Maybe the ultimate purpose of a war movie is to let others hear the force of these stories. A World War II film made in the midst of the war, for instance, might serve a propagandist purpose than one made after the war ends, when there’s more room for nuance and complexity, but it also might not. War movies reflect the artistic impulses of their creators, but they also reflect the attitudes of the times and places in which they were created. So, like other inescapable elements of the human experience, we tell stories about war, stories that reflect our attitudes toward it, and how they shift over time.
It’s a lot to ask, especially since war seems to be baked into human existence. Is it true that movies glamorize whatever they touch, no matter how horrific? And if a war movie isn’t to sound a warning against war, what purpose does it serve? Even if Truffaut’s wrong - and it’s hard to see his observation applying to at least some of the movies on this list - it might be best to remove the burden of making the world a better place from war movies. Lee Ermey, the real-life drill instructor who played the same in Full Metal Jacket, Swofford offered a remembrance in the New York Times with the headline “ Full Metal Jacket Seduced My Generation and Sent Us to War.”) In Anthony Swofford’s Gulf War memoir Jarhead, Swofford recalls joining fellow recruits in getting pumped up while watching Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, two of the most famous films about the horrors of war. Every film about war ends up being pro-war.” The evidence often bears him out. For example, some films claim to be antiwar, but I don’t think I’ve really seen an antiwar film. Asked why there’s little killing in his films, Truffaut replied, “I find that violence is very ambiguous in movies.
Speaking to Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune in 1973, Francois Truffaut made an observation that’s cast a shadow over war movies ever since, even those seemingly opposed to war. Photo-Illustration: Vulture and Courtesy of the Studios
0 kommentar(er)
