the war film

This is a nice introduction to this week's subject. This is from the film Patton.


Review

So, last week we learned about some of the history and conventions of the western film. The genre is as old as the American frontier itself. Frontier literature and even some of the earliest narrative films dealt with conventional western subjects. These texts, and the classical westerns that followed them, often used binary oppositions (East/West, community/individual, etc) to address the civilization of the American west. Among these oppositions is the assignment of gender roles. Men in westerns display traditional masculinity--aggressive, not particularly intelligent, authoritarian--while women are divided between the civilized, domestic servant and the wild, sexualized (often non-white) savage. And while revisionist westerns have since questioned these conventions, the ideological perspectives that inform these representations of the west still have an influence on American culture today.

Introduction to the War Film

So, physical conflict among humans is as old as Cain and Abel. Homer told the stories of the Trojan War. The Old Testament is full of warring between peoples. It seems like most cultures' mythologies include wars between gods and men, gods and gods, men and men (and women). The traditional narrative structure requires that the protagonist encounter "conflict" which is resolved during the "climax." So, given that physical conflict is such a part of history and culture, it's no surprise that the stories of war were adapted for the cinema.

Here's a clip from Charlie Chaplin's 1918 film Shoulder Arms. It's definitely a primitive manifestation of the genre, but it does include some elements used in the classical genre.


D.W. Griffith's incredibly successful (and controversial) film Birth of a Nation is recognized as the first feature-length film released in the U.S. And while the film's narrative does not exactly resemble a classical war film, the film's Civil War setting and its fantastic battle scenes definitely establish it as a strong influence on the classical genre.

The Classical Stage

Classical war films, like the genres that we've discussed previously, often followed archetypal characters in a familiar narrative. A new recruit begins his military service, encounters an authoritarian senior officer, bonds with his fellow soldiers, and eventually successfully transitions from civilian to soldier. The new recruit is young and inexperienced, may not exactly exemplify traditional masculinity, and often will need to learn the principles valued among soldiers (those of patriotism, obedience to his superior officers, loyalty to his fellow soldiers, self-sacrifice, etc). The senior officer, oftentimes a drill sergeant, must prepare the young recruit for battle. Oftentimes their interactions resemble a type of father-son relationship in which discipline and oppression is blended with compassion and instruction. The senior officer may be depicted as antagonistic towards the new recruit, that is, until the recruit realizes the benefit of his experiences during combat.

At the end of the film, the recruit will have learned his lesson and will either return home victorious or courageously sacrifice himself in battle. Either way, the soldier's development is complete.

I also want to address war films' depiction of women and enemy soldiers. While I do not think that these characters are easily organized into archetypes, the depictions of women and enemy soldiers are still worth noting. Women are marginalized to supporting roles as romantic interests of the soldiers or nurses serving the soldiers. Despite the prominent role women began to play in society during wartime, women were depicted as subservient in the classical war film. Often, a soldier's romantic relationship with a woman would indicate weakness and determine his ultimate defeat in battle.

While the films were set during different military conflicts, a commonality can be identified in the representations of enemy soldiers. Whether the conflict was contemporary or historical, set in Europe or the South Pacific, the enemies were usually objectified. Rather than depicting the soldiers as individual, living, agentive human beings, the films often represented the enemy forces as a collective, inhuman, other. Not only are the viewers not encouraged to identify with the soldiers, but they are not even encouraged to identify them as human.

In Birth of a Nation, this tactic is used to designate the newly freed African American slaves as enemies of the Confederate sympathizers.

Notice how in the clip, the shots of the rioters are wide, while the KKK members are afforded close-ups. The KKK ride horses, while the rioters are on foot. The cameras follow the motion of the clansmen, and the music (recognize Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries"?) seek to encourage identification with the clansmen). The "enemy soldiers" are given no subjectivity whatsoever.

During the war film narrative, certain conventional themes were often illustrated. First, the training sequences demonstrate the transitions required for new recruits. In order to adequately function as soldiers, the new recruits must be stripped of any individuality and femininity. A soldier's individuality is a threat to the military objective because of the necessity of military forces to work together as a community. This objectives of this small military community were often tied to the greater national community. So, individuality needed to be abandoned in order to foster patriotism and nationalism. And a soldier's femininity is a threat because of association of physical combat with traditional masculinity. I think that this clip from Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket pretty powerfully demonstrates this point.


So, the uniformity of the troops suggests the emphasis of community over individual. The frequent references to the male's anatomy indicates the association between traditional masculinity and military success. And finally, the issue of race is introduced.

While the American troops were not generally racially integrated until the Vietnam War, classical war films often depict the military platoon (etc) as a place of cultural unification and exchange. The military unit would be typically composed of soldiers from a diverse range of ethnic and racial backgrounds. And as the recruits learned to abandon their individuality and cooperate as a unit, cultural division was transcended. (But remember, the protagonists were always white, and this racial integration was not a reality in the military organization during those years).

Revising War

Now, probably since the beginning of American military involvement in the Vietnam War, revisionist war films have become more common. While the cinema functioned as a reflection of the government and mainstream America's pro-war sentiments during the World Wars and Korean War, the depictions of combat became more ideologically complicated with the controversy over the conflict in Vietnam. As American society questioned their assumptions about war, American cinema challenged the conventions of the war film genre.

While the classical genre emphasized the abandonment of femininity and individuality in preparation for battle, revisionist war films often address the difficulties faced by soldiers when they return home. The soldiers' post-war re-individualization, demasculinization, and reintegration into society is depicted as problematic. Here's a quote from Sam Mendes' 2005 film Jarhead (adapted from the book by Anthony Swofford) that I think illustrates this point.

"A story. A man fires a rifle for many years. and he goes to war. And afterwards he comes home, and he sees that whatever else he may do with his life - build a house, love a woman, change his son's diaper - he will always remain a jarhead. And all the jarheads killing and dying, they will always be me. We are still in the desert."

So, while the films do not challenge the military's ability to transform the recruits into soldiers, they do attempt to acknowledge some of the consequences of this transformation.

Not only are these values of brotherhood and masculinity questioned, but greater issues of patriotism and violence are challenged as well. Watch this clip from Oliver Stone's film Born on the Fourth of July, and see if you can identify some of the revisionist themes.

Notice how the film shows some previously unvoiced opinions on war--the characters protest military involvement in Vietnam but maintain a (new) patriotic perspective. While patriotism is often linked to support of American involvement in war, the film seeks to counter that (I think) harmful association. The injuries of the veterans also gives voice to a previously voiceless people. Soldiers in classical war films returned home and received medals or valiantly gave their life in battle. The disabilities faced by these characters exhibit some not-so-often addressed consequences of war.

But, while Born of the Fourth of July and other protest films explicitly question the motives of the government and the problematic nature of certain nationalistic perspectives, other war films question these same principles in more subtle ways. Increasingly, soldiers are depicted not as patriotically serving their nation in combat, but rather fighting for the survival of their military unit. This "neo-patriotism" implicitly questions the motives of the government's participation in war, avoiding depictions of soldiers motivated by patriotic idealism. Consider the miniseries "Band of Brothers" and film Saving Private Ryan--even their titles suggest this emphasis of loyalty to fellow soldiers over loyalty to the nation. In the film A Few Good Men, the marines recite their "code" of loyalty, in order of importance: "unit, core, God, country." And even in the film The Patriot, our "patriot" protagonist is motivated to fight for his country's independence not because of patriotic principle, but in order to protect and avenge his family. The films avoid patriotic rhetoric and thereby question this concept of patriotic warfare.

Here's a clip from Black Hawk Down that I think illustrates this clip pretty clearly.

I also think that the graphic representations of violence, common to today's revisionist war films, show the violent consequences of war. Like the injuries of the characters in Born on the Fourth of July, the gruesome depictions in today's war films could be interpreted as questioning involvement in warfare.

Some revisionist war films challenge the conventional representations of women and enemy soldiers. As female involvement in the military increases, and association of military participation and traditional masculinity is slowly challenged, more women are seen as more prominent, positive characters in war films. Some more recent war films like Tora! Tora! Tora!, The Thin Red Line, Saints and Soldiers, and (probably most effectively) Letters from Iwo Jima include the perspectives of enemy soldiers. Here's a clip from Clint Eastwood's film that, I think, needs to be viewed side-by-side with Flags of our Fathers.


Finally, some films seem to challenge conventional representations of war through the use of satire. The ridiculously over-the-top use of profanity by Gny. Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket seems to me to be satirizing the conventional depiction of the drill sergeant. And another of Kubrick's films, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a perfect example of a satirical commentary on war. It goes beyond simple genre parody (like the Hot Shots movies, for example) and challenges the conventional themes of the war film and the concept of war in general.

Here's the conclusion of the film. A U.S. military commander gone insane has launched nuclear missiles at Russia without the consent of the president. Russia has recently developed a defense program that basically destroys the planet if it is attacked. Enjoy!


Conclusion

So, how is this discussion relevant to our lives. Well, I think that first, we must acknowledge that, like depictions of gender in screwball comedy and of westward expansion in the western film, the war film both reflects and informs our society's perception of war. There's a great scene in Jarhead where the marines prepare for deployment by watching Apocalypse Now. Even though the film is ultimately critical of the Vietnam War, the soldiers "get off" on the violent depictions. While this is an extreme example, I think that the depictions of war, and even more common depictions of violence have the potential to shape our society's perception of and even participation in violence. And that's some serious stuff.

Assignment

This week's assignment is a little easier than last week's.

This week I'd like you to find a news article that discusses any intersection between media and the current war in the Middle East. (As long as its specifically talking about the relationship between the war and the media, it'll be good.) Post a link. Briefly summarize the article. Do not repeat a previously posted article.

This assignment's purpose is to get you to learn and share your learning about the media's involvement in the current conflict.

Quiz

From the American Cinema, American Culture reading: In war (and war films) what elements of traditional American morality are abandoned? Retained?

Reminder

While the Assignment and Quiz will both be due Sunday by 11:59 pm. The first Film Analysis Paper will still be due this Friday by 11:59 pm.

Email the Assignment and Quiz to Jennifer (like always) and email the paper to me (as an attachment).