Wars and Conflicts permalink
War Films of the last 20 years
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Drew1984 (U3261594) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
I'm doing my final year university dissertation on war films and how todays youth are less sensitive to depictions of war than previous generations, esentially I'm trying to find out why war films have become more and more graphicly violent.
If anyone has any coments about this I would be very happy to discuss you thoughts.
Also if anyone knows of good sources about how war tactics and technolgies have changed over the years that would be a huge help to me.
Andrew Snelgar -
Message 2
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Hi,
For historical fact and accuracy simply refer your professor to any movie with Mel Gibson in it..........
-
Message 3
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Drew 1984,
Interesting topic. But I note from your title that you're talking about war films in the past twenty years. Are you only looking at films fo 1986 onwards, which would include Saving Private Ryan, but exclude Apocalypse Now, and all the classic 1940/1950s films? Or is your project to compare the films of he past 20 years with the ones that went before them?
In any case, suggest you have a number of themes;
- attitudes to film censorship
- social attitudes of cinema-going veterans, not particularly interested in graphic depictions of violence
- changes in audience demographics, and imact of television. -
Message 4
Posted by Drew1984 (U3261594) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Hi C3Square,
I originally wanted to include films from the 40's and 50's all the way up to present day but that would prove to big for a 10 - 12,000 word dissertation. So to make it from 1986 narrows it down but doesn't limit me as there are films like Black Hawk Down, Platoon, Private Ryan amoung many others which I can include. I will undoubtably have to reference films from before 1986 but it just keeps my studies focused.
The opinions of veterans of any conflicts are very important to me as they obviously have first hand experience. As well as the impact of televsion the impact of video games is important to me on this topic. -
Message 5
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
I'm doing my final year university dissertation on war films and how todays youth are less sensitive to depictions of war than previous generations, esentially I'm trying to find out why war films have become more and more graphicly violent.
Andrew Snelgar
Is it not just that most films have become more violent and very dependent on special effects.
MB -
Message 6
Posted by Spitfire1940 (U3242695) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
The first film i saw which broke the mould of the war film genre, and depicted war in a more accurate and graphic detail was Sam Pekinpahs (1977)Cross of Iron starring james Coburn. Although it wasn't based on any particular event on the Eastern Front it had some disturbing scenes which seldom if never had been previously been seen on the Big Screen.
You may want to take a look and start your disseratation from that point.
The film Stalingrad (in the late 80's early 90's) was also quite disturbing especially the scenes when the main characters were in a penal battalion armed with mines and left to fight the advancing T34's -
Message 7
Posted by Balanchine (U3177050) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
You are right about Cross of Iron. Apart from a bit of a dodgy ending it is a real classic. I think Orson welles called it the best anti war film he had ever seen. The battle scenes are amazing and the characters really gave it their all in portraying the brutallity and pitiless nature of the war on the Eastern front.
-
Message 8
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Andrew,
I would argue that they've just become more realisitc? People don't blindly accept these days and question, reality it seems is more acceptable. Examples in Saving private ryan and Band of Brothers, that's how people die, it's not some dramatic fall...
Many complain about historical movies that venture away from the truth, so I think it's maybe something to do with that. -
Message 9
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
I'm doing my final year university dissertation on war films and how todays youth are less sensitive to depictions of war than previous generations, esentially I'm trying to find out why war films have become more and more graphicly violent.
If anyone has any coments about this I would be very happy to discuss you thoughts.
Also if anyone knows of good sources about how war tactics and technolgies have changed over the years that would be a huge help to me.
Andrew Snelgar
I am one for the most simplistic answer--most obvious at least. Technology has gotten better. If 20 or indeed 40 years ago, a film maker could have produced the likes of Saving Private Ryan, he would have done so (within the bounds of censorship).
Many movies are reliant on computer technology that was not available at the time. And the more realistic movies became, the more more they had to continue to be realistic. Movie making, for the most part is about making money. Realistic movies make money. -
Message 10
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
hi,
...just of the top of my head prior Vietnam the people at home had seen very little real combat footage...the cutting edge 1943 feature length war documentary ‘Desert Victory’ utilised staged behind the lines battle scenes cut with stock distance footage. then we have Vietnam and actual war in American livingrooms and movies have to catch up. a lot of those classic post-war offerings from British cinema where as much about a return to the old pre-war class divisions and values by the reintroduction of story lines which contain the well tried notion of the middle-class subaltern as hero (usually with his trusty sidekick a working-class corporeal or sergeant with a regional accent by his side). in the classic ‘Ice Cold in Alex’ (which was incidentally visually informed by the faked ‘Desert Victory’) there is pretty much no actually fighting...and maybe even the action war films of this era made in Britain were not about primary about the experience of combat or even the wider experience of war so its not yet expedient, even if it was acceptable to the censor to show war how it was really fought. i donno.
by the time one gets to Spitfire1940’s inclusion of ‘Cross of Iron’ in 1977 i guess there were similar moves to graphically depicted violence in other cinematic genres. Martin Scorsese’s ‘Mean Streets’ was made in 1973, ‘Death Wish’ starring Charles Bronson was made in 1974 both in their way affording new standards for realistic depictions of violence in cinema…the same year as ‘Cross of Iron’ was ‘A Bridge to Far’, both were made around the time when the men who’d actually fought in WWII were coming up to their retirement age, a few years before those inclined would begin to write their war memoirs and the movie sought to portray war as accurately as possible. i think there was some correlation maybe. at the time the reviewers quipped “A Bridge too Far – an Hour too Long” i saw it at the cinema first time around and fell asleep…
i’m going to go away and think about it…and the speed of ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ played online.
cheers, Sean -
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
-
Message 12
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Can see the constraints. My only concern would be that you are restricted to the modern films with the most realistic special effects and an audience largely without experience of living in wartime (and the War On Terror doesn't count for this purpose, before someone leaps out of the backwoods). Films are the product of the circumstances in which they are produced as much as the period they portray.
There has been work done, especially in the US, on "John Wayne" syndrome (TV-generation soldiers thinking they can charge enemy guns with impunity) and the video phenomena, similar belief in invulnerability and also detachment from the real situation. You should be able to find some refernces on-line. On the other hand, the US military are utilising gaming for training, and recruiting. You'll have trouble fitting that and the film aspect into your dissertation!
Only a suggestion, but couln't you pick a conflict and discuss how it has been portrayed at various stages since? WWII and Vietnam are the obvious ones, although Vietnam is less popular now the audience wants wars the Yanks won (notice no 'Nam films lately?). -
Message 13
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
On the other hand, the US military are utilising gaming for training, and recruiting. You'll have trouble fitting that and the film aspect into your dissertation!
Only a suggestion, but couln't you pick a conflict and discuss how it has been portrayed at various stages since? WWII and Vietnam are the obvious ones, although Vietnam is less popular now the audience wants wars the Yanks won (notice no 'Nam films lately?).
yeah i agree. you've really got very very little room to move with a word count of that size. and, only a suggestion, but maybe WWII is a sensible option with a wider array of movies to discuss and development or the genre over a longer period. and 'We Were Soldiers' 2002 would be an ideal recent example of the craft.
best wishes, Sean
Sean -
Message 14
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
<quote user='jberie' userid='1767537'><quote user='Drew1984' userid='3261594'>
Many movies are reliant on computer technology that was not available at the time. And the more realistic movies became, the more more they had to continue to be realistic. Movie making, for the most part is about making money. Realistic movies make money.
</quote>
Computer graphics are good but I think you can argue that many of the films made during the 1950s were more realistic because they were able to use the real ships, aircraft and vehicles that had been in WWII not just computer copies however well they are done.
The Dambusters was able to use actual Lancaster bombers, I doubt whether the Hollywood remake will get the same feel as the shots taken then even if the CGI version of the dams being breached is more impressive. (If they use Lancasters and not a squadron of American aircraft!).
MB -
Message 15
Posted by Whispering_sid (roughly wooed) (U2025800) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Isn't it important to note that audiences are generally more sensitivised to media representations of violence, of any form, nowadays?
Like tabloid headlines, the more sensationalist the better... perhaps? -
Message 16
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Monday, 20th February 2006
There are several different times during which war films change. Its true that technology has made it easier to show things that simply would not have been possible before, but i think the idea of an audience accepting violence as probably more likely a reason for the more realistic depiction of war in films like Private Ryan (as well as a change of audience). Cross of Iron was a real mould-breaker, but is the logical conclusion of Peckinpah's continuing battle to shock audiences (Straw Dogs and the Wild Bunch).
If you look at the films from the 50's and early 60's, they tend to be very stiff upper lip (if British) or gung-ho (if American). There are exceptions, but for the most part, films tend to reflect the values of the time, and its not until the early 60's that a cynical note really begins to creep in (Stalag 17 and Attack are exceptions). By 1966, you begin to have films like Play Dirty, and in 1968 The Dirty Dozen. Perhaps this reflects not only a changing and younger audience, but also a change in attitude, Algeria and Vietnam having changed peoples view of war. As attitudes on violence on screen begin to change, it was simply no longer acceptable to cut away at crucial moments, when you could see the same thing in a western or crime film. The crucial change probably came after The Longest Day (1961)and 'The Great Escape' (1963). By that time, the idea of WW2 simply being the 'Good War' as Terkel put it had begun to fade. Its intersting to see decent fims such as Battle of Britain and Tora Tora Tora failing (1968 and 1970)and MASH instead becoming a big hit. The violence part is part of a general wave from the late 60's onwards in Hollywood. For instance, the violence of the Godfather is something you could not have done in the 50's, so we should be surprised at the trend in war films either. -
Message 17
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
the impact of video games is important to me on this topic.
by the way if you decide to go there - there is a small piece about the US army's 'Full Spectrum Warrior' in Cabinet: a Quarterly of Art and Culture, Issue 12, Fall 2003 - Winter 2004, pp 104-5.
best wishes, Sean
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.