War on Film
Matt Steinglass at Democracy in America makes a good contribution to the debate over Iraq war movies:
No doubt there were many supporters of America’s war in Vietnam who found the 1974 documentary masterpiece “Hearts and Minds” unwatchable left-wing propaganda, who hated “M*A*S*H” and “Apocalypse Now”.
This is related to what I was saying in two previous posts. It is unlikely that making films about highly controversial, polarizing wars is going to be anything other than polarizing for both supporters and opponents of the war. It is even more unlikely that there are going to be filmmakers interested in making a film about a war they opposed in such a way that it treats architects of the war sympathetically. If the war in question is still going on, and the war’s loudest supporters are engaging in a lot of triumphalist rhetoric about how they were right all along, that is hardly the time when one can expect antiwar filmmakers to investigate the complex motivations of the war’s architects.
There are some brilliant war movies and brilliant movies set during wartime that are heavily politicized and one-sided in their treatment of the war. Some of the best war movies are not at all sympathetic to the war they are depicting or the leaders responsible for the war. These movies nonetheless explore the humanity of the characters, usually the soldiers fighting in the war, extremely well. Grand Illusion and All Quiet on the Western Front are obvious choices, but for me the finest war movie, and my favorite film of all time, has to be Breaker Morant.
Breaker Morant is not entirely an anti-British movie, but it is directed by Bruce Beresford, an Australian director whose work conveys his anger at what the Empire required of and did to Australians (see also Gallipoli). Despite being set during a completely unjust, imperialist war against the Afrikaner republics, it does not try to valorize the Boers. Indeed, it works very hard at avoiding valorization of any kind. Breaker Morant certainly makes no pretense that the conquest of the republics was anything other than a seizure of land and resources, and near the end Harry Morant pronounced the entire enterprise a “bad cause.” It presents Lord Kitchener as no more and no less than what he was: a British imperialist and military officer who put the concerns of high politics above ethical considerations. The film portrays very powerfully how men in the ranks will be used and cast aside as it suits the government they serve, and it shows how there will often be no accountability for higher-ups for the excesses dictated by the policies ordinary soldiers are forced to carry out. There is certainly no clean divide between good and evil in the way it depicts the war, but it doesn’t pretend that the war was anything other than a destructive and wasteful disaster that didn’t have to happen.
I admire Braker Morant as well, but the oft repeated Australian complaint of being used as cannon fodder by the plummy English is clearly the driving plot. Senior British officers are depicted with all the depth and subtlety you would expect in a Mel Gibson movie.
I’ve read rather good defenses of British conduct at Gallipoli vis a vis Australian casualties. Whatever the facts of individual cases, the Aussies make to much of this theme and it became tiresome long ago. Your greater point stands of course, soldiers in the service of empire are put in morally precarious positions. But then soldiers fighting in defensive wars face many of the same moral problems.
The tragedy of the Boer War In my opinion is that the Brit’s were afraid that Imperial Germany would ally with the Boers and present a danger to British African imperial plans. While German public opinion was in favor of just that, the Kaiser never followed through, apart from some arms sales.
I suppose if the Greeks could depict the Persians as worthy of pity in plays, we can get some good out of war movies, but movies are no substitute for written History and biography any more than comic books can substitute for literature.
I suppose it doesn’t count as a “war movie,” per se, but “Dr. Strangelove” is of course one of the greatest American films of all time, and it certainly takes on a certain group of leaders who existed then — and who it (somewhat correctly) predicted would come later — and yet it is almost entirely one-sided in its ideological foundation.
As to the above, “I suppose if the Greeks could depict the Persians as worthy of pity in plays, we can get some good out of war movies, but movies are no substitute for written History and biography any more than comic books can substitute for literature”: This is a terrible analogy and a terrible sentiment at the same time. Movies to History and Comic Books to Literature doesn’t wash; you should, I suppose, have said “any more than literature can substitute for journalism,” or something to that effect, yet there are plenty of instances where this simply isn’t the case. No, of course a movie isn’t a substitute for history, and they are hardly ever intended to be. No one will ever mistake Oliver Stone’s “W” or “JFK” to be actual, fact-by-fact recountings of history, unless he is a really stupid person.
R. Justin, I have in fact met people who in the middle of discussing the Indo-China War asked me, “Haven’t you seen Platoon”? My analogy may be crude but my point is that many people really do form their world views via movies, comic books, documentaries on TV etc. Ask any serious historian what he thinks about what appears on The History Channel. Even an amateur like myself can’t help laughing at the conveyor belt of inaccuracies and falsehoods rolled out by the History Channel on an hourly basis. And this is the font my friend, that our fellow citizens imbibe in before trotting of to the polls.
As to, “No, of course a movie isn’t a substitute for history, and they are hardly ever intended to be.” Is this you’re experience? It seems to me that almost all of Oliver Stone’s movies are attempts at left counter-factual history propaganda. Do you think that the recent History channel Howard Zinn-a-thon was an exercise in objective historical analysis? I think not. The people who promote this none sense do so, precisely so that their moronic beliefs will take hold among the public.
The flip side of noting the dangers of taking fiction as your source for understanding historical events, is to recognise that much the same is in fact generally true of historical accounts themselves (differing usually only in degree).
As my first two exhibits in support of this point, I would put forward the absurdity of uncritically reading the neocon Victor Davis Hanson or the Marxist Eric Hobsbawm and expecting to get at the truth without a very informed and cautious accounting for the personal bias of the writer. This is true notwithstanding the very real merits of both as thinkers and writers. You can learn a lot from them (Hanson’s Western Way of War was a great iconoclastic masterpiece in its time), but caution is indispensable.
The same applies to less ideologically extreme historians.
I agree that Breaker Morant is one of the all-time great war films – one of my favourites. At the moment I also particularly like the 1998 film The Beast (aka The Beast of War). Not because it’s a particularly great film in itself, but because of the way it hilariously illustrates the reversal of popular American attitudes towards the Afghan resistance.
Imagine releasing The Beast into mainstream US cinemas today!
Gordianus: “Senior British officers are depicted with all the depth and subtlety you would expect in a Mel Gibson movie.”
I disagree with this point, quite strongly. Mel Gibson’s “historical” films are simplistic propaganda with the kind of childish “black and white” stereotyping of characters that you would expect in such material (like, say, “24″).
In “Breaker Morant”, on the other hand, the British senior officers are portrayed with relative subtlety and probable accuracy. Mr Larison gets it right, imo, when he writes of its portrayal of Kitchener that it shows him: “as no more and no less than what he was: a British imperialist and military officer who put the concerns of high politics above ethical considerations”. The other senior officers do the same, with the added corruption of loyalty to the chain of command and to their class and their institution.
Senior US military men are undoubtedly doing similar deeds as we speak, for much the same reasons.
…who put the concerns of high politics above ethical considerations.
This is the nut.
Politicians almost always put the concerns of high politics above ethical, or moral, considerations. It is why government expression is almost always mere propaganda.
Historians and artists try to conform their expressions to what actually is. When they give service to anything else, in particular politics, their trade is propaganda.
A few points:
1 — The goals of the filmmaker and the historian, if not entirely opposite, are at least at a 90-degree angle from each other. The filmmaker is rewarded for how exciting he makes his story; the historian is rewarded for how persuasively he treats his subject. There really is no incentive for a mainstream war movie to color its protagonists and antagonists in shades of gray; and a historian who tarts up his subject with fancy is in for a world of ridicule.
2 — Gordianus tells an odd story. He meets people who think citing “Platoon” constitutes a useful debating point about Vietnam? Really? And he thinks people are misled by History Channel pap when he says, “Even an amateur like myself can’t help laughing at the conveyor belt of inaccuracies and falsehoods rolled out by the History Channel on an hourly basis.” Gordo, if you’re watching the History Channel hourly, I’d say its shows are doing a very good job of what they intend.
3 — I think the lament from conservative columnists that there are no great Iraq War II movies has to do with there isn’t an Iraq equivalent of “The Great Escape,” “Sink the Bismark!” “Bridge on the River Kwai” feel-good-tribute-to-our-boys’-grit movie – even though there are ample genuine examples of real heroism by our grunts on the ground. (Their leaders, not so much.) “Hurt Locker” ain’t a bad start in this genre, but to make a feel-good war movie (as opposed to the more complex “Grand Illusion” – “Paths of Glory” type) you pretty much have to start with a war most folks are proud of waging.
On the other hand, sometimes people dislike a movie because it sucks. M*A*S*H would be a good example of that. It has some moments of very broad, almost slapstick humor, but it is shockingly unfunny for the most part. It is arrogantly irreverent, but that’s not the same thing. The alleged comedy of the story is really defined by the scene where Frank Burns is teaching a young Korean boy to read English by using the Bible and that act alone is supposed to define Burns as deserving of mockery and abuse.
Mike
I prefer Malick’s “Thin Red Line” over every other war film I have seen. It is the only “war-film” I know of that is a study of interior life primarily. If you’re open to that narrative approach, the sounds and images of war which surround you can deeply impact the psyche well beyond the closing credits. Not necessarily in the sense that “war is bad and tragic and unnecessary”; more by focusing on the change in “life awareness” a man may face in the moment Death is facing him. The use of several internal narratives prevents there being a “story” central to any particular protagonist. The viewing experience is both very personal and universal as far as what it means to be a human being thrown into the extremes of life experiences (in this case intense, sporadic violence). In the throes of war, man is at war with his own nature. We have an inner life, and yet we are under obligation, actually a job description, to outwardly project a life entirely different while wearing those dog tags.
Joe Branca, The Thin Red Line is also my favorite war film of recent years and perhaps, with you, of all time. I only served in a blue uniform but I particularly like Malik’s ability to transmit the state of grinding anxiety and unreality that dangerous situations impart when prolonged. Paths of Glory was also superb. The Key is also a fine war film and is often overlooked in this category. Hanoi Hilton was pretty good as I recall.
Randal, I an only agree with your point about the need for discretion in what historical works you read. Hobsbawm, Hanson, Zinn et al clearly put their acumen at the service of ideology. Many historians have favorite hobby horses. The only way through this in my view, is to avoid popular histories and stick to scholars who cite primary sources while admitting differing interpretations with other scholars.
But surely, any reasonable book is superior to film. Films are entirely constructed within the mind of directors. They can mimic reality or they can present a wholly fictitious universe that has internal coherence but is a lie from beginning to end. The late Malcolm Muggerige said “The Camera always lies.” If you consider the ability of the photographer or director to edit out of what you see anything not useful to his story line, you get his point.
As to the depiction of British officers, the officers I remember in Breaker Morant were the same arch, unfeeling snobs that they always are in Australian films. If they seem accurate to you, so be it. The fact that they were serving an empire seems entirely beside the point to me.
Is The Beast that Turkish film depicting American villainy in Iraq? I’ve never seen it but would like to.
Beej, You’re free to doubt my Platoon as History story if that is your choice. Have you ever worked on a political campaign, dealing directly with the public? I suspect that if you had, you will have many similar stories yourself. Who was it who first said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.”
You fantasy of me watching the History Channel for hours is not worthy of a reply.
Gordianus:
“Is The Beast that Turkish film depicting American villainy in Iraq? I’ve never seen it but would like to.”
I think you are thinking of “Valley of the Wolves”. I’d like to see that, too. Probably not an especially high quality film, but at least it’s refreshing to see things from the other perspective for a change.
The Beast is a American film, set during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Tells a story about a T-62 (iirc) and crew separated from its unit and trying to get away from some irate Afghans. Entertaining stuff and, as I indicated above, it’s amusing today to see Pashtun resistance fighters portrayed as the good guys by Hollywood.
“As to the depiction of British officers, the officers I remember in Breaker Morant were the same arch, unfeeling snobs that they always are in Australian films. If they seem accurate to you, so be it. The fact that they were serving an empire seems entirely beside the point to me. ”
I think the motivations and behaviours of the British officers in the film are plausible (the “arch, unfeeling snob” aspect is a reasonable portrayal of the way the prevailing cultural mores within the British upper class at that time will inevitably be interpreted by the modern eye).
“But surely, any reasonable book is superior to film. Films are entirely constructed within the mind of directors.”
True. And film has the added problem that it is unduly convincing to the unguarded human eye (“seeing is believing”).
The danger from history books and even academic studies is more subtle – the seductive persuasion of apparent authority.
In the end there is no wholly reliable source of information — diversity of source, caution and general scepticism are our best allies, I think.
Randal. You are absolutely right. The Turkish film is the Valley of the Wolves. And now that you mention it, I have actually seen The Beast on television years ago. What can I say? Memory corrodes with age. I remember that the tank commander “Tank Boy” went on to portray a detective on television for some years afterwards.
In the eighties the Afghans were our allies against the Soviets. Too bad Americans always mistake allies for friends. They got what the wanted, freedom from the Soviets. We got what we wanted, a costly drain on Soviet manpower and capital. Now we are waisting our time trying to pacify the same people. Pure idiocy.
Films like The Beast, Eleni, Hanoi Hilton and other films putting Commies in a bad light never ran in my area, or if they did, appeared for a few nanoseconds before being withdrawn in favor of the usual stuff. Hollywood made little secret of what side it was on in the final years of the Cold War.
“In the end there is no wholly reliable source of information — diversity of source, caution and general skepticism are our best allies, I think.” Amen.
Ooops! that should have been “Wasting.”