Welcome to Now You See It
This video of a train was first screened to a group of people in France in January of
1896. Legend has it that the viewers of the film were so overwhelmed by what looked like
a train coming right at them that many hid under their seats or ran to the back of the
room in fear of getting hit. The truth of this story is debated, but what’s certain
is that seeing a video for the first time of a train coming towards you would probably
leave you pretty shocked and amazed. So the question is, even more than a century later,
can we be just as moved by film, or are we desensitized because we know the things on
screen aren’t actually happening to us
I want to explore the war film because war
films have such great potential to shock and amaze us through their sheer scope and powerful
subject matter. How can films portray war, and what techniques do filmmakers use to depict
war and the soldiers that fight them? Can film portray war realistically?
Let's take a look at two types of war films: Pro-War and Anti-War
French Filmmaker Francois Truffaut is often attributed with saying “there’s no such
thing as an anti-war film” while Steven Spielberg said in an interview with Newsweek
magazine “Of course every war movie, good or bad, is an anti-war movie.” So, who’s
right? I want to argue that while neither of these statements is correct, they do give
insight into the nature of film. But before arguing if a film is pro or anti-war, we have
to define pro and anti-war. A definition like “anti-war portrays war
in a bad light and pro-war portrays war in a good light” is somewhat of an oversimplification.
A lot of war films show a combination of positive and negative aspects of war. They Were Expendable,
for example, shows Japanese airplanes blowing up a US PT boat and killing a soldier. Look at
this shot of John Wayne collapsing at the sight of the boat, weighed down by his combat boots
the camera following him to the ground. This scene reflects war as cruel, dangerous, and deadly.
But if we look at the movie as a whole, it’s definitely a pro-war propaganda film.
Look at this shot of General MacArthur, commander of the Army. He towers
over the camera, speaks little, and is treated by the soldiers as a celebrity.
"Sir, please autograph my hat."
He's looked at as a hero and savior for the United States, and this,
and along with lots of pro-war sentiment in the film,
shows that They Were Expendable is much more pro-war than anti-war. I think a better definition for a
pro-war film would be a film that shows the benefits of war outweighing the costs, and an
anti-war film shows the costs of war outweighing the benefits. A modern example of a pro-war film is
American Sniper. Clint Eastwood makes the claim that the film is anti-war, and it definitely has
a lot of aspects of an anti-war film. The film shows that war isn’t always black and
white and can cause serious emotional trauma. But what makes it pro-war is that Chris Kyle
believes he did the right thing.
" I was just protecting my guys, they were trying to kill our soldiers and
I'm willing to meet my creator and answer for every shot that I took"
The film is pro-war because it conveys that, despite
all the trauma of war, war seems worth it.
"And then there are those who have been blessed with the gift of aggression
and the overpowering need to protect the flock.
These men are the rare breed who live to confront the wolf.
They are the sheepdog."
The benefits of war outweigh the cost, and war is a necessarily evil against those who cause terror.
It's with films like American Sniper
where I think Spielberg is wrong in his statement about war films.
War films normally don't make out war as something to look forward to
but they can certainly make war out as necessary.
Pro-war films use heroes and an idea of the greater good
to convey the message that war is necessary
and anti-war films showcase the brutality and cruelty
of war to portray combat negatively
To get a look at how filmmakers use cinematography
to have an anti-war film show the horrors and realities of combat
one has to look no further than the D-Day scene in
Saving Private Ryan.
The transition from the old man in the opening scene to the beaches of Normandy is done with
a jarring smash cut. We don’t fade in, we don’t zoom in. It’s a fast and abrupt
transition. It gives the effect of being forced into the scene without adequate preparation.
The shot of the endless rows of anti-landing barriers on the beach looks eerily similar
to the rows of tombstones in the graveyard we just saw in the earlier scene. A foreshadowing
of what’s to come. We get several close ups of soldiers, and they certainly aren’t
the typical war heroes. The first image of our hero is his hand shaking, a sign of fear.
Compare that to the grand introduction of John Wayne on a squadron of PT Boats that
are basically showing off to the camera. Or even American Sniper where Chris Kyle first gets shown
with his huge powerful sniper rifle. The Omaha beach scene shows a war fought by the terrified,
not by the heroic or masculine. The killing on the beach is best described
as pure chaos. The camera shake, point of view shots and minimal movement blur all work
together to pull the viewer onto the battlefield alongside the other soldiers. With all these
effects, this scene definitely conveys that the costs of war outweigh the benefits. A
great way for a film to portray war in a negative way is to make war scenes as realistic as
possible. By putting us in the real world, we feel the terror
and get a sense that war may not be worth all the turmoil it causes
Waltz with Bashir is another great example of pulling us into the action and showing
how was can have such devastating effects. The movie is an animation war film, and the resulting effect
is that we're removed from the reality in the film
because it’s animated and doesn’t look realistic. Then, in the last minute or so
the film quickly cuts to actual footage of the aftermath of the massacres in Lebanon. The result is
heart wrenching. It jars us from the spectacle of the animation into the harshness of reality.
We see widows crying, dead bodies, and it’s all thrown at us with no preparation for the transition
from cartoon to reality. The effect is extremely powerful, and we realize
that what we were originally seeing only in animated characters
is in fact exactly the reality of war
and that reality is horrific suffering
If that’s not an anti-war film, then I don’t know
what is. I do see where Truffaut is coming from when
he says there is no such thing as an anti-war film. He’s saying that film by nature contains
spectacle. Since we’re not actually on the battlefield and are safe in our movie
theater seats, we don’t completely feel exactly like the soldiers do because we’re
removed from the reality. This removal makes it difficult to construct a film that truly
leaves people disgusted at war because we’re safe from it. We can enjoy watching the destruction
of film in the theater. Famous director Samuel Fuller, upon watching the very anti-war
Full Metal Jacket, stated that it was "just another god damn recruiting film."
Even when films try to criticize war, sometimes they can still give the effect of making war glamorous
Cinema as an art form is limited because no matter how drawn in
we are to the movie, there’s always that barrier from reality. A train on screen doesn't
frighten us like it would in real life. So maybe we are a little desensitized by the
screen. We aren’t shocked like the viewers of the train were back in 1896. Some may say
that’s a limitation to film. But to others it’s a challenge. It’s a challenge all
filmmakers have to tackle. They have to surprise and astonish us even when we're used to watching film
and maybe not every blockbuster
these days can blow you away, but every once in a while, if you’re lucky, you get to
see a film that hits you like a freight train.
Thanks for watching.