How does pro-war art come across to you? As simple clear-eyed realism?
When don’t they?
How about “Toro, toro, toro”?
- but few (anti-)war films have hit me as hard as the 1959 German movie “The Bridge” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052654/). Shook me for days when I saw it at school…
It follows a group of German kids at the very end of WWII as they are picked from school to join the Volkssturm, the Nazi’s last desperate attempt at putting everybody into the fight. The war is already lost and most adults know it. Yet the boys embrace what they perceive as their chance of attaining manhood and perhaps even glory with enthusiasm. The tragedy is unavoidable and must run its course, despite several attempts to keep the kids safe.
Black-and-white, with some flaws and obviously not a high-budget production, its combat scenes (at the end of the movie) resonated almost as much as SPR’s invasion scenes. Even more so, when you know the complete futility - on every level - of those young soldiers’ attempts at heroism. In SPR, there’s the knowledge that the invasion can be thought of as a worthwhile and ultimately successful battle, the sacrifices are not in vain. In this movie, nothing.
Bleh. Not a feel-good movie, but a very good one.
There’s no question that our involvement in WWII was necessary. In this sense, yes, “war is sometimes necessary,” and in that same sense WWII was, for us, a “good war.”
Thus, the propaganda films that Hollywood churned out in the war years were a good thing: they supported us–at home and at war, but mostly at home–in accomplishing the [understatement of the century] *unpleasant *[/understatement of the century] task that had been thrust upon us.
But the only way to make such a film–a “pro-war” film–is to very carefully define its context, its POV. A pro-war film–well, a *rational *pro-war film–can *only *be about the sane response to an insane situation. To focus on the sane side of the equation. Any film–or any art–that takes in the whole equation–that acknowledges the insanity of the kind of situation that leads to war–will be (or at any rate *should *be) and anti-war film.
Unfortunately, the more limited perspective of the pro-war film is less complicated, and more viscerally stirring, than the complex historical/political/social-context perspective of the anti-war film.
Needless to say, these two perspectives will be different for different people, and for different nations. There’s no question that WWII, specifically–and therefore probably War in the abstract, to a great degree–exist in very different contexts for Americans, Germans, and Japanese. Any art will almost certainly reflect such cultural context. To this degree, I think it’s almost unavoidable that movies made about WWII will be fundamentally different from each country.
But I think that to rank those differences, as kingpengvin has–to insist that the German perspective is somehow more valuable, or more valid–is a mistake. First, because it minimizes the individual nature of any one artist’s (i.e. filmmaker’s) perspective, and suggests that this national perspective will necessarily trump any individual vision; that all filmmakers are fundamentally jigoistic. And second, such a suggestion is, paradoxically, kind of jingoistic in its own right, isn’t it?
If Art were as monolithic and collective as Government, such sweeping generalizations might make more sense. But ultimately there’s no such thing as Art. There are only artists.
TTT is not from the Japanese perspective, overall. It’s a clinically detailed re-enactment of the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, and of the attack itself, primarily from the US perspective. There are brief asides of Japanese perspective, but only to fill in the holes. TTT comes close to objectivity, but the main thrust of the POV is definitely from the American side.
Nitpick: It’s Tora Tora Tora.
Nit Pick: Lust for Life is actually used to hawk Carnival Cruise ships, not banks. I think it was in an Onion Article that LfL was used as a banking jingle. IMO, this is an example of real life being funnier than it’s parody. “Carnival Cruise: It’s as fun as heroin!”
Not to get too far off track, but some stuff produced by the U.S. is good. “Band of Brothers” was excellent. George C. Scott’s portryal of Patton reportedly even fooled Patton’s own daughter for a moment. However, I did sincerely enjoy Das Boot.
Re: The Best Years of Our Lives
I saw that movie a year or two ago and really liked it. I don’t remember it very well, except one of the characters had an artifical arm and one of the others had problems with his girlfriend, and I think I might remember finding it depressing. I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn’t seen it.
The Burmese Harp may be what you’re looking for.
No, I don’t think the Germans make the best war movies, although The Marriage of Maria Braun is a Wages of Fear-like great movie with an abruptly stupid ending.
I’d have to say that the best war movies would most likely be from the UK, for two reasons:
1: The British have a stronger literary & theatrical tradition, going back centuries earlier than the Germans. So they simply have the cultural apparatus in place to tell a story effectively.
Countering this is the British tradition of squelching individual ambition. So while geniuses like Fassbinder, Kurosawa and, even under the Soviets, Tarkovsky can flourish in their home nations, Britons like Tony Richardson get fed up with the system after a few years and move to Los Angeles.
2.But if there’s one story that the otherwise naturally contrarian British agree upon, it’s the tragedy of the First World War. And nearly a century later, they continue to find meaningful things to say about it.
For me, Hugh Laurie’s “I’m scared, sir” at the end of Black Adder Goes Forth packed a lot more punch than whatever the hell Tom Hanks was saying in Saving Private Ryan
Cite?
The theoretical case can certainly be made, but where are your examples ? Blackadder goes Forth is, agreed, a good example, and I’ll throw in “Oh, what a lovely war” as a decent contender in the “war as absurd spectacle” category. But I haven’t seen anything like Stalingrad produced i GB. Too bad, as there are undoubtedly stories to be told.
I second mkl12’s call for a cite, here. A unified Germany is of course a relatively new phenomenon, but German-language literature goes back to the 11th century.
The Germans also make the best Scheißevideos.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is a masterpiece, that just happens to be about England and WWI.
I’m not disputing that Stalingrad was a superior war movie. But if I took a spin in a Mclaren and then came online and started a thread “Nobody does cars better than Great Britain,” you guys would hand me my head.
The Second World War was not the most profound event in German history. That event was the Thirty Years War; which set the theme of the Germans being the victims of war, not it’s benefactors. And although we’ve been led to believe it so for many years, German culture is not especially militaristic. Due to their Teutonic tradition of obedience to paternal authority, they’ve had periods of militaristic domination. But if you look at their history, that’s not the norm: just a generation after Frederick the Great left the scene, the Germans got their butts kicked by Napoleon. They were caught unprepared for the Crimean War, and were left in weaker position than even the Sardinians when its spoils were divied up. And after WW2, the demystification of the military cult in Germany was amazingly fast,
compared to the defeated American South, where the profession of arms is still highly regared.
Sure, the Germans have their own rich literary tradition. But it just doesn’t compare to the UK’s. You’re asserting a relativism that would require you, in a thread about German composers such as Handel, Hyadn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. to chime in that England is every bit as good due to Britten, Elgar and Vaugh Williams.
Ok, you have Shakespeare - but besides him, which authors do you regard as superior to which German/other non-English counterparts? This is a fully serious question because from the other perspective, I see little evidence for your assertion. Of course my judgment is flawed because I have been exposed to far more German than English literature, but how did you come to this conclusion?
Dude, there are no “counterpoints” in literature. Whichever tradition you’ve been raised in will speak more to you; that’s gotta be nearly universal.
I don’t disagree with you, but Slithy Tove seemed to claim an objective difference in quality - not his personal preference - complete with dubious “facts”. I just wanted to know how he got that idea.