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



## McG (8 Feb 2014)

> *How soon is too soon to make movies about a war?*
> Finlo Rohrer
> BBC News Magazine
> 07 February 2014
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26030435


----------



## Pusser (8 Feb 2014)

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.


----------



## jasonjason (22 Mar 2014)

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’


----------



## dimsum (23 Mar 2014)

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.)


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2014)

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.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2014)

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"


----------



## Hisoyaki (30 Mar 2014)

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.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Mar 2014)

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.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 May 2016)

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.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 May 2016)

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.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 May 2016)

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!


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 May 2016)

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.


----------



## Red 6 (5 Jul 2016)

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.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2016)

Tunes of Glory - brilliant film.  Another of the era (60's production) is The Sand Pebbles.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jul 2016)

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.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jul 2016)

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....


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2016)

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


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jul 2016)

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.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2016)

True that.


----------



## OrganishChemiker (28 Jul 2016)

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.


----------

