What makes an "anti-war" movie, anti-war?
04-06-04, 05:41 AM
#1
Uber Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What makes an "anti-war" movie, anti-war?
I was just reading DVD Savant's review of Umbrellas of Cherbourg and in his first footnote he says,
Now I don't necessarily want to focus on the specifics of his quote, but the first part about "It's guys like Guy who get sent away to be killed," got me thinking again about just what it is that makes a film "anti-war" and what does the filmmaker hope his film will inspire his audience to think about war?
It seems to me that most anti-war films seem to focus on a few common themes (to list a few: loss of life in general; nothing being solved by war; loss of life of a loved one, or someone who could have been more if their life hadn't been lost to war; corrupt leaders (either military/civilian or both) or goals), but never seem to really understand why wars are fought in reality: someone with a significant military force wants to keep something away from someone (also with a significant military force) who wants it.
I define the reason for war that way because 1. if no one cares if something is taken, there's no fight and 2. if no one can forcibly keep another party from taking that something, then there's no fight. And to clarify, "something" is usually geographic or economic in nature that can either be (or quickly lead to) a threat on the national interests of a given nation.
The fact remains that if one nation is forcibly taking something you want, the only way to stop them is by force, so most of the arguments I see from anti-war movies don't make much sense to me.
Some caveats: I'm not really wanting to discuss non-democracies here as anti-war films likely have no affect on them; if a film is attacking the reasons for going to war in a specific instance, that I can understand (for example, a film that wants to argue that the Domino theory reason for the US going into Vietnam was wrong).
Sorry for being so long winded, and I hope this hasn't been covered before (I did do a search), but I would be interested to hear what anyone thinks anti-war movies are trying to say or achieve.
"Though it has little or no discussion of politics, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is a great anti-war movie. It's guys like Guy who get sent away to be killed, and for many there's a lover left behind. I saw this film just as it was becoming apparent that I had to make some choices about Vietnam. Staying home with Genevičve or Madeleine or even the café pickup Ginny is the better choice, believe me."
It seems to me that most anti-war films seem to focus on a few common themes (to list a few: loss of life in general; nothing being solved by war; loss of life of a loved one, or someone who could have been more if their life hadn't been lost to war; corrupt leaders (either military/civilian or both) or goals), but never seem to really understand why wars are fought in reality: someone with a significant military force wants to keep something away from someone (also with a significant military force) who wants it.
I define the reason for war that way because 1. if no one cares if something is taken, there's no fight and 2. if no one can forcibly keep another party from taking that something, then there's no fight. And to clarify, "something" is usually geographic or economic in nature that can either be (or quickly lead to) a threat on the national interests of a given nation.
The fact remains that if one nation is forcibly taking something you want, the only way to stop them is by force, so most of the arguments I see from anti-war movies don't make much sense to me.
Some caveats: I'm not really wanting to discuss non-democracies here as anti-war films likely have no affect on them; if a film is attacking the reasons for going to war in a specific instance, that I can understand (for example, a film that wants to argue that the Domino theory reason for the US going into Vietnam was wrong).
Sorry for being so long winded, and I hope this hasn't been covered before (I did do a search), but I would be interested to hear what anyone thinks anti-war movies are trying to say or achieve.
04-06-04, 08:21 AM
#2
DVD Talk Legend
My immediate answer to your question, the one that popped into my head was that anti-war movies attempt to show how the war experience de-humanizes people.
I'll have to think about this a little more....
I'll have to think about this a little more....
04-06-04, 09:36 AM
#3
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Marty888. Anti-war films are about innocence lost, the dehuminazation of people, unspeakable atrocities, and the power of hate overcoming the power of love. All in all they leave us with the feeling that this is not how life is meant to be.
04-06-04, 01:10 PM
#5
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Mouthweathercity, IL.
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blade, you have certainly given this some thought, which I find stimulating. I wrote a review some years ago on Thin Red Line, which I find to be a great anti-war film with a real message.
A Subjective Review on THIN RED LINE.
As you noticed this is a subjective review based on personal experiences and something I feel strongly about. War is something to me that has many conflicting ideas that begin with “Why?” And as in many anti-war movies it brings up one or a couple of sides of the “Why’s?” But so do all war movies, and all war movies should be considered to be anti-war movies as they all display one or a couple of sides of the “Why’s?” as they should discourage us from starting wars, unless it is the last solution for solving the problem of “Why?”
Sure there are war movies that are done in order to sway the public opinion, yet these propaganda films ultimate end is to end the war to the benefit of the producer and bring the men and women back home.
Many of us, do have similar ideas, yet war in its pure form “brutal violence without consideration for the individual” is something that I would never want anyone to experience. The question of why is eradicated when the violence hits your face and you want to be home with your loved ones, i.e., family, friends, and wife etc. The final question is not in regards to war, but to self. “Why do I live?”
Awaiting responses and thoughts…
Cheers
DVD Smurf
A Subjective Review on THIN RED LINE.
Thin Red Line--war has never and never will be a beautiful thing, and after what I have witnessed as a medic in a special unit I do not say anything good about war. War is bloody, messy, and nasty. The beginning of Saving Private Ryan is as close as I have seen it in physical presence of war on fiction film. Just imagine what a bullet that is so light that when it hits its aimed surface it begin to tremble in turbulence. It spins around in your body and to not exit in a straight pattern through the body since the bone, flesh and blood is much thicker than air. I have seen guys who have been shot in their backs and had their genitals partially torn away. A guy who was shot in the right arm and the bullet exiting out of the stomach together with particially torn intestines and there they lay and scream in agony, while I try to piece the poor man back together. You quickly learn that morphine becomes your best friend, since it relieves the painful screaming of the bullets victim. A screaming that his friends can hear that rapidly lowers morale among the soldiers in the unit, which also increases the chances of another man getting shot. Yes, this is what war is in real life. However, Thin Red Line portrays war in a very personal way, because war is slow. You always have to be silent so you do not give away your position and then you have to wait, walk, eat, take a crap, and then when you least expect it "BANG!" So when you are silent you have a lot of time to think, I mean really thinking about things in life that you value and miss the most. You can say war becomes a psychological war against yourself. Thin Red Line depicts this with honesty, and how it really is in a war. You are there with others, but you are lost in your thoughts almost all the time. This means a lot of anxiety for each and every soldier. I did not meet one single man who was not anxious, but we did not talk about it. If you are not anxious in a war situation, then I say that you have lost your humanity, and a Thin Red Line is a triumphant salutation for struggling humanity. In short, Thin Red Line is a good, honest and personal movie that I could relate to as an individual. While Saving Private Ryan and other war movies give us the good things that war might bring out in us. I hope you enjoy it and I hope you never ever have to see a war close up in your own thoughts. Take care.
Sure there are war movies that are done in order to sway the public opinion, yet these propaganda films ultimate end is to end the war to the benefit of the producer and bring the men and women back home.
Many of us, do have similar ideas, yet war in its pure form “brutal violence without consideration for the individual” is something that I would never want anyone to experience. The question of why is eradicated when the violence hits your face and you want to be home with your loved ones, i.e., family, friends, and wife etc. The final question is not in regards to war, but to self. “Why do I live?”
Awaiting responses and thoughts…
Cheers
DVD Smurf
04-06-04, 02:04 PM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
I think every war movie is anti-war.
I think every war movie is anti-war.
04-06-04, 02:22 PM
#8
DVD Talk Hero
I haven't seen a lot of pro-war movies. But I know a lot of them have been made over the years. They're just unfashionable now. The most recent one I've seen was Starship Troopers, which was an ironic take on a classic genre. The evil Japanese were replaced with giant insects, and the heroic Americans were replaced with fascists.
Pro-war movies have common themes. War may be hard, but we have to defeat the inhuman monsters to preserve our women and our way of life. The world is black-and-white: good and evil, us and them, and there is no uncertainty. The good guys rarely get shot, and if they do, it's either a flesh wound or they die gracefully. If they die, it's always for the greater good, and it always helps the mission succeed. These concepts have all been transferred to action movies, where the villains are drug smugglers and terrorists instead of enemy soldiers. Not much else has changed.
Anti-war movies turn these ideas on their heads. In Paths of Glory, our commanders were the cowards, instead of the enemy commanders. In Platoon, we weren't protecting our women, we were menacing theirs. In Apocalypse Now, not only was our cause not good and right, our cause didn't even make sense. In Gallipoli, getting mowed down by machine gun fire didn't make a difference, because the universe doesn't care if you live or die.
Compare those movies with The Sands of Iwo Jima. John Wayne is a good leader, the cause is just, he gives a prostitute a wad of money without demanding sex, he whips his boys into soldiers, and when he dies it's okay -- because they've become men and they don't need him any more.
Pro-war movies have common themes. War may be hard, but we have to defeat the inhuman monsters to preserve our women and our way of life. The world is black-and-white: good and evil, us and them, and there is no uncertainty. The good guys rarely get shot, and if they do, it's either a flesh wound or they die gracefully. If they die, it's always for the greater good, and it always helps the mission succeed. These concepts have all been transferred to action movies, where the villains are drug smugglers and terrorists instead of enemy soldiers. Not much else has changed.
Anti-war movies turn these ideas on their heads. In Paths of Glory, our commanders were the cowards, instead of the enemy commanders. In Platoon, we weren't protecting our women, we were menacing theirs. In Apocalypse Now, not only was our cause not good and right, our cause didn't even make sense. In Gallipoli, getting mowed down by machine gun fire didn't make a difference, because the universe doesn't care if you live or die.
Compare those movies with The Sands of Iwo Jima. John Wayne is a good leader, the cause is just, he gives a prostitute a wad of money without demanding sex, he whips his boys into soldiers, and when he dies it's okay -- because they've become men and they don't need him any more.
Last edited by Nick Danger; 04-06-04 at 02:25 PM.
04-06-04, 02:53 PM
#10
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps anti-war is the incorrect word. While "anti-war" would certainly be more than applicable in the case of perhaps Vietnam war films, in most cases many war films (especially those of the more modern generations) don't necessarily say that the war should not have ever been fought.
No, I think instead that the message these flms DO have in common is "war is hell," which by all means in simplified. But I don't necessarily think the presentation of war as hell is necessarily a stance against the war. Saving Private Ryan is an insanely brutal war film, but I don't think the film really pushes an antagonistic perspective of US involvement in World War 2.
So..."anti-war" I think would be a misnomer to label against war films. In some cases yes, but I think the modern asthetic is to show that war is hell, that it's brutal, that it's dehumanizing. Most films really do not address the political and historical reasonings of the war itself, but moreso the troop involvement and effect.
No, I think instead that the message these flms DO have in common is "war is hell," which by all means in simplified. But I don't necessarily think the presentation of war as hell is necessarily a stance against the war. Saving Private Ryan is an insanely brutal war film, but I don't think the film really pushes an antagonistic perspective of US involvement in World War 2.
So..."anti-war" I think would be a misnomer to label against war films. In some cases yes, but I think the modern asthetic is to show that war is hell, that it's brutal, that it's dehumanizing. Most films really do not address the political and historical reasonings of the war itself, but moreso the troop involvement and effect.
04-06-04, 03:05 PM
#11
Banned
It's very simple really:
There is no glory in fighting any war, no matter what the circumstances. NOBODY wins.
That simple message is what makes a film 'anti-war'. The Thin Red Line, Paths of Glory, Apocalypse Now are anti-war films. Glory, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart are NOT.
There is no glory in fighting any war, no matter what the circumstances. NOBODY wins.
That simple message is what makes a film 'anti-war'. The Thin Red Line, Paths of Glory, Apocalypse Now are anti-war films. Glory, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart are NOT.
04-06-04, 04:58 PM
#12
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Mouthweathercity, IL.
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by marty888
Not necessarily.... I believe that most of the "war" movies being turned out by Hollywood in the early 40's were very much pro-war and designed to motivate people to go off and kill some of the enemy.
Not necessarily.... I believe that most of the "war" movies being turned out by Hollywood in the early 40's were very much pro-war and designed to motivate people to go off and kill some of the enemy.
I think of Sahara every time someone mention the 40s and war movies. This is certainly a pro-american film to encourage the people at home that things went good despite the losses.
In regards to Saving Private Ryan -- the dogtag counting scene is very real and at the same time displays the horrors of war better than the initial scene...
jaeufraser - has a very valid point in his post, which I happen to agree with...
Cheers
DVD Smurf
04-06-04, 07:44 PM
#14
Uber Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks for all the replies so far.
Some of the posts above, however, illustrate the reason for my question.
Does anyone really think war is a "good" thing? I get the feeling that many in Hollywood and the film industry in general actually believe that a large segment of the population thinks war is fun or something they agree to without any consideration at all. And that they hope to convince them otherwise through their films.
I personally think most people already look at war as a necessary evil, a last resort. That Democracies find themselves in positions where to not act will mean their own lives (or way of life) is threatened, and, so, they "have" to go to war in order to prevent that.
The propaganda is what is tacked on after those decisions have been made to help get everyone through the horrors that war brings.
But people often point to a movie and say it is "anti-war" because it shows how terrible war can be. But if the point of the movie is to convince people that we shouldn't have war, then I think these movies completely miss their mark. Everyone knows that war is terrible. But they also think that not going to war (when necessary) will result in an even worse situation.
I guess that's what I'm really getting after. When people (whether it's the artists involved in the movie, or the movie's supporters) call a movie an "anti-war movie," are they just saying that it shows that war is a bad thing? Or do they mean that this is an argument against ever going to war?
Some of the posts above, however, illustrate the reason for my question.
Does anyone really think war is a "good" thing? I get the feeling that many in Hollywood and the film industry in general actually believe that a large segment of the population thinks war is fun or something they agree to without any consideration at all. And that they hope to convince them otherwise through their films.
I personally think most people already look at war as a necessary evil, a last resort. That Democracies find themselves in positions where to not act will mean their own lives (or way of life) is threatened, and, so, they "have" to go to war in order to prevent that.
The propaganda is what is tacked on after those decisions have been made to help get everyone through the horrors that war brings.
But people often point to a movie and say it is "anti-war" because it shows how terrible war can be. But if the point of the movie is to convince people that we shouldn't have war, then I think these movies completely miss their mark. Everyone knows that war is terrible. But they also think that not going to war (when necessary) will result in an even worse situation.
I guess that's what I'm really getting after. When people (whether it's the artists involved in the movie, or the movie's supporters) call a movie an "anti-war movie," are they just saying that it shows that war is a bad thing? Or do they mean that this is an argument against ever going to war?
04-06-04, 08:23 PM
#15
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Mouthweathercity, IL.
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Blade
But people often point to a movie and say it is "anti-war" because it shows how terrible war can be. But if the point of the movie is to convince people that we shouldn't have war, then I think these movies completely miss their mark. Everyone knows that war is terrible. But they also think that not going to war (when necessary) will result in an even worse situation.
But people often point to a movie and say it is "anti-war" because it shows how terrible war can be. But if the point of the movie is to convince people that we shouldn't have war, then I think these movies completely miss their mark. Everyone knows that war is terrible. But they also think that not going to war (when necessary) will result in an even worse situation.
Cheers
DVD Smurf
04-06-04, 09:02 PM
#16
Banned by request
Originally posted by Blade
Does anyone really think war is a "good" thing? I get the feeling that many in Hollywood and the film industry in general actually believe that a large segment of the population thinks war is fun or something they agree to without any consideration at all. And that they hope to convince them otherwise through their films.
I personally think most people already look at war as a necessary evil, a last resort.
Does anyone really think war is a "good" thing? I get the feeling that many in Hollywood and the film industry in general actually believe that a large segment of the population thinks war is fun or something they agree to without any consideration at all. And that they hope to convince them otherwise through their films.
I personally think most people already look at war as a necessary evil, a last resort.
However, I'm not sure the purpose of an anti-war film is specifically to stop people from volunteering. Look at Platoon. Platoon was based on Oliver Stone's experiences in Vietnam. Apocalypse Now isn't even really much of a war film. It's an odyssey against the backdrop of a war.
However, I think your question can be applied to most films. Why do we need to see another love story? Don't we already know people fall in love? Why do we need to see another teen comedy? Don't we know teenagers are woefully undereducated an inexperienced when it comes to sex? And so on, and so on. It all comes down to the story. Is the story worth telling? Obviously the studios and directors think they are.
By the way, have you seen The Stunt Man?
04-06-04, 10:25 PM
#17
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Blade
Thanks for all the replies so far.
Some of the posts above, however, illustrate the reason for my question.
Does anyone really think war is a "good" thing? I get the feeling that many in Hollywood and the film industry in general actually believe that a large segment of the population thinks war is fun or something they agree to without any consideration at all. And that they hope to convince them otherwise through their films.
Thanks for all the replies so far.
Some of the posts above, however, illustrate the reason for my question.
Does anyone really think war is a "good" thing? I get the feeling that many in Hollywood and the film industry in general actually believe that a large segment of the population thinks war is fun or something they agree to without any consideration at all. And that they hope to convince them otherwise through their films.
I'm sure you've talked to people who were cheering that we were going to go kick some Iraqi ass. They were happy that we were going to war. They were outraged that the French government tried to stop us from doing it. These aren't some left-coast stereotypes -- I work with those guys. The people who actually wore a uniform weren't so gung ho.
I personally think most people already look at war as a necessary evil, a last resort. That Democracies find themselves in positions where to not act will mean their own lives (or way of life) is threatened, and, so, they "have" to go to war in order to prevent that.
The propaganda is what is tacked on after those decisions have been made to help get everyone through the horrors that war brings.
But people often point to a movie and say it is "anti-war" because it shows how terrible war can be. But if the point of the movie is to convince people that we shouldn't have war, then I think these movies completely miss their mark. Everyone knows that war is terrible. But they also think that not going to war (when necessary) will result in an even worse situation.
I guess that's what I'm really getting after. When people (whether it's the artists involved in the movie, or the movie's supporters) call a movie an "anti-war movie," are they just saying that it shows that war is a bad thing? Or do they mean that this is an argument against ever going to war?
The propaganda is what is tacked on after those decisions have been made to help get everyone through the horrors that war brings.
But people often point to a movie and say it is "anti-war" because it shows how terrible war can be. But if the point of the movie is to convince people that we shouldn't have war, then I think these movies completely miss their mark. Everyone knows that war is terrible. But they also think that not going to war (when necessary) will result in an even worse situation.
I guess that's what I'm really getting after. When people (whether it's the artists involved in the movie, or the movie's supporters) call a movie an "anti-war movie," are they just saying that it shows that war is a bad thing? Or do they mean that this is an argument against ever going to war?
I don't think they understand that in some situations, talking will never solve the problem. Japan will not leave Southeast Asia without bloodshed. France will not leave Indochina if they're asked politely. The U.S. cannot be negotiated out of Vietnam unless it hurts them to stay.
04-06-04, 10:45 PM
#18
It really depends on the definition of anti-war. If you look at like it means war is bad then every movie shows this. If you look at it politically well then it can go either way. As for Saving Private Ryan, it wasn't anti-war as in the soldiers weren't saying "we shouldn't be here" and other lines like the such but it did show the brutality and horrors of war which I think makes it anti-war. Because anything that shows people dying should be anti by default.
04-09-04, 09:09 PM
#19
Uber Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I can't believe it's been 3 days since I last read this! Sorry for the delayed response. Work's been very hectic lately.
Suprmallet...I don't deny that they exist, but if you sat them down and asked them if, in general, they thought war was a "good" thing would they say "yes, and I can't wait for us to go kick another country's ass," or would they say "I don't know about good or bad, but sometimes it's just something you have to do," or "we'll we can't just let them kill us can we?"
And I didn't mean to focus just on people wanting to go, but rather the idea of whether we should make war or not, whether by volunteering, or supporting, or planning, or not speaking out against, et cetera.
Nick, that's not, I think, an unreasonable reaction to an people who feel they're in danger of attack (vis a vis 9/11...and let's not get into how much or how little Iraq is related to the 9/11 attacks in this thread
). They think it's a good idea in this specific instance, not necessarily in general. And I'm not saying that most people have sat down and given this a lot of thought, just that most people understand that going to war means that bad things will happen to people on both sides.
Don't get me wrong. I actually like many of these types of films. But while I appreciate the stories they tell, that doesn't make me think war is any less necessary to protecting ourselves when necessary. In other words, I agree with their arguments, more or less, I just don't think their arguments (in large part) successfully reach the conclusion they seem to want people to draw.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be making these movies, I'm just saying that if by making them, they're trying to get people to think that war should not be made at all, then they're just fooling themselves. As are any who think the filmmaker's premise (that there is never a reason for war) is true. And isn't that what most people mean when they say that a movie is an anti-war movie?
This Stunt Man? If so, no. Sounds interesting though. I'll try to rent it sometime. Thanks.
Yes, exactly my point.
Originally posted by Suprmallet
I would disagree. I've met many people who would willingly volunteer to go to war, without a thought as to why they were fighting, or that they may come back half paralyzed or missing a limb.
However, I'm not sure the purpose of an anti-war film is specifically to stop people from volunteering. Look at Platoon. Platoon was based on Oliver Stone's experiences in Vietnam. Apocalypse Now isn't even really much of a war film. It's an odyssey against the backdrop of a war.
I would disagree. I've met many people who would willingly volunteer to go to war, without a thought as to why they were fighting, or that they may come back half paralyzed or missing a limb.
However, I'm not sure the purpose of an anti-war film is specifically to stop people from volunteering. Look at Platoon. Platoon was based on Oliver Stone's experiences in Vietnam. Apocalypse Now isn't even really much of a war film. It's an odyssey against the backdrop of a war.
Originally posted by Nick Danger
I'm sure you've talked to people who were cheering that we were going to go kick some Iraqi ass. They were happy that we were going to war. They were outraged that the French government tried to stop us from doing it. These aren't some left-coast stereotypes -- I work with those guys. The people who actually wore a uniform weren't so gung ho.
I'm sure you've talked to people who were cheering that we were going to go kick some Iraqi ass. They were happy that we were going to war. They were outraged that the French government tried to stop us from doing it. These aren't some left-coast stereotypes -- I work with those guys. The people who actually wore a uniform weren't so gung ho.
And I didn't mean to focus just on people wanting to go, but rather the idea of whether we should make war or not, whether by volunteering, or supporting, or planning, or not speaking out against, et cetera.
Nick, that's not, I think, an unreasonable reaction to an people who feel they're in danger of attack (vis a vis 9/11...and let's not get into how much or how little Iraq is related to the 9/11 attacks in this thread
). They think it's a good idea in this specific instance, not necessarily in general. And I'm not saying that most people have sat down and given this a lot of thought, just that most people understand that going to war means that bad things will happen to people on both sides.
Originally posted by Suprmallet
However, I think your question can be applied to most films. Why do we need to see another love story? Don't we already know people fall in love? Why do we need to see another teen comedy? Don't we know teenagers are woefully undereducated an inexperienced when it comes to sex? And so on, and so on. It all comes down to the story. Is the story worth telling? Obviously the studios and directors think they are.
By the way, have you seen The Stunt Man?
However, I think your question can be applied to most films. Why do we need to see another love story? Don't we already know people fall in love? Why do we need to see another teen comedy? Don't we know teenagers are woefully undereducated an inexperienced when it comes to sex? And so on, and so on. It all comes down to the story. Is the story worth telling? Obviously the studios and directors think they are.
By the way, have you seen The Stunt Man?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be making these movies, I'm just saying that if by making them, they're trying to get people to think that war should not be made at all, then they're just fooling themselves. As are any who think the filmmaker's premise (that there is never a reason for war) is true. And isn't that what most people mean when they say that a movie is an anti-war movie?
This Stunt Man? If so, no. Sounds interesting though. I'll try to rent it sometime. Thanks.
Originally posted by Nick Danger
I think many of them are arguing that war should never be fought. A lot of people believe that war is bad, and all reasonable people will avoid it.
I don't think they understand that in some situations, talking will never solve the problem. Japan will not leave Southeast Asia without bloodshed. France will not leave Indochina if they're asked politely. The U.S. cannot be negotiated out of Vietnam unless it hurts them to stay.
I think many of them are arguing that war should never be fought. A lot of people believe that war is bad, and all reasonable people will avoid it.
I don't think they understand that in some situations, talking will never solve the problem. Japan will not leave Southeast Asia without bloodshed. France will not leave Indochina if they're asked politely. The U.S. cannot be negotiated out of Vietnam unless it hurts them to stay.
04-09-04, 09:13 PM
#20
Uber Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
It really depends on the definition of anti-war. If you look at like it means war is bad then every movie shows this. If you look at it politically well then it can go either way. As for Saving Private Ryan, it wasn't anti-war as in the soldiers weren't saying "we shouldn't be here" and other lines like the such but it did show the brutality and horrors of war which I think makes it anti-war. Because anything that shows people dying should be anti by default.
It really depends on the definition of anti-war. If you look at like it means war is bad then every movie shows this. If you look at it politically well then it can go either way. As for Saving Private Ryan, it wasn't anti-war as in the soldiers weren't saying "we shouldn't be here" and other lines like the such but it did show the brutality and horrors of war which I think makes it anti-war. Because anything that shows people dying should be anti by default.
I think a movie addressing those questions would be anti-war movies. But I don't think most movies that people label anti-war are trying to make those points.
