Nine

ANTI-WAR WAR FILMS

Dennis Rothermel

1. Introduction

It is difficult to believe that it should ever be necessary to acknowledge the horrors of warfare. Nevertheless, an undeniable glorification of war and war- like virtues lies embedded in the literature and culture of Western civilization. Treatments of the horrors of war in the arts are equally old. Cinema that pro- motes the honor of soldiers in war does so mostly in the obligatory context of how a particular war is justified. The tendency of such films is to glorify war, warriors, and war-like virtues generally. The alignment with imputed justness of the cause ameliorates qualms about how shallow the warrior’s allegiance is to any cause. Few individuals, particularly among those who have had direct expe- riences, would encourage the experience of combat in war as something une- quivocally desirable for its own sake (Rose, 2008, pp. 45–60). The legacy of war films—especially those produced in Hollywood—engenders the expecta- tion for war films to glorify war, to encourage the virtues of warriors, and to justify the particular wars depicted. It should take nothing more than to show war for what it is to evoke a countervailing message. How well a national audience is prone to hear and understand that countervailing message may suffer from the common expectations that the legacy of war films has incul- cated into the national culture. This countervailing message underscoring the experience of warfare will also be a message generally constrained to lie beyond the discourse concern- ing whether engagements in particular wars were justified, or whether war generally is ever justified. This kind of message will contribute to the assertions that particular wars or war generally are fraught with horrible consequences, but without relying upon such assertions. The anti-war war film will have signific- ance for philosophical stances regarding war that encompass a broader spectrum than that of pacifism alone, however inclusively that may be defined. A long tradition in the culture and in the history of cinema commemo- rates the glory of those who suffer and sacrifice in combat for the sake of na- tional purposes. That legacy of glorification establishes a concomitant need to stress the obvious horrific aspects of combat. The anti-war war film simply asserts the obvious. The inspiration for such works often comes from the film’s director having directly experienced or witnessed combat in war. Ro- 76 DENNIS ROTHERMEL bert Altman, John Ford, Sam Fuller, Howard Hawks, Lewis Milestone, Jean Renoir, George Stevens, Oliver Stone, William Wellman, and Fred Zinne- mann have made films reflecting their wartime experiences. The sole overrid- ing intent in these examples is to show the experience of the soldier in war for exactly what it is—without glorifying it to justify a national political agenda, and without exaggerating it to trivialize the heroism, mutual care, and reliance among soldiers that engender loyalty, solidarity, gratitude, and sacrifice. Sometimes that careful balance avoiding jingoism and trivialization will result in a mixed message. Some war films that glorify war also include anti- war elements, even if the mixture of contrary meanings is not intentional. Some examples of films with this sort of mixed message that still show the horror of the soldier’s experience are John Ford’s They Were Expendable (1945), David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Lewis Milestone’s Pork Chop Hill (1959), William Wellman’s Story of G.I. Joe (1945), Robert Al- drich’s Attack (1956), Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now! (1979), Sa- muel Fuller’s The Big Red One (1980), Clint Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima (2006), and Edmund Goulding’s 1938 compromising remake of Howard Hawks’ Dawn Patrol (1930). Showing war for what it is focuses upon depiction of the experiences of soldiers. Sam Fuller asserted that no stronger opponent to war exists than the ordinary soldier who has endured combat. Fuller, a war veteran, also asserted that we have no genuine way to translate the soldier’s experience to a movie audience other than to fire weapons at them from behind the screen—not just for show but hitting a few here and there (Dombrowski, 2008, p. 46). How actual experience differs from how cinema can depict it will be salient for any experience where the contingencies of the experience are of consequence to the person having that experience. That difference, however, may not neces- sarily entirely close off the possibility of empathy even without having had direct correlative experience. Some have found the experience of combat energizing and some find it alluring. Those mostly deeply enthralled in the culture of militarism will find encouragement in any depiction of warrior action, and perhaps even reveling in the depictions clearly intended to show the transgressions of humane beha- vior that combat requires (Swofford, 2003, pp. 6, 64). The anti-war war film such as I characterize it will be something other than propaganda meant sin- gularly to influence an audience to accept a certain opinion. The reception of cinema that shows war for what it is provides a litmus test of the cultural and political health of a nation. It is one question as to what a film, a book, or a painting may mean and another as to how a public va- riously perceives it. Both issues will have their separate relevance, but we should expect to exclude as inherently suspect answers to the first question that are based upon evidence relevant only to the second, for the simple rea- son that popular reception may fall far short of careful comprehension.