced up way of saying death is a very bad thing. Films allow us a safe environment to explore ideas and concepts we can’t comprehend from our couches – if a film can give you half the experience of war, it is no less important than the experience of loss or grief, or of joy, felt in films such as “Big Fish”.

The difference is that these events are all ultimately fictional while World War 2 is real. But you're following fictional characters, and herein lies the crux: the war is used as a backdrop for a fictional story, in the same way that the post-9/11 climate of fear keeps impacting films made today. I don’t just mean “United 93” or “World Trade Center”. I mean things like “Munich” – ostensibly about the Black September massacre back in the 60s, but actually trying to make a point about the way governments react to terrorism. A lingering shot of the still-standing towers just pummels the message in case you missed it. Is it wrong for “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” to be set against the Black Death, or “The Fountain” to figure Spanish politics as a backdrop to its outlandish plots? In fact, if you’re going to get itchy about war movies, surely you should frown on the films following real characters more than the fictional ones. “A Very Long Engagement” follows some characters a long way from the action of a World War (blow me, I can’t remember which one!), which merely sets up the situation for some fictional adventures. This is as defensible as Saving Private Ryan, which put its fictional characters right in the middle of the war. The war is no less a of a backdrop, the characters no less real than all the girlfriends left behind.

There’s a good book called Shocking Entertainment about how audiences respond to movie violence. It analyses a lot of interesting information and comes up with a very simple solution: “Real violence is not entertaining. Film violence is.” Hold that thought.

Saving Private Ryan was violent enough to warrant an 18 certificate, but the BBFC passed it as 15 because the violence wasn’t gratuitous or exploitative – you’re not meant to enjoy it, and when heads explode you go “ew!” instead of “cool!” Violence, shown as a very very bad thing. Surely anyone who has experienced it would praise that approach, instead of (say) the Matrix – which glorifies civilian massacres and presents gunfire with almost no consequences. The Agents always survive. The heroes are nigh-on unstoppable. If anything is being sick, it’s these action films which show violence as victimless. The Matrix = film violence = not entertaining. SPR = highly realistic violence = not entertaining. Veterans can disapprove of the attempt to immerse the audience in their experience, but the uber-realistic style makes the audience squirm instead of going “lets go kick the Krauts yeah!”.

According to lecturer no. 2, the veterans disapproval stemmed from conveying the true experience of war – it’s not right, they say. Why not? So now all our fiction must be hammed and glorified? We can’t show grieving parents, because it’s not right to attempt to show their sadness? We can’t show people dying, because there is no way it’ll equal the real thing? It would have been a crime to doll the war up as a whale of a time, invite coos of bloodlust instead of sheer horror?

I’m going to be honest – I like violent films. “The Killer” – amaaaazing film! You should see Chow Yun Fat armed with two .45s, taking out a whole army of rival gangsters. Cinematic violence can be very exciting – just watch any James Bond film. Explosions! Car chases! Gun fights! Please reassure me I’m not a psycho – tell me you feel the thrill sometimes. Anyone here seen “Hot Fuzz”? Don’t you just love the end? Now of course, being in the middle of a gunfight feels nothing like “Hot Fuzz” or “The Killer”. It feels like “Saving Private Ryan”. Yet this is what veterans object to – the attempted realism. Would they have preferred the “Hot Fuzz” approach?

Even though I personally disliked it for lots of picky pretentious cinema buff reasons, I stand by my recommendation of Saving Private Ryan. I’m not saying those few vets are wrong to find it sick – they went through hell, I didn’t. I only saw the movie. But looking at the wider picture, condemning realistic war films has a far wider impact – on every film about life. You would be sick to enjoy it the same way you do “Star Wars”, which is where the realism is so damn vital – not gratuitous, not exploitative, just very very hard to watch. It is never disrespectful, and if it conveys a tenth of the terror on Omaha beach, then it stands as a worthy tribute to any man brave enough to get out of his boat.