“There’s nothing I can do,” he thought, as he gathered and commanded an army to overthrow the Emperor and avenge his father.
Please. There’s plenty Paul could have done differently. The jihad was anything but inevitable.
Once Paul realizes the Fremen will take their jihad throughout the universe, it’s too late. Paul could command them to stop or he could be dead but the jihad would continue without him.
I think that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? Don’t most wars start because one or more participants feel like they have no choice, after which they often spiral out of control?
I think the key is “unashamedly” pro-war, like, “War is Fantastic!”, not just, “War is sometimes necessary”. Modern films don’t depict fighting the Nazis as a bad thing, but they also tend to emphasize the negative impact combat has on soldiers, even when the war is a just war. Compare “The Longest Day” with “Saving Private Ryan”, for instance. The tone of SPR is quite different.
And you see that with a lot of modern films and TV shows. “Band of Brothers” didn’t shy away from the negative parts of war. Hell, one episode in particular was centered on one officer, who everyone thought was one of the best soldiers in the unit, finally hitting his breaking point, and becoming so psychologically compromised he simply couldn’t continue fighting.
I disagree. I think that Steven Spielberg - director of Schindler’s List and Raiders of the Lost Ark - was very much in favor of killing Nazis, and wasn’t ashamed of the fact at all. He portrayed the horrors of war not because he was opposed to it, but to show how hard it was to do the right thing, and to honor the soldiers by showing what they overcame.
The main difference between The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan was that the former was made in 1962 and the latter was made in 1998 - with cinematic mores changing a lot in those 36 years. If anything, the earlier film is more ambiguous, in that it humanizes the Germans more.
As an 8th grader, my dad took me to that movie.
The whole evening seemed creepy, because it wasn’t in a theater. Some civic group (Rotary, I think) had rented out a room in the basement of the public library, and a veteran spoke, too.
I’d love to say that it cemented an anti-war mentality in me, but all I remember was being really bored.
Violence is always personal to the person injured, I would ask for more to earn the moniker Anti-war film.
Your description also covers John Wick.
I’d venture to suggest that Spielberg does not “oppose the war” in the sense of “America shouldn’t have joined in,” or “The Allies should have surrendered and let Germany win,” but does very much “oppose the war” in the sense that Germany should have stayed the fuck out of Poland in the first place, and not started the whole thing. There’s a lot of pro-war films with the premise that defending your country is glorious and honorable, but really very few with the premise, “War is awesome, let’s go start one.”
I think TLD is told more as a historical drama, focused more on the events of the day told from various perspectives. Somewhat common in those days with those big epic war films like A Bridge Too Far or Tora! Tora!, Tora!. SPR is really more of a personal story told from the POV of a single squad.
A good contrast would be with Battleground made in 1949. That’s a personal story of a squad going through the Battle of the Bulge. It’s certainly not an anti-WWII movie but it doesn’t shy away from showing the effects on soldiers. Obviously must be taken in context of the time it was made, it doesn’t have hyper realistic violence
like SPR. The soldiers having to leave a Ricardo Montalban behind then going back to find him frozen to death still has impact.
I assume this thread is talking about European/American films. Because I think there have been a number of pro-war Chinese films in the past few years, for instance.
I believe the “latest” title has now been passed to Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant (full title), which was released this past weekend. A tale of manly men, one a lone wolf American and one a lone wolf Afghan, who manage to mow down wave after wave of Taliban Startroopers warriors. By my estimate, they manage to kill about 500-1000 of these fighters (I am not exaggerating), who never figure out that once they have them pinned down, they can take positions and wait them out. They just keep charging down hillsides or driving right at our heroes in open bed pickups.
And I’m not even counting the dozen or so they kill close up and personal with blades.
That’s disappointing although not surprising from Guy Ritchie. There is a good movie in the real life story of soldiers and ex-soldiers going back into Afghanistan to rescue their interpreters and families. That certainly doesn’t sound like it.
I suspect that was mostly because the book that the movie was based on was written by Hal Moore (the Mel Gibson played), so it was the battle from his perspective if I’m remembering right.
Yeah I was thinking of the movie where the Atredies arrive on Arrakis in full plate armor. Where their legions are standing at attention cheering them. Where Paul is elevated to his father’s war council after defeating a Harkonnen assassination trap. Where Paul is indoctrinated that Harkonnens are animals. Where Paul undergoes extensive training to be an elite warrior in mental, psychological and combat skills. Where the Harkonnen attack on Arrakis is an extended glorious CGI spectacle. Where Duncan Idaho reapetedly says “Let’s fight like demons” and meets his end in truly heroic fashion allowing Paul and Jessica to escape Sardaukar fighters. Where the Fremen have trained themselves to such elite levels they’re more than a match for the Empire’s elite stormtroopers. Where Jessica is such a badass she can easily defeat a Fremen sietch leader. Where Paul’s extensive training pays off in a duel to the death against a deadly Fremen warrior so that he can be with literally the girl of his dreams. And where in Dune II the Fremen will be riding mega-fauna into battle.
I take your point about Paul’s dilemma in controlling the coming jihad, but that message is lost in the spectacle.
ISTM there’s essentially two very different messages that could both be described as “pro-war”. Somebody pointed this out upthread, but sorta parenthetically.
There’s pro-war as in “We wuz attacked by evil scumbags and now watch us reverently as we’re fighting back with glorious patriotism and virtue to avenge those wrongs, thoroughly defeat the scumbags, and restore the status quo ante with goodness and light in our part of the world.”
Then there’s pro-war as in “Watch joyously as our glorious forces set out to conquer all we survey and none shall withstand our righteous onslaught for your embiggenment.”
Those are two very different messages. The USA has produced, and continues to produce, lots of the former flavor. The Chinese are now, and have been for a decade, producing lots of the latter flavor. That cinematic difference speaks volumes about where the two real-world cultures are headed. It won’t be pretty.
If someone doesn’t ‘get it’ when Doogie Howser is dressed up like a Nazi scientist and the film features Michael Ironside AND Clancy Brown…I don’t know what to say
;]
Hal Moore and Joe Galloway (played by Barry Pepper). Galloway weren’t on the ground with 2/7 Cav but Galloway did interview those that were. Narratively it makes sense to only show the part of the battle that Moore was in but it made for an incomplete story. I’m sure that’s what led to a fake decisive end to the battle.
Around the time of the movie ABC did a show where Moore, Galloway and others involved returned to Vietnam to walk the battlefield and meet some of their adversaries. As I remember it was very well done and worth watching if you can find it.
I don’t think the movie is coherent or intelligent enough to have any clear message or point of view to get. I think it’s a big dumb action movie with some reflexive Euro-cynicism thrown in in order to make it seem more “edgy.” I think Michael Verhoeven is a profoundly shallow filmmaker - a Dutch Michael Bay - who is sometimes good at faking depth. He’s a decent action director, though, which counts for something.
But that’s just my opinion.
Paul.
I feel that making an intentionally bad movie with bad acting and dialogue for effect is something you can do once. More than once and you are just making bad movies.