First of all we have the question of blood and it is very difficult to draw a line on what is okay and what is not. In fact I don't think that there is such a thing as okay here as again it depends very much on how it is perceived.
No blood at all spares people what many of them don't want to see. Yet it also creates a picture of war that is much more harmless than reality. It creates the false image of a "clean" war that does not exist.
Very true. Though, personally, I think that both ways of presenting war works. On one hand, restraint on the behalf of the filmmakers is often a good thing, but it does create to illusion of a "clean" war to the more naive amongst us, whereas the realistic, graphic depiction creates the perfect picture of the reality, on the other hand, those films are most often very difficult to stomach.
Anyway, I think that as long as all the different ways of telling a war story are used: we should be just fine, and the "blood-free" war movies creating a clean image for war wouldn't be a problem if we took more care to make sure people are informed on the matter outside of movies.
The other extreme is blood and guts being spilled all over the screen as we see it in many movies ranging from "Saving Private Ryan" to "We were Soldiers". That image of war is more realistic, no doubt about that. But how will it be percieved? Does the displaying of that face of war make the majority of the audience hate the concept of war? Or do many people more or less secretly enjoy the sight of blood and gore so if they see it all the time they begin to become less sensitive about it being spilled in real life? Or are many people outraged at this being shown on the screen (demanding the "clean" depiction of war I descriped above)?
I don't think anyone can ever give a single answer to that question.
Very often the fighting is accompanied by really splendid music. Music most of us (including myself) love and which fills us with emotions which I think are intended by the creators of the movies. I am doubting though that the emotions created by that mix of music and massacre is what people felt and feel who are involved in war themselves often not accompanied by gorgeous music.
Unless we actually do fight in wars, nothing can make us feel what those soldiers feel/felt, and I think adding the dramatic takes us the closest we ever will. Anyway, a battle is a dramatic event, and it only makes sense that dramatic music (or sometimes, no music at all) would go along with it. I also don't think that the music is meant to make us feel unlifted about the carnage, regardless of how gorgeous it is.
One thing we have sometimes (but not as often anymore as it used to be the case) is that people are either dead or alive. Except for the heroes who were unable to die we often didn't have any wounded with all the screams and pleas and madness which is part of war's reality.
No comment.
One of the things that is to this day not very common in movies is showing the longtime results of war. We often have a few seconds or minutes in which people are mourning the "casualties" but we are not really pushed to realize that every single one of the thousands of people killed in war had a family, parents, wifes, husbands, children who will not grieve for a moment, an hour, or a day but for a lifetime. Many people "decay" (I found no more appropriate term) from what war did to them even if they were not involved in the fighting or else were involved in it but got away physically unscratched. Movies don't usually mention this.
Well, after you've already worn the audience down with grief, there is a stopping that you don't want to go past, but I see your point.
You will have a hard time finding a single war movie which doesn't send the message accross that the people who died (at least the "goodies") died for a just cause. Usually you will see a flag (again with beautiful music) and people saluting to it or the like. Often somebody will hold a speech telling that the people didn't die in vain. Is that the way we want to see war?
Would you rather believe a loved one died needlessly? The fact is is that the people who go to war know that they're gettting in deep (unless they're stupid), and possibly will not come out alive. They know the risk, and it's a part of the job of a soldier to be willing to die in a war. It is true that a lot of people die in horrible ways in war, but it's true: their deaths are often not in vain, because they did their part, and they did until they could do no more.
Often we have "the good" and "the bad". If motivations of "the bad" are mentioned at all this is often done very superficially or (just like the mourning) in a few moments.
Agreed, although I can easily just read the history books if I want to know what was going on with the other side.
Sometimes historical facts are falsified in movies to the degree that one might think that the war is still going on and the movie is a piece of propaganda supporting one of the sides fighting it.
I daresay we all like to watch movies which include war. I like watching many of them and I doubt any of you could really claim not to be affected the one way or the other in which war is presented on the screen.
Above I have written a kind of list of random thoughts about the matter. I am not exactly trying to push through a particular point (maybe something as horrible as war cannot be shown in a manner that really does justice to those who are affected by it) but I suppose that there are quite a few points we can discuss.
No comment, agree completely, and I do think that war is not something you can accurately portray on screen. It's just not possible.
