The Weekend Discussion: Is There Such A Thing As An Anti-War War Film?

The Normandy sequence might've been fun for you, but when I saw that scene, I'd joined the Marine infantry and that shit fucking scared the crap out of me, especially considering that I had joined an amphibious assault company. Not afraid to admit that that was some scary shit. And I'd read that many WWII veterans were freaked out by that scene. So if that shit wanted you to fight in a war, then (no offense) you're probably an unrealistic, naive dumbass.

Correction: "If that shit made you feel like fighting in a war." Sheesh, sorry, it's late.

Clearly the author, and yourself, have never seen The Bridge or Grave of the Fireflies. Both are definitely anti-war films. Certainly Grave of the Fireflies isn't a war film in the traditional sense...but it drives home it's point quite effectively. The Bridge is a war film and when you watch those kids slowly devolve you realize the brutality of war and you definitely do NOT have the urge to bust out Call of Duty.

Yeah, I'll have to agree with Joey D's sentiment. There was nothing about "Saving Private Ryan" that I thought was "fun". Were the combat scenes intense and well-executed? Absolutely. But they were also gruesome and chaotic. Hardly an impetus for someone to go out and play "Normandy Beach Invasion" with a paintball gun. (Unless of course your idea of enjoying paintball is to show up and be shot right in the face within the first ten seconds.)

It's interesting that you don't find it 'fun.' Spielberg himself created the MEDAL OF HONOR video game series, which has included levels set at the landing on Normandy Beach - complete with guys vomiting on the boats and everything. He must have seen the 'fun' in it.

Spielberg is just a suburban twelve yr. old kid in a grown up body. SPR was a bit of a propaganda film/love letter to his father's generation;(along with BAND OF BROTHERS) a noble-ization(it's early) of that generation's "call to duty" and defeat of fascism(Don't call it a comeback!) If you believe WWII was one of the 20th century's shining moments/greatest achievements, you'll like the film. (If not, you're probaly wearing sandals, living in Portland, and raving about THE THIN RED LINE).It's most definitely not-anti-war. <In fact, I remember reading somewhere, during filming, Spielberg kept callng up Milius. He was like a kid playing war(paintball) in his backyard; excited about all the toys at his disposal. Intellectually, coming just short of shouting:"Ain't it Cool?". Milius was disgusted(and that saying something!).>

I would suggest that this problem might extend beyond just anti-war films. "A History of Violence," for instance, has this same problem. Part of that movie working is you have to really dig what a bad ass Ed Norton is at the beginning of the movie. So the early parts of the movie proceed to show him kicking the crap out of of thieving black people ... and it seems like if you wanted to watch that movie and see how totally awesome neo-Nazis were, you absolutely could do that. (Conversely, we could imagine an intro to that movie where Norton is a sniveling dweeb who gets his butt kicked by everyone and projects his hate on a specific group of people. But its interesting that that's not what happens. His character is pretty clearly supposed to be someone you at least respect, even if you don't *like* him.)

I think you mean AMERICAN HISTORY X. Damn Dev., these discussions sure fall off quickly don't they? I wonder where all the chewers are? Oh that's right, gazing at the navel or talking about video games.

And oh yeah, I did mean American History X. Clearly, it's early....

I love the smell of discussion in the morning.

PATHS OF GLORY anyone? The war scenes in the first half have no glory, no excitement, only death and sorrow. Then the court martial in the second half shows the cold hard truth that the "leaders" in the back think of the men up in the front as expendable figures. If any war movie can be truly anti-war, this is it.

"Johnny Got His Gun" certainly has a reputation that would seem to apply. Unfortunately, having mever seen it, all I have to go on is that reputation and a Metallica video. What about "Gallipoli"?

What about "Jarhead"? The soldiers in that movie are turned on by the visceral thrills from war movies, and end up bored and jerking off in the desert. That movie seems to be a direct response to this argument.

What about "Red Dawn". I think that film, like no other, brilliantly showed the foolishness of invading a foreign sovereign country! And the dangers rampant gun control would have on national defense. Who can forget Patrick Swayze, both a symbol of America and a warning against the overextension of empire? Or Ron O'Neal's monologue humanizing the enemy; trumping even the emotional powerhouse that is Harry Dean Stanton? Thank you John Milius and Kevin Reynolds. You truly understand the meaning of "anti-war"!

I agree with Michael D's comment about "Paths of Glory". I've never known anyone to watch the film with any sense of vicarious excitement, only dread and disgust. In addition, I would like to submit, "All Quiet on the Western Front"

"Sands of Iwo Jima". War is hell. Shit, even John Wayne can die. Talk about existential!<"That's war" "Whats war?" "Trading real estate for men.">

To Devin and HofD: Have you guys even seen "Saving Private Ryan"? While there were scattered moments that, out of context, seemed "cool" (I can think of two, both involving Barry Pepper's preternatural sniper abilities), the overall theme was "Holy shit, this is fucking horrible". And HofD, if you really think "Saving Private Ryan" was a glorification of that war and the men who fought it, you probably saw the new Rambo movie instead. (Now *that's* a fun war movie.)

{RE: johnny karate} You lost me. What's the point about "Rambo"? Don't get me wrong, I like Spielberg and respect SPR(despite thematic naivete). It does unabashedly glorifys WWII. If it's not quite pro-war; it's pro-"just" war.

You talking about killing? Hmm. Y'all experts? Y'all know about killing? I'd like to hear about it, potheads.

HofD: I was just being glib. It's just that the aesthetic you and Devin are talking about seems more applicable to the new Rambo film (which I loved in all its gory, over-the-top jingoism) than "Saving Private Ryan". I think the latter was more complex than simply offering high-fives to the good guys. There were scenes that dealt with the inhumanity and senselessness of war.

If Dickson was in my platoon, I'd frag him on general principles. Get this lump of shit outta here!

Whoever said MIDNIGHT CLEAR on the messageboards-great call!!! A truly underrated gem. Just wondering, anyone out there like both SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and THE THIN RED LINE? Among my crowd, people seem to love one/hate the other. I'm the rare bird who loves 'em both(though have not revisited either recently). Also, could any of you love or respect a war movie that went against a personal ideology?

It's ironic that films like Saving Private Ryan, purporting to take an anti-war stance, are most decorated for their incredibly visceral and exciting battle scenes. I had a friend who wanted to join the army, and I told him before SPR came out that it would change his mind. We went to see it, and our reactions couldn't have been more different. It confirmed the belief I already had that war was hellish and wasteful, and confirmed his belief that it was glamorous and exciting. People see what they want to see, and I'd say this would be the same for 99% of war movies out there. The one exception is the 1985 Russian film COME AND SEE by Elem Klimov. I dare anyone to watch that movie and want to go to war. It really is the godfather of all 'modern' war movies, and outshines them all in terms of purpose. It does not EVER seek to entertain. It is an ordeal to watch, it is horrifying and it makes every war movie that came after it seem like a sick, exploitative joke in comparison. Would love for CHUD staff to review the film and give it the attention it deserves.

SPR did show the horrors of war, but it showed them in an exciting, flag-waving inspirational way. So I agree that that movie tries to have it both ways. The Thin Red line, however, totally succeeds as an anti-war movie.

What about Blackhawk Down? That movie was very well done, in that it captured the intensity of the battle in Mogadishu. Further, the film (less so than the book, however) pointed out the fact that our boys were dying as a direct result of the President's decision to pull out necessary armorment that was originally planned to be utilized in the rescue mission. Politicians fucked those troops because of the "message" using particular vehicles/weapons would send to the world. One of my best friends was a Ranger during that mission. He and I saw the movie together, and afterward (as he was holding his head in his hands) all I could say was how sorry I was for him.

I remember going to see Battlefield: Earth when it came out, just to see how bad it was. That was also about war, albeit a war against our evil alien overlords, but damn, it was so horrific that I never want anything to do with another battlefield ever again!

Exactly. I've been thinking the same thing ever since I first saw Platoon and reveled in the tony, sacrificial lamb tragedy of it all. Cinema, by its very nature, glorifies war. As you say Devin - war movies make the pulse pound. The real anti-war movie would be the one that takes place entirely behind a desk... where some asshole is making the decisions that end in the deaths of thousands of soldiers we never see.

Cowards!

It's because of pussies like Devin we lost vietnam! Some of you people need to watch FORT APACHE & SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON. Teach you all ya need to know about Honor and Service.

I remember watching the Deer Hunter and the gut reaction that came from violent scenes. Horrible, I can't think that anyone would want to go to war after flick. Even the recent We Were Soldiers didn't have anything fun or glamorous in, just the horrors or war and feeling of being lost in the middle of forever.