Anti-War Films Can’t Exist
Francois Truffaut claimed ‘There is no such thing as an anti-war film’
Do all war films ultimately fall into the trap of glorifying conflict and violence, even if they claim their intentions to be otherwise?
Arguably one of the most renowned war films is Steven Spielberg’s ‘Saving Private Ryan’. Spielberg himself claims ‘any war movie, good or bad, is an anti-war movie’. However, I am inclined to argue that his own production disproves this theory. The film follows a group of US soldiers during the allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. It opens with an unrelentingly gruesome opening scene; depicting the horrific slaughter of young men on the beaches of Normandy in a soberingly graphic display. It appears to be a raw and unglazed depiction of conflict. However, as the story progresses, it feels as if it slips into the ‘Marvel Hero’ archetype - focused upon ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’- with the suffering and violence glorified as a hero’s service. An endless, relentless agony is instead replaced with a boy-scout-like camaraderie and sense of adventure.
In contrast, Edward Berger’s ‘All Quiet on the Western front’ is in many ways successful in its depiction of war in its full horror, as opposed to glory. The film follows Paul Bäumer, a teenage boy who signs up for the German army with his friends as they graduate high school in 1917. It shows terror as the defining emotion of warfare and conflict. The relentlessness of the fear is exhausting- even for the viewer. It is grim and sobering, without being empowering in any way. I think it is this that separates it from many other attempts at an ‘anti-war war film’. It resists the temptation to celebrate and fixate upon tales of victory.
However, the psychology behind our fixation and interest in war films suggests that all films are ultimately dominated by their need to be entertaining, rather than true or harrowing. The effect of these films on our brains is that our emotions essentially respond as if it is real. It causes a rush of adrenaline: our pulse races, our hands are sweaty, but ultimately, our attention is completely captivated. This adrenaline is not an inherently negative response, manifesting itself often in excitement and engagement. Many films manipulate and trigger these emotions, and it can be entirely unintentional. Often in an attempt to present an ‘anti-war’ perspective, effort is made to depict the most horrific and gruesome imagery possible. In doing so, whether intentional or otherwise, they build tension and adrenaline in the viewer. The action depicted is that of agony and suffering, but where feelings of dread should be triggered, the violence is riveting, and the emotions sparked are addictive.
While death should be senseless and entirely unpredictable in order to accurately mirror the nature of war, within film every death is intentional: every gruesome scene purposeful in the curating an overall impact. In its attempt to make it more palatable for a modern audience, it feels almost inevitable that all cinema will trivialise the ghastly nature of such mass death and destruction.
In its nature, films reach a climax, focusing on conflict and action. The real horror of war is innately boring; it’s gruesome, without being in anyway exciting. A film, by definition, is unable to capture the length of war, the waiting, and the slow, rotting deaths of disease and starvation. For this reason, it feels that all war films lean into a dramatised depiction of war whether they intend to or not. Their objectives of educating or even remaining realistic are most likely overshadowed by a need to be entertaining.
Sources:
BBC
Medium.com
The atlantic