|
The Greatest War Movie Ever?
“The
fighting
man
receives
tokens—medals,
ribbons,
badges,
promotions,
combat
pay,
abrogation
of
taxes—worthless
bits
of
nothing,
as
valuable
as
smoke.”
~ Anthony
Swofford,
Jarhead Before
deploying
to We tend to see war movies differently, not only from the perspective of age but also from our current position in life. Civilians see things differently than veterans. Combat veterans see things differently than peacetime servicemen or reservists. Men see things far differently than women, and young men see things differently than old. A movie that may have once been only a wonderfully adventurous war movie to a young man (myself) of sixteen--"The Sand Pebbles"-- becomes far more powerful to an older and wiser man of fifty-five who better recognizes the subtle nuances under-lying that war film.
Later, if one has grown wiser, one recognizes that the greatest war movies are essentially antiwar statements. The Iliad, written some 2,800 years ago, basis for the recent Hollywood film "Troy," was as much an antiwar statement, as much an adventure story, a cautionary tale, as "The Sand Pebbles." Produced during the spread of the Vietnam War, "The Sand Pebbles" was a shot across the bow of the war establishment of the Sixties. McQueen's character, Jake Holman, much like Hector, symbolized the soldier or sailor who had become a pawn of the state. McQeen's performance symbolized the soul-searing experience of millions of warriors before him, drafted, lured, induced or glowingly convinced to go fight a war, any war, the rationale always defined in patriotic terms, usually wrapped in colorful bunting.
And If they survived--these soldiers and sailors, from Hector to Jake Holman--most of them returned home no longer starry-eyed. At least many I've talked with.
“Unfortunately, many of the men who lived through war don’t understand why they were spared—I know that none of the rewards of victory will come my way, because there are no rewards, not on the field of battle, not for the man who fights the battle—the rewards accrue in places like Washington, D.C. and Riyadh and Houston and Manhattan,” wrote Swofford.
You
can
easily
see
the
same
realization
in
McQueen’s
portrayal
of
the
doomed
sailor,
Jake
Holman;
there
were
no
rewards,
not
on
the
field
of
battle
nor
for
those
who
fight
there,
and
that
was
why
the
movie
succeeds
so
well--even
40 years
later. War movies are about the closest most civilians—and most servicemen—will ever get to a war. Hollywood, for all of its failings (and there are many), often succeeds in portraying the facsimile of battle, if not the battle itself or the heart-rending interior carnage. But, God bless them, they do try and often attain a measure of success. What makes a great war movie: Is it the cinematic battle scenes only? If so, then the recent "Lord of the Rings/Two Towers" or "Troy" would undoubtedly qualify. Older veterans, sailors who served aboard ships in the Pacific over 60 years ago, perhaps cannot watch "Midway" without tense, white-knuckle moments. Likewise, Civil War buffs cannot watch "Gods and Generals" or "Glory" without a great deal of sympathy for both Union and Confederate soldiers. And that is the way it should be. How
many
people
saw
"Das
Boot"
(The
Boat),
a stark
portrayal
of
life
aboard
a
German
submarine
during
World
War
II,
and
still
felt
some
sense
of
commiseration
for
the
sailors
of
the
Third
Reich
aboard
that
U-boat,
even
though
the
real sailors
torpedoed
American
ships?
The
terror
of
war
is
shared
equally
by
the
soldiers
of
each
side.
Perhaps
the
sniper
bullet
that
kills
the
enemy
wounds
the
victor
as
much
as
the
victim:
a
mortal
wound
for
the
one
killed,
a
lingering
wound,
unfelt
for
50
years,
for
the
victorious
shooter. Personally,
and
all
artistic
preferences
are
always
personal,
I
tried
to
compile
a
list
of
great
war
movies.
I
apologize
if
I've
overlooked
many.
My
background
is
neither
soldier
nor
civilian
but
simply
an
enlisted
man
who
entered
the
service,
if
not
starry-eyed
then
somewhat
idealistic,
and
exited
open-eyed
and
somewhat
cynical.
An
earlier
essay—Hollywood
Invasion!—listed
three
impressive
movies,
and
I
would
place
one
or
two
on
the
list
somewhere.
Perhaps
"The
Beast",
"Black
Hawk
Down,"
and
"Three
Kings"
wouldn’t
make
most
Oscar
lists—or
even
your
own--but
they
do
possess
more
than
a
little
of
the
uncomfortably,
foul
flavor
of
war,
while
certain
memorable
scenes
remain
in
my
memory.
The
bleakness
of
Afghanistan
(ironically
a
desert
in
Israel),
together
with
the
hollow
existence
of
the
Russian
tank
crew,
and
the
decrepit
condition
of
the
tank
itself
(The
Beast)
seemed
to
symbolize
the
hollowness
of
their
mission,
and
made
the
movie
unforgettable.
Likewise,
"Three
Kings,"
unlike
most
war
movies,
tried
to
show
both
the
savagery
to
civilians
and
the
emotional
and
physical
scarring
that
individual
soldiers
suffered,
even
in
a
war
that
wasn’t
really
a
war.
“A
conflict
is
much
easier
for
the
American
public
to
swallow
than
a
war,”
said
Swofford.
“War still
has
that
messy
Vietnam
feeling—the
Vietnam
War
was
not
an
official
war
either,
but
a
perpetually
escalating
conflict
with
many
poor,
dead,
sad
fuckers.
Conflicts—or
even
better
yet,
a
series
of
operations—sounds
smaller
and
less
complex
and
costly
than
wars.” Before the word "War" is outlawed altogether in Orwellian America—but not war itself—other memorable war movies will emerge. Was "Platoon" a great war movie or a cinematic blasphemy? Half the combat veterans of Vietnam see it one way or the other. Did Vietnam veteran Oliver Stone disgrace his fellow American soldiers by making "Born on the Fourth of July"? Or did each of those unforgettable movies deserve the Oscars they won? Can you hate a movie, hate the violence or the point-of-view, and yet recognize its greatness while still hating it? Was "Apocalypse Now" a greater movie than either? Or how about the unforgettable "Full Metal Jacket" or "The Deer Hunter" (which may be great but I loathe, personally)? "Saving
Private
Ryan"
could
not
even
be
shown
on
Veterans
Day here
in
America.
There
is
something
intrinsically
anti-American
about
that.
Maybe
for
that
reason
alone—that
Spielberg's
graphic
movie
(but
hardly
controversial) made
powerful
people
uncomfortable—it
should
perhaps
be
added
to
most
lists. I
would
add
a
pair
of
black
&
white
movies
to
my
list:
"All
Quiet
On
The
Western
Front,"
and
the
equally
powerful
but
lesser
known
"Paths
of
Glory,"
directed
by
Stanley
Kubrick.
These
two
films
were
made
about
trench
warfare
during
World
War
I,
and
anyone
who
watches
them
cannot
help
but
be
moved
by
the
folly
of
war.
Each
movie
also
employs
singular,
powerful
scenes
that
seem
out
of
place
in
the
film.
The
frightened
singer
in
Paths
of
Glory,
a
young
woman
forced
to
sing
before
battle-hardened
troops
(Kubrick's
daughter
in
a
rare
role),
may
be
one
of
the
most
moving
antiwar
images
caught
on
film. While
it
is
difficult
to
leave
"Stalingrad"
off
my
list,
it
is
even
more
difficult
to
overlook
it.
The
quality
of
greatness
may
be
in
its
feeling
of
utter
hopelessness,
a
quality
of
grimness
that
moviegoers
call
Cinema
Verite,
something
"Enemy
at
the
Gates"
tried
to
emulate.
Few
Americans
know,
or
like
to
admit,
the
great
sacrifice
Russian
soldiers
made
in
World
War
II,
or
the
great
debt
we
in
the
so-called
“free
world”
really
owe
them.
The
only
reason
American
and
British
soldiers
landed
successfully
in
Normandy,
as
any
honest
historian
will
admit,
was
because
most
of
the
best
German
soldiers
had
already
been
killed
or
wounded
on
the
Eastern
Front,
during
epic
battles
like
Stalingrad.
Which is the greatest Civil War movie ever made? Is "Gone with the Wind" a war movie? Was Ted Turner’s "Andersonville" a war movie, however great? How about an overlooked anti-war movie of the Civil War, a movie that was neither shown on television nor available on videotape for many years--"Shenandoah." Not technically a war movie, this was another film produced during the Vietnam War (1965). "Shenandoah" contained a clear vision of dissent within a theme of resistance that would have made Thoreau proud. Jimmy Stewart’s unforgettable lines (“Burn the train!”), and his resistance to any government (both the Union and the Confederacy) that attempted to appropriate his horses and his sons was quite compelling. Maybe
the
simple
fact
that
Americans
fought
Americans—and
600,000
died--makes
all
movies
about
the
Civil
War,
essentially,
anti-war
statements.
No
Hollywood
heroes
but
many acts
of heroism
(and
thousands
more
of
self
sacrifice),
few
villains
but
many
acts
of
villainy.
One
reason
why
America
remained
isolationist
for
50
years
afterwards,
until
Wilson’s
intervention
in
World
War
I,
may
have
been
that
most
Americans
remembered
war.
And
now
they
don’t. Imagine
the
sad,
shattered
idealism
of
1914,
the
hubris,
the
unquestioned
nationalism
disguised
as
love
of
one's
country. Imagine
someone
uttering
the
slogan
today:
The
War
to
End
All
Wars?
Which
brings
me
to
two
other
movies
of
that
era,
movies
about
imperial
adventures
that
came
to
unexpected,
tragic
ends
(something
we
may
eventually
learn
ourselves):
"Lawrence
of
Arabia"
and
the
lesser
known
"Gallipoli".
Neither
are
strictly
war
movies;
they
exist
on
multiple
planes,
as
the
best
movies
always
do.
Lawrence
was
a
guerilla
fighter,
warrior-philosopher—and
imperialist.
The
movie
explores
the
legend
of
T.E.
Lawrence
as
guerilla
fighter,
but
Lawrence
himself
warned
the
British
about
the
myriad
hazards
of
involvement
in
the
Gallipoli
may
be
the
better
of
the
two
movies,
although
it
has
none
of
the
Oscars
of
the
larger
epic.
Still,
I
rate
it
higher
on
some
levels,
and
have
seen
it
more
often.
As
an
actor,
Mel
Gibson
is
no
Peter
O’Toole,
nor
does
he
need
to
be.
The
movie
is
about
rosy
young
soldiers,
foolish
old
politicians,
blind
patriotism
and
the
romantic
yet
woefully
false
notions
of
war—the
same
notions
Swofford
echoed
nearly
90
years
later
when
he
wrote
his
book,
Jarhead. “I
know
that
the
United
States
will
win
any
war
it
fights,
against
any
country,”
he
wrote
somewhat
presciently
in
2003,
just
before
Gulf
War
II.
“If
colonialism
weren’t
out
of
style,
I’m
sure
we’d
take
over
the
entire
"Gallipoli"
remains
a
memorable
anti-war
movie.
I
cannot
imagine
Swofford
and
his
fellow
soldiers
watching
it
without
thinking
of
the
wastefulness
of
war,
wastefulness
of
lives
squandered
for
nothing.
Politicians
and
patriotic
slogans
send
many
a
young
man
off
to
war.
Unfortunately
the
clear,
rational
reasons,
all
the
pomp,
all
the
grand
or
necessary
purposes
of
war,
become
the
blood,
smashed
bones,
and
muddy
bodies
of
the
soldiers
soon
enmeshed
(entrapped?)
in
the
confusion
of
battle.
The
patriotic
bunting,
yellow
ribbons,
and
decals may
as
well
be
on
another
planet
then. Finally, what constitutes a war movie anyway? Is "The Terminator" a war movie? Many people might think so, and I tend to agree; a powerful film about insurgents fighting powerful war machines. The Pentagon, by the way, is developing powerful surrogate machines to fight insurgents--as if the AC-130 gunship wasn't already.
And
"Star
Wars"--are
those
movies
about
war--or
are
they
sci-fi
costume
dramas?
What
about
"War
of
The
Worlds"?
Is
it
one
of
the
best
science
fiction
war
movies?
The least chauvinistic, bleakest, and thus perhaps the most honest movie of the immediate postwar era might be the little known "Attack!" Try to compare this film to "Patton" for example, a pair of movies so different, yet set in the same European "theatre" (strange name for battleground). Perhaps one of the finest films about warriors who returned from World War II, "The Best Years of Our Lives," was made only a year after the war.
Another earlier era flick, "12 O'Clock High," remains moving not only for the great performances, but for the aspect of realism: some of the footage was actual air combat. "The Bridge on the River Kwai," by contrast, took one unspectacular aspect of war, starving and tortured POWs, and created an intricate anti-war movie. Perhaps someone will take the equally shameful Abu Ghraib incidents--ongoing as I write this--and turn that story into a powerful antiwar movie. Don't be surprised if Americans are cast as the villains.
Maybe
there
are
no
great
war
movies
because
there
are
no
great
wars.
Maybe
the
best
war
movie
is
one
that
inspires
people
NOT
to
want
to
go
to
war,
inspires
people
to
practice
the
art
of
peace,
rather
than
the
science
of
war.
Maybe
the
best
war
movie
of
all
time
will
be
about
the
last
war
ever. discuss this column in the forum USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes regularly for STR. Please support the anti-war cause.
|