Realism In War Films After Ww2
Extended Essay:
How has realism in war films developed since WW2, and what effect has this had on audiences?
Candidate name: Daniel Fairweather
Candidate number: 001851-0012
School name: Haut-Lac International Bilingual School
Supervisor: Barend Schweigman
Subject area: Film
Word Count: 3’334
Abstract:
The aim is to examine the role that realism plays in war films particularly post World War Two as this is seen as a key point in the progression in development of war films. It is a well-known fact that there have been many discussions about the reality behind Hollywood’s “realistic war films”, but the question isn’t to do about truth behind the films but what effects they impose on the viewers. So my question isn’t so much about …show more content…
what films seem to be accurate and realistic but what kind of emotions do these films create in their audiences.
This is a colossal topic as there are thousands of film that have been made claiming to show realism of war such as propaganda film produced by the US military to encourage men to join the fight all the way up to anti-war films and documentaries which are trying to demoralise fighting. The issue is finding what realism in films actually means as simple movements of a camera can alter the meaning of a situation.
My conclusion is that there is no such film which is 100% realistic as cameras, lights and scripted texts each falsify war in different ways. The use of professional actors is also another downfall as only soldiers who have experienced war know what emotion to portrait. In my point of view, the only way to get as close to the real thing is watch pure documentaries where there is one camera in a war zone filming real soldier, portraying real emotion, hence showing realism.
Words 261
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Table of contents 3
Development:
Early War Films 5 21st century war films 7
Conclusion 9
Introduction:
Realism in films has been an age long debate of how much of it to show. Censorship has prevented films and documentarists from showing the real thing for fear of horrifying the public. Only recently have producers and TV companies really started to show real footage where dramatic, gory scenes unfold. The makers of films generally tend to glorify their productions and this leads to the misperception of realism in war. The issue with showing the real thing is that it would a major problem for governments as there would be an increase in anti-war protests which would jeopardise military actions around the world.
The early war film such as Birth of a Nation, (1915) was seen as many as the start of war films, as it was a one in a kind film that showed soldiers fighting and dying. The film is obviously old so when compared to present day, the film leaves a completely different impression on the audience. And is what I will explore in this essay. I will investigate the development of war films and compare them to political events as well as the audience’s reactions. The essay will take into account all war films, whether they are documentaries of Hollywood productions, from as early as 1939 to present day, as this will give a clear timeline of development for war films.
Background:
“True realism consists in revealing the surprising things which habit keeps covered and prevents us from seeing.”1 Jean Cocteau, French poet, novelist, dramatist, designer, playwright, artist and filmmaker who dedicated his life to the arts. Just like the quote states, it is the act of reviling information which one would be prevented from seeing. This is specifically true for war films. Some of the most realistic war film are said to be the ones which show the reality of war. Not some censored drama. The idea of making a realistic war film is all to do with the experience the audience gets from the film. And if it’s a war film, this experience should be thrilling yet demoralizing at the same time.
So my question is, what is realism? Any standard definition will put it this way “interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.” 2but in addition to this, “the tendency to view or represent things as they really are”3. And this is what makes war films realistic. The capability of re-acting a battle or war and making it seem as real as possible with real looking actors as well as a real looking set. All minute details must be as they were when the battle took place. But even this does not guarantee that you will have a realistic looking film. It is important that you pay attention to the story. When films are retelling the story of soldiers in war, the biggest mistake is when they producers and directors over glorify the acts of these men, simply in order to have a better screening value. For the best war movies are the ones which show exactly what happened.
There are some movies which have set out to create a glorifying and heart pumping film, which follow no real historical value but there are also those who research even the smallest details of past battles and create a film out of its story. And in addition to this, we have documentaries which are supposed to show exactly what is happening. One thing that is very important to remember is who commissioned the film. This is one of the most important things as different producers will want different things out of the film. For example if the film were made by a government, you would expect the film to be pro-war film which shows the good side of war. However if it were a film company, there main interest would be to entertain the audience. And this is what film in general is about. All films set out to entertain and if done well, they usually have great success.
Another important thing to consider is that film has developed into a business whether it is commissioned by a producer or by the government the idea behind a film is either to make money or to influence society. As a result the producers who are interested in making money will make a film which entertains audiences as opposed to showing reality, and likewise for government commissioned films which set out purely to show the opposite of war. Or even glorifying war. It depends on who the target audience is and who’s paying for it. Having said this however now days, we tend to find less government commissioned films as people now know that what they show it their films is not the reality and this can be down to technology. With the development of portable phones, more and more footage is being released from current wars showing exactly what the soldiers see. We become part of the war. The footage from the portable camera tends to show “the real thing”. Or at least the closest recording of it.
Development:
Early War Films:
The early films which were made during the outbreak of the Second World War are incomparable with the war films that we see today. Early films depict very little real footage taken from battles and seem to portrait soldiers who are glorifying war. The reason for this is because the vast majority of these films were made solely for the purpose recruiting young men into the armed forces. As a result very little real footage of war was shown for the fear of horrifying the public. “Documentaries from the front were supposed to produce semblances of a war experience for civilians at home. In the first two years of fighting, however, the military command—partly for fear of espionage, and partly for disdain of the movies in general—was extremely hesitant to allow cameramen or photographers to shoot "the real thing." The ultimate medium for documenting visible reality could not be used to capture the action on the battlefields, for fear that it might reveal too much.”4 This is probably one of the main reasons why we are only just now starting to see real footage taken from conflicts across the world. The films that were made during the Second World War were purely made to persuade young men to join the army. These films were propaganda films and were generally commissioned by the US government. These films also showed the complete opposite and hence showed absolutely no realism. But back during the Second World War, many would argue that people didn’t want to see the real thing as they did not want to know how their sons and husbands were dying. Censorship allowed families to cope by giving them the feeling that their sons had died gloriously and honourably fighting for their country. But the reality was far from this.
The fact that the war had just come to an end didn’t make it any easier for the people at home. There was still a disregard for real filmmaking which showed the reality of war, but what there was plenty of glorifying films of soldiers who overcame all obstacles in order to win the war. But these films didn’t quite take into account the reality of war. Hausmann-Stokes, co-founder of Veterans in Film & Television once said that “Warfare is like 95 percent boredom punctuated by 5 percent chaos and terror, and they did a really good job of capturing that.”5 He says that the miniseries that were made by the company showed very little of the reality behind war and showed only the interesting parts of it. This also proves that there was a lack of truth when it came to showing war in cinemas. One could even say that these films were anti-war films. Meaning that there purpose was to demote war and hopefully prevent this from ever happening again.
“What we can say, fairly definitely, is that most of this pioneer footage tells us little about war as it was actually waged back then, and quite a lot about the enduring ingenuity of filmmakers. That is because almost all of it was either staged or faked, setting a template that was followed for years afterwards with varying degrees of success.”6 The problem was, that it was much easier and far more safer for cameramen to film on a set instead of doing it in an actual war zone. This meant that more and more production of war films were simply reproductions of what was supposed to be the real thing. “Nor were they the first to conclude that it was easier and safer to fake their footage—and that fraud in any case produced far more saleable results. Indeed, the early history of newsreel cinema is replete with examples of cameramen responding in precisely the same way to the same set of challenges. Pretty much the earliest “war” footage ever shot, in fact, was created in circumstances that broadly mirror those prevailing in Mexico.”7 This brought up another problem. Even if producers had wanted to show the real thing, they would have had to put their lives on the line and risk dying. Was this worth risking for a film. Many didn’t think so and as a result of this, there are still many films which are reproduced in sets. Having said this however, the pone of the first cameramen to actually film a conflict with a camera then went on to say,” I was able to get some real long-distance shots of the fighting, but the results were deeply disappointing, not least because real war bore little resemblance to the romantic visions of conflict held by the audiences of the earliest newsreels.” 8 As a result of this, No one really seemed to want to film the real thing as there wasn’t always a lot to film, there was a risk of death and like previously mentioned war only consisted of 5 percent action whilst the rest is sitting around trying to occupy yourself. More importantly when you consider that it was far cheaper and had greater results, it is no wonder why films were shot in sets and still are to this day.
21st Century:
As we learn more about the past and more importantly about past wars, we tend to make films or documentaries on them. Many films have used accurate descriptions of a battle and have tries to re-enact it to make it seem like the real thing. However very few directors have gone into as much detail as Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott who have gone into extreme detail about the smallest of things. In Saving Private Ryan (1998), Spielberg’s attention to detail is incredible as he looks at even the smallest events to try and make it seem realistic. On numerous occasions, small details such as dialog and hand jesters were examined from witnesses and then these were used to recreate the actual film.
The film goes down as one of the all-time best war films, and could even be said to be one of the most known war films for all of the good reasons. Spielberg’s attention to detail has a huge effect on the film as it really created a mood that the audience is part of the film. It becomes less entertainment and more reality. And this couldn’t be more apparent when Spielberg specifically asked for 30 men who had missing limbs to re-act the moments of the Omaha beach landings. He thought that if you wanted realism then you need to use realism. After all, who better to play a wounded soldier that’s missing an arm than an actual disabled person.
Compared to the past, modern day war films tend to include gore as one of its tools for making the audience interested in the film. It is used in nearly all war films and has been used to amplify the effects of war. The idea behind using special effects and makeup is nothing new however, only in recent years have directors and producers really started to show extremely shocking images which leave deep impressions on the audience. In the past, this would have been seen as immoral and wouldn’t have been allowed to reach audiences around the world, yet now we see these images and we want more. This is because we now see violence as the new sex. We are all used to seeing body parts fly across our screen and pools of blood on the floor but we don’t turn away when we see this. As time has passed, we are becoming more immune to the horrifying effects that we see in war films and younger generations with their violent first person shooters are becoming used to the idea of death and are seeing it wherever they look. The media in general has played a huge role in the spread of violent and shocking images and as long as people enjoy these images, producers will continue to use them.
One of the best ways to view realism on screen is to watch documentaries. Documentaries which are filmed using one camera in war torn areas with real soldiers where there is a real risk of death. These films are the ones which I personally find most interesting and inhumane. Restrepo (2010) is in my mind the closest film you will get to a war zone without actually being there. This documentary follows a platoon of soldiers who are based in Afghanistan in a valley that has claimed more British lives than anywhere else and uses a single camera to film the lives of the men who are fighting for their country. The reason why this documentary really stands out to me is simply due to the fact that there is very little editing and more importantly there is no censorship. The fact that we see death and more importantly the reactions from one of the soldiers really has a profound effect on the audience, and I remember feeling depression when I saw the scene. The brutality that is war is really shown in the death scene and it is almost hurtful to think that there is such violence in the world.
Later on in the documentary, when the soldiers come under fire at their OP, the camera captures something that can only be seen as immoral and inhumane.
The soldiers open fire on an enemy gunman but don’t feel remorse but become exited and laugh at how his body was torn up by machine gun fire. “Yeah, that mother fucker is done. Is he? Let me see. Yeah! You got a direct hit on that dude. That mother fucker is done. Yeah he’s done man. It was him running, then him blasting into pieces. There you go mother fucker.” This quote is taken from Restrepo in a scene where the soldiers are attacked by the Taliban. One of the soldiers then goes on to say “Fuck you bitches’!” 9All whilst pointing the middle finger in the direction of the enemy. In my point of view, this is really where you see the reality of war, mainly due to the fact that these men have not been censored and the fact that we can see that they are enjoying fighting and killing others really shows that censorship in recent years has gone down and we are starting to see more footage of what actually happens in war torn areas. The soldiers are shown as being immoral and not caring about the enemies that they are fighting against and more surprisingly the soldiers don’t become horrified of seeing gore. It is almost as if it is normal to them. They had become immune to the sight of blood and bodies. This doesn’t mean that the men have no morals, but what they see as wrong and right is far different to what we would expect living in a normal
society.
Having said all this, watching documentaries still isn’t the real thing .But then again, do we really want the real thing? Well at first thought many youths would say yes and would even say that they are used to the idea of it with their video games and war rein acting hobbies. But Samuel Fuller, war veteran and now director once said that “See, there 's no way you can portray war realistically, not in a movie nor in a book. You can only capture a very, very small aspect of it. If you really want to make readers understand”. This really shows that no matter how realistic something looks, it will never be the real thing and this is due to the fact that there isn’t a real risk of death for the audience member. Samuel Fuller then went on to say “For moviegoers to get the idea of real combat, you 'd have to shoot at them every so often from either side of the screen. The casualties in the theatre would be bad for business. Such reaching for reality in the name of art is against the law. Hell, the heavy human toll is just too much for anyone to comprehend fully. What I try to do is make audiences feel the emotional strife of total war.”10 This quote very simply sums up my question as it comes straight from a World War 2 veteran and therefore it is clear to me that there truly is no way to really experience war except for if it is a reproduction of a battle.
Conclusion:
The true experiences of war are something which cannot be experienced without actually being in war. They leave memories that will last a lifetime and no film is able to replicate these experiences. War films have come a very long way since the first war film called Tearing Down The Spanish Flag in 1898 which depicted of only a small sequence of a Spanish flag being lowered and replaced by an American substitute, and most importantly the development of realism has sparked new understandings and interests in this genre of film. The lift of censorship has allowed for more and more war re-enacting films to show more gruesome and gory shots. But this doesn’t mean realism. Realism in war films consists of much more than just gore and emotion and what it stands for can only be described by someone who has actually experienced war in some shape or form. For you cannot experience the real thing without having been in a realistic situation.
It is true that films are becoming more and more realistic with their multi-million dollar budgets and high end special effects but maybe the future of war films should be documentary based. Documentaries are meant to show nothing but realism and if done so properly in a war film could give semblance of the experience that war offers by putting us directly in the action. Breaking this 4th dimension, meaning involving us directly in the action would allow for a new understanding of war but more importantly would give us the semblance of actually experiencing it first-hand. Who knows, maybe in the future gamming and films will merge allowing us to have an even more realistic semblance of war. but until that moment it is wrong and unfair to say that you have experienced war simply from watching film and playing video games. This is down solely to the fact that there is no way and probably never will be a way to really experience the reality of war in film.
Bibliography:
Sites
http://members.jacksonville.com/entertainment/movies/2013-01-11/story/what-war-veterans-think-war-movies http://smithsonianmag.com/history/2012/11/the-early-history-of-faking-war-on-film/ http://smithsonianmag.com/history/2012/11/the-early-history-of-faking-war-on-film/
Films
Restrepo 2010, Tim Hetherington &Sebastian Junger.
Tearing down the Spanish flag 1898
Saving Private Ryan 1998, Steven Spielberg
The Big Red One.1980 Samuel Fuller
Band of Brother. 2001 Steven Spielberg
Platoon. 1986 Oliver Stone
Apocalypse Now. 1979 Francis Ford Cappola
The pacific. 2010 Steven Spielberg
Black Hawk Down. 2001 Ridley Scott
Books
-Frederic Villiers veteran and cameraman.
-A third face. My tale of writing, filmmaking and fighting. 2002 Alfred A knopf
-Cinema Studies. The key concepts. Third edition. Susan Hayward
-Celluloid Wars. A guide to film and the American experience of War. Frank j.Wetta and Stephen J. Curley.
-Brassey’s guide to war films.. Alun Evans
-History goes to the movies. Joseph Roquemore.
-Shell shock Cinema. Weimar Culture and the Wounds of War
How has realism in war films developed since WW2, and what effect has this had on audiences?
Candidate name: Daniel Fairweather
Candidate number: 001851-0012
School name: Haut-Lac International Bilingual School
Supervisor: Barend Schweigman
Subject area: Film
Word Count: 3’334
Abstract:
The aim is to examine the role that realism plays in war films particularly post World War Two as this is seen as a key point in the progression in development of war films. It is a well-known fact that there have been many discussions about the reality behind Hollywood’s “realistic war films”, but the question isn’t to do about truth behind the films but what effects they impose on the viewers. So my question isn’t so much about …show more content…
what films seem to be accurate and realistic but what kind of emotions do these films create in their audiences.
This is a colossal topic as there are thousands of film that have been made claiming to show realism of war such as propaganda film produced by the US military to encourage men to join the fight all the way up to anti-war films and documentaries which are trying to demoralise fighting. The issue is finding what realism in films actually means as simple movements of a camera can alter the meaning of a situation.
My conclusion is that there is no such film which is 100% realistic as cameras, lights and scripted texts each falsify war in different ways. The use of professional actors is also another downfall as only soldiers who have experienced war know what emotion to portrait. In my point of view, the only way to get as close to the real thing is watch pure documentaries where there is one camera in a war zone filming real soldier, portraying real emotion, hence showing realism.
Words 261
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Table of contents 3
Development:
Early War Films 5 21st century war films 7
Conclusion 9
Introduction:
Realism in films has been an age long debate of how much of it to show. Censorship has prevented films and documentarists from showing the real thing for fear of horrifying the public. Only recently have producers and TV companies really started to show real footage where dramatic, gory scenes unfold. The makers of films generally tend to glorify their productions and this leads to the misperception of realism in war. The issue with showing the real thing is that it would a major problem for governments as there would be an increase in anti-war protests which would jeopardise military actions around the world.
The early war film such as Birth of a Nation, (1915) was seen as many as the start of war films, as it was a one in a kind film that showed soldiers fighting and dying. The film is obviously old so when compared to present day, the film leaves a completely different impression on the audience. And is what I will explore in this essay. I will investigate the development of war films and compare them to political events as well as the audience’s reactions. The essay will take into account all war films, whether they are documentaries of Hollywood productions, from as early as 1939 to present day, as this will give a clear timeline of development for war films.
Background:
“True realism consists in revealing the surprising things which habit keeps covered and prevents us from seeing.”1 Jean Cocteau, French poet, novelist, dramatist, designer, playwright, artist and filmmaker who dedicated his life to the arts. Just like the quote states, it is the act of reviling information which one would be prevented from seeing. This is specifically true for war films. Some of the most realistic war film are said to be the ones which show the reality of war. Not some censored drama. The idea of making a realistic war film is all to do with the experience the audience gets from the film. And if it’s a war film, this experience should be thrilling yet demoralizing at the same time.
So my question is, what is realism? Any standard definition will put it this way “interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.” 2but in addition to this, “the tendency to view or represent things as they really are”3. And this is what makes war films realistic. The capability of re-acting a battle or war and making it seem as real as possible with real looking actors as well as a real looking set. All minute details must be as they were when the battle took place. But even this does not guarantee that you will have a realistic looking film. It is important that you pay attention to the story. When films are retelling the story of soldiers in war, the biggest mistake is when they producers and directors over glorify the acts of these men, simply in order to have a better screening value. For the best war movies are the ones which show exactly what happened.
There are some movies which have set out to create a glorifying and heart pumping film, which follow no real historical value but there are also those who research even the smallest details of past battles and create a film out of its story. And in addition to this, we have documentaries which are supposed to show exactly what is happening. One thing that is very important to remember is who commissioned the film. This is one of the most important things as different producers will want different things out of the film. For example if the film were made by a government, you would expect the film to be pro-war film which shows the good side of war. However if it were a film company, there main interest would be to entertain the audience. And this is what film in general is about. All films set out to entertain and if done well, they usually have great success.
Another important thing to consider is that film has developed into a business whether it is commissioned by a producer or by the government the idea behind a film is either to make money or to influence society. As a result the producers who are interested in making money will make a film which entertains audiences as opposed to showing reality, and likewise for government commissioned films which set out purely to show the opposite of war. Or even glorifying war. It depends on who the target audience is and who’s paying for it. Having said this however now days, we tend to find less government commissioned films as people now know that what they show it their films is not the reality and this can be down to technology. With the development of portable phones, more and more footage is being released from current wars showing exactly what the soldiers see. We become part of the war. The footage from the portable camera tends to show “the real thing”. Or at least the closest recording of it.
Development:
Early War Films:
The early films which were made during the outbreak of the Second World War are incomparable with the war films that we see today. Early films depict very little real footage taken from battles and seem to portrait soldiers who are glorifying war. The reason for this is because the vast majority of these films were made solely for the purpose recruiting young men into the armed forces. As a result very little real footage of war was shown for the fear of horrifying the public. “Documentaries from the front were supposed to produce semblances of a war experience for civilians at home. In the first two years of fighting, however, the military command—partly for fear of espionage, and partly for disdain of the movies in general—was extremely hesitant to allow cameramen or photographers to shoot "the real thing." The ultimate medium for documenting visible reality could not be used to capture the action on the battlefields, for fear that it might reveal too much.”4 This is probably one of the main reasons why we are only just now starting to see real footage taken from conflicts across the world. The films that were made during the Second World War were purely made to persuade young men to join the army. These films were propaganda films and were generally commissioned by the US government. These films also showed the complete opposite and hence showed absolutely no realism. But back during the Second World War, many would argue that people didn’t want to see the real thing as they did not want to know how their sons and husbands were dying. Censorship allowed families to cope by giving them the feeling that their sons had died gloriously and honourably fighting for their country. But the reality was far from this.
The fact that the war had just come to an end didn’t make it any easier for the people at home. There was still a disregard for real filmmaking which showed the reality of war, but what there was plenty of glorifying films of soldiers who overcame all obstacles in order to win the war. But these films didn’t quite take into account the reality of war. Hausmann-Stokes, co-founder of Veterans in Film & Television once said that “Warfare is like 95 percent boredom punctuated by 5 percent chaos and terror, and they did a really good job of capturing that.”5 He says that the miniseries that were made by the company showed very little of the reality behind war and showed only the interesting parts of it. This also proves that there was a lack of truth when it came to showing war in cinemas. One could even say that these films were anti-war films. Meaning that there purpose was to demote war and hopefully prevent this from ever happening again.
“What we can say, fairly definitely, is that most of this pioneer footage tells us little about war as it was actually waged back then, and quite a lot about the enduring ingenuity of filmmakers. That is because almost all of it was either staged or faked, setting a template that was followed for years afterwards with varying degrees of success.”6 The problem was, that it was much easier and far more safer for cameramen to film on a set instead of doing it in an actual war zone. This meant that more and more production of war films were simply reproductions of what was supposed to be the real thing. “Nor were they the first to conclude that it was easier and safer to fake their footage—and that fraud in any case produced far more saleable results. Indeed, the early history of newsreel cinema is replete with examples of cameramen responding in precisely the same way to the same set of challenges. Pretty much the earliest “war” footage ever shot, in fact, was created in circumstances that broadly mirror those prevailing in Mexico.”7 This brought up another problem. Even if producers had wanted to show the real thing, they would have had to put their lives on the line and risk dying. Was this worth risking for a film. Many didn’t think so and as a result of this, there are still many films which are reproduced in sets. Having said this however, the pone of the first cameramen to actually film a conflict with a camera then went on to say,” I was able to get some real long-distance shots of the fighting, but the results were deeply disappointing, not least because real war bore little resemblance to the romantic visions of conflict held by the audiences of the earliest newsreels.” 8 As a result of this, No one really seemed to want to film the real thing as there wasn’t always a lot to film, there was a risk of death and like previously mentioned war only consisted of 5 percent action whilst the rest is sitting around trying to occupy yourself. More importantly when you consider that it was far cheaper and had greater results, it is no wonder why films were shot in sets and still are to this day.
21st Century:
As we learn more about the past and more importantly about past wars, we tend to make films or documentaries on them. Many films have used accurate descriptions of a battle and have tries to re-enact it to make it seem like the real thing. However very few directors have gone into as much detail as Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott who have gone into extreme detail about the smallest of things. In Saving Private Ryan (1998), Spielberg’s attention to detail is incredible as he looks at even the smallest events to try and make it seem realistic. On numerous occasions, small details such as dialog and hand jesters were examined from witnesses and then these were used to recreate the actual film.
The film goes down as one of the all-time best war films, and could even be said to be one of the most known war films for all of the good reasons. Spielberg’s attention to detail has a huge effect on the film as it really created a mood that the audience is part of the film. It becomes less entertainment and more reality. And this couldn’t be more apparent when Spielberg specifically asked for 30 men who had missing limbs to re-act the moments of the Omaha beach landings. He thought that if you wanted realism then you need to use realism. After all, who better to play a wounded soldier that’s missing an arm than an actual disabled person.
Compared to the past, modern day war films tend to include gore as one of its tools for making the audience interested in the film. It is used in nearly all war films and has been used to amplify the effects of war. The idea behind using special effects and makeup is nothing new however, only in recent years have directors and producers really started to show extremely shocking images which leave deep impressions on the audience. In the past, this would have been seen as immoral and wouldn’t have been allowed to reach audiences around the world, yet now we see these images and we want more. This is because we now see violence as the new sex. We are all used to seeing body parts fly across our screen and pools of blood on the floor but we don’t turn away when we see this. As time has passed, we are becoming more immune to the horrifying effects that we see in war films and younger generations with their violent first person shooters are becoming used to the idea of death and are seeing it wherever they look. The media in general has played a huge role in the spread of violent and shocking images and as long as people enjoy these images, producers will continue to use them.
One of the best ways to view realism on screen is to watch documentaries. Documentaries which are filmed using one camera in war torn areas with real soldiers where there is a real risk of death. These films are the ones which I personally find most interesting and inhumane. Restrepo (2010) is in my mind the closest film you will get to a war zone without actually being there. This documentary follows a platoon of soldiers who are based in Afghanistan in a valley that has claimed more British lives than anywhere else and uses a single camera to film the lives of the men who are fighting for their country. The reason why this documentary really stands out to me is simply due to the fact that there is very little editing and more importantly there is no censorship. The fact that we see death and more importantly the reactions from one of the soldiers really has a profound effect on the audience, and I remember feeling depression when I saw the scene. The brutality that is war is really shown in the death scene and it is almost hurtful to think that there is such violence in the world.
Later on in the documentary, when the soldiers come under fire at their OP, the camera captures something that can only be seen as immoral and inhumane.
The soldiers open fire on an enemy gunman but don’t feel remorse but become exited and laugh at how his body was torn up by machine gun fire. “Yeah, that mother fucker is done. Is he? Let me see. Yeah! You got a direct hit on that dude. That mother fucker is done. Yeah he’s done man. It was him running, then him blasting into pieces. There you go mother fucker.” This quote is taken from Restrepo in a scene where the soldiers are attacked by the Taliban. One of the soldiers then goes on to say “Fuck you bitches’!” 9All whilst pointing the middle finger in the direction of the enemy. In my point of view, this is really where you see the reality of war, mainly due to the fact that these men have not been censored and the fact that we can see that they are enjoying fighting and killing others really shows that censorship in recent years has gone down and we are starting to see more footage of what actually happens in war torn areas. The soldiers are shown as being immoral and not caring about the enemies that they are fighting against and more surprisingly the soldiers don’t become horrified of seeing gore. It is almost as if it is normal to them. They had become immune to the sight of blood and bodies. This doesn’t mean that the men have no morals, but what they see as wrong and right is far different to what we would expect living in a normal
society.
Having said all this, watching documentaries still isn’t the real thing .But then again, do we really want the real thing? Well at first thought many youths would say yes and would even say that they are used to the idea of it with their video games and war rein acting hobbies. But Samuel Fuller, war veteran and now director once said that “See, there 's no way you can portray war realistically, not in a movie nor in a book. You can only capture a very, very small aspect of it. If you really want to make readers understand”. This really shows that no matter how realistic something looks, it will never be the real thing and this is due to the fact that there isn’t a real risk of death for the audience member. Samuel Fuller then went on to say “For moviegoers to get the idea of real combat, you 'd have to shoot at them every so often from either side of the screen. The casualties in the theatre would be bad for business. Such reaching for reality in the name of art is against the law. Hell, the heavy human toll is just too much for anyone to comprehend fully. What I try to do is make audiences feel the emotional strife of total war.”10 This quote very simply sums up my question as it comes straight from a World War 2 veteran and therefore it is clear to me that there truly is no way to really experience war except for if it is a reproduction of a battle.
Conclusion:
The true experiences of war are something which cannot be experienced without actually being in war. They leave memories that will last a lifetime and no film is able to replicate these experiences. War films have come a very long way since the first war film called Tearing Down The Spanish Flag in 1898 which depicted of only a small sequence of a Spanish flag being lowered and replaced by an American substitute, and most importantly the development of realism has sparked new understandings and interests in this genre of film. The lift of censorship has allowed for more and more war re-enacting films to show more gruesome and gory shots. But this doesn’t mean realism. Realism in war films consists of much more than just gore and emotion and what it stands for can only be described by someone who has actually experienced war in some shape or form. For you cannot experience the real thing without having been in a realistic situation.
It is true that films are becoming more and more realistic with their multi-million dollar budgets and high end special effects but maybe the future of war films should be documentary based. Documentaries are meant to show nothing but realism and if done so properly in a war film could give semblance of the experience that war offers by putting us directly in the action. Breaking this 4th dimension, meaning involving us directly in the action would allow for a new understanding of war but more importantly would give us the semblance of actually experiencing it first-hand. Who knows, maybe in the future gamming and films will merge allowing us to have an even more realistic semblance of war. but until that moment it is wrong and unfair to say that you have experienced war simply from watching film and playing video games. This is down solely to the fact that there is no way and probably never will be a way to really experience the reality of war in film.
Bibliography:
Sites
http://members.jacksonville.com/entertainment/movies/2013-01-11/story/what-war-veterans-think-war-movies http://smithsonianmag.com/history/2012/11/the-early-history-of-faking-war-on-film/ http://smithsonianmag.com/history/2012/11/the-early-history-of-faking-war-on-film/
Films
Restrepo 2010, Tim Hetherington &Sebastian Junger.
Tearing down the Spanish flag 1898
Saving Private Ryan 1998, Steven Spielberg
The Big Red One.1980 Samuel Fuller
Band of Brother. 2001 Steven Spielberg
Platoon. 1986 Oliver Stone
Apocalypse Now. 1979 Francis Ford Cappola
The pacific. 2010 Steven Spielberg
Black Hawk Down. 2001 Ridley Scott
Books
-Frederic Villiers veteran and cameraman.
-A third face. My tale of writing, filmmaking and fighting. 2002 Alfred A knopf
-Cinema Studies. The key concepts. Third edition. Susan Hayward
-Celluloid Wars. A guide to film and the American experience of War. Frank j.Wetta and Stephen J. Curley.
-Brassey’s guide to war films.. Alun Evans
-History goes to the movies. Joseph Roquemore.
-Shell shock Cinema. Weimar Culture and the Wounds of War