| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| What accounts for Hollywoods failure to capture the reality of war? |
| 2007-09-30 |
| Jules Crittenden Despite Hollywood's best efforts, it just can't get war right. Filmdom's fiery-eyed zealots have never quite managed to fake the 1,000-yard stare. The point has been underscored this week by "The War," a documentary that for all its shortcomings has performed a great service, bringing to light previously unseen combat footage. That footage demonstrates what combat veterans and combat photographers know, but many filmmakers and ordinary Americans, innocent of that variety of carnal knowledge, do not appear to fully grasp. The most extraordinary things can be quite ordinary, the most unbelievable events playing out in matter-of-fact fashion. Without drama. Without irony. War, the stuff of the world's greatest drama, is in fact very hard to film, as any combat cameraman can tell you. To do it effectively is to put yourself in a position where you very likely will be killed. To capture any of the drama you expect war to have, you have to capture the faces. And if you are successful, what you see then is often a void. An evocative, soul-chilling nothingness. Hollywood's longstanding failure to capture the reality of war is in part anchored in Hollywood's tiresome, anti-American, multicultural agenda, but goes beyond that. Hollywood came closest when it dispensed with moral lessons and just tried to be faithful to reality with docudrama "Band of Brothers," safe territory deep in the heart of the Good War. A brief faithfulness to recorded reality that allowed Hollywood to explore the practical, ground-level execution and experience of war. Another rare departure from Hollywood's typical moralism was "We Were Soldiers," on the horrific battles of the Ia Drang in 1965, that attempts to understand the fighting spirit of professional soldiers. (Actual survivors of near massacres there consider themselves victors, tragically, deeply wounded though they were by their experience. They held their ground, giving better than they got. Despite their pain, the stuff of Hollywood epics, they understand the fundamentals of the execution of war.) Hollywood's moralistic monkey has climbed back up on its shoulder with "Flags of Our Fathers," an attempt to tell the story of Iwo Jima without telling the story of Iwo Jima, paradoxically attempting to underscore the heroism of Iwo by pointing out how it was used for propaganda purposes, in effect diminishing the heroism and sacrifice of the Marines at Iwo by reducing it to a propaganda exercise. That was followed quickly by an odd exercise in political correctness, "Letters from Iwo Jima," which through the eyes of that rarest of Japanese soldiers on Iwo -- one that wanted to live -- spins a tale of meaningless, futile sacrifice in war that, with its ennobling of the Japanese commander, paradoxically seeks meaning and exalts sacrifice in the futile effort to make futile sacrifice meaningful. . . . Go read the rest of it. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #15 FYI Zen, you just pegged my one of my 5 favorite movies of all time. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-30 23:32 |
| #14 Oh, and we don't want to address the new information gleaned from the recently declassified Japanese diplomatic traffic which indicated that the consulates were reporting they were making contacts in the Japanese communities along the west coast, home of around 90% of the American military aircraft production based in Seattle and LA at the start of the war. P2k, do you have a link to that information? It sure would provide some historical context for considering the internment of America's Muslim population. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-30 19:48 |
| #13 The only reason that Hollywood made good war movies during WWII is that the US was allied with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. Hollywood was filled with Communists who did their utmost to rally the American people to save Uncle Joe. When the Communists became the enemy, their hearts just weren't in it any more. Their loyalties were with the other side. When Communism collapsed, all that was left for the denizens of Hollywood was a lingering anti-Americanism. You can't make a good war movie when you despise the US, despise the troops, and despise the American way of life. My contempt for the Hollywood crowd was formed during the VietNam years and will probably last as long as I live. The drugged-out, narcissistic, self-righteous, effete, anti-American, and basically ignorant scum that populate Hollywood don't realize that if the US were to fall to her enemies, they would be among the first to lose their heads. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-09-30 18:33 |
| #12 "The War," a documentary that for all its shortcomings.. Largely made due to the political environment of our times. Call me a nit picker. However, Mr. Burns needs to recheck the record. Morocco and Algeria were not occupied by Germans. Neither was southern France. Vichy France was neutral. American maintained diplomatic relations with Vichy. Without any Congressional authorization or declaration of war, Mr. Roosevelt invaded the territory of a neutral country. We invaded without real warning. We killed Frenchmen defending their territory, long before we could drive across North Africa to reach the Jerries. If you want to bring out the dirty/real side of the war, why cover that fact up? Oh, because it would indeed have play today. Oh, and we don't want to address the new information gleaned from the recently declassified Japanese diplomatic traffic which indicated that the consulates were reporting they were making contacts in the Japanese communities along the west coast, home of around 90% of the American military aircraft production based in Seattle and LA at the start of the war. No, no. No need to introduce such drivel, right? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-30 17:46 |
| #11 "What accounts for They're on the other side. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-09-30 17:17 |
| #10 Hollywood is about make-believe. They are not good at reality. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-30 16:56 |
| #9 Another problem is that drama requires that the story be structured a certain way, with specific twists and turns leading to a climax. Once again real battles rarely follow Hollywood's needs. Great analysis, Frozen Al. Anyone who doubts this need only read T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and then compare it to David Lean's admittedly spectacular movie, "Lawrence of Arabia". It would be a kindness to say that the movie's timeline has no bearing in reality. Yet, "Lawrence of Arabia" remains one of the finest films ever made. Three Academy Award nominations and SEVEN Oscars amply attest to that. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-30 16:06 |
| #8 The problem for Hollywood is that modern warfare requires teamwork and the epic dramas of fiction rely on heros and villains. Preferably there should be one of each. Reality rarely co-operates with the writer. For example Spielberg, in "Schindler's List", consolidated several people who helped Schindler into one character to help simplify the plot. Another problem is that drama requires that the story be structured a certain way, with specific twists and turns leading to a climax. Once again real battles rarely follow Hollywood's needs. The best war movies were made in the twenty years after WWII. Most of the writers, directors etc had served during the war, and so had alot of the audience. Once the WWII generation had retired from film-making, the new generation of film-makers was left with epic stories that they'd learned in school. To this was added the usual crap from Viet Nam (which is really just an update of the anti-war stories told after WWI). The net effect is an attempt to stuff war stories into a structure the stopped being realistic once Knights in armor left the battlefield. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-09-30 14:52 |
| #7 > You mean they do manage to campure the realities of other phenomena? They seem to do gay cowboy sex well. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-09-30 14:51 |
| #6 You mean they do manage to campure the realities of other phenomena? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-09-30 14:44 |
| #5 What accounts for Hollywoods failure to capture the reality of war? It's icky. What's more, understanding why wars are fought and how they're won requires something more than the demagnetized moral compass that passes for today's Hollywood mentality. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-30 14:21 |
| #4 We Were Soldiers was an excellent flick, but I think Mel Gibson financed most of it himself, probably with his Braveheart $. Tears of the Sun with Bruce Willis was another good flick, with honorable US military represented |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-30 13:55 |
| #3 Hollywood because there are no more patriots like John Ford or Raoul Walsh nor former soldiers like Samuel Fuller (who was in D-Day) only rich white kids like Hanoi Fonda. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-09-30 13:41 |
| #2 Would that they were liberals. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-30 11:34 |
| #1 Hoolywood doesnt get it because Hollywood is run by liberal elites, and staffed by liberal effetes. Unlike the Lee Marvin generation, few if any even know anyone who has served, and even fewer have served in the military, much less in combat. Not to mention that its all about look and feel, not about reality. So its no surprise that Hollywwod doesn't "get it", mainly because they do no "go there" and do not have the character and couage to do so.. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-30 11:06 |