War - Hollywood

[Jerry D]

Dan that was a good one

Mike I liked "Gods and Generals" for the WBTS era

[BLUEHAWK]

Jerry -
I also found some treasure seeing "GOOD MORNING VIETNAM"... seemed believeable.

[Desdichado]

I don't think ANY "war movie" about ANY war could be considered accurate. Oh, they can get all the little technical details right if they try, but ultimately all you're going to get is a snapshot at best. Unfortunately, anyone who wasn't actually there is going to seize on that snapshot as if it were some kind of all-encompassing mural. People tend to treat movies as history, even when they're clearly not.

Good Morning Vietnam works as a film because it's not a movie about Vietnam, it's a movie set IN Vietnam. It's a freaking huge difference that film makers just don't seem to get.

I think films like We Were Soldiers are nothing more than pornographic violence. It's one thing when a book tells a story about something that happened. A book is a personal thing. It informs. When it gets turned into hundreds of people sitting in air-conditioned padded seats, munching popcorn and watching people die for their entertainment on a Friday night, it just transcends sick. Life has no soundtrack.

And I don't know what Oliver Stone(d) was thinkin' with his movies, but I'd like to punch him in the nose.

[revwardoc]

Since you asked about an accurate film about the Rev War, I'd have to say, overall, Drums Along the Mohawk, which was pretty good for 1939. One of the funny things about that movie was they rarely used the term "British", opting instead for redcoat or Tory. The word is that Hollywood didn't want to chance insulting Great Britain or having the power of the movie-media influence American attitudes about England even at that late pre-WWII date. It was a PC world even back then. While the story is based on actual events, thereare a fewinaccuracies but you'd have to be a Rev War nut, like, me to notice.

Revolution, with Al Pacino, was excellent for clothing, city scenes, and the way veterans were treated immediately following the warbut didn't take advantage of a potentially good story line. And Pacino's accent was way off.

The Patriot was a good Hollywood-style "Mel"-odrama (Braveheart with pants) but was historical garbage. Several friends were among the "nameless rabble" in the cast and they all told horror stories about the director (a German national) who just plain would not listen to the re-enactors. He told them to leave if they didn't like what was going on. Nice guy, very co-operative.

[BLUEHAWK]

Dan -
The New Yorker just came out late October with an entire issue devoted to nothing but films and how they get made, along the lines of the director you mention who got in the way of re-enactors suggesting authenticity... must be all but impossible to visualize war, any way it gets shaken. It's an interesting topic though, since vets who HAVE "seen the Elephant" can tell fact from fiction real quick.

[BLUEHAWK]

Sir John Keegan, a well-respected British military historian and writer of numerous books on the topic said, when asked which war film(s) he liked, replied:

"I do not like war films".

[BLUEHAWK]

The October 20th, 2003 issue of THE NEW YORKER magazine was devoted entirely to anything and everything having to do with films and film making...
damn interesting reading all in all.

A dear pal o' mine, Oscar winner for his screen writing on "THE CANDIDATE",
did not think too highly of the issue... said it lacked life. I trust him, totally.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Desdichado I don't think ANY "war movie" about ANY war could be considered accurate. Oh, they can get all the little technical details right if they try, but ultimately all you're going to get is a snapshot at best. Unfortunately, anyone who wasn't actually there is going to seize on that snapshot as if it were some kind of all-encompassing mural. People tend to treat movies as history, even when they're clearly not.

Good Morning Vietnam works as a film because it's not a movie about Vietnam, it's a movie set IN Vietnam. It's a freaking huge difference that film makers just don't seem to get.

I think films like We Were Soldiers are nothing more than pornographic violence. It's one thing when a book tells a story about something that happened. A book is a personal thing. It informs. When it gets turned into hundreds of people sitting in air-conditioned padded seats, munching popcorn and watching people die for their entertainment on a Friday night, it just transcends sick. Life has no soundtrack.

And I don't know what Oliver Stone(d) was thinkin' with his movies, but I'd like to punch him in the nose.

I was trying to find words to compare the movie Cold Mountainwith the book of the same title by Charles Frazier and could not. Your whole post expresses my thoughts perfectly.

I went to see the movie Cold Mountainand the description of the story contained in the book that Griz had told me about was not there. I left the movie and got to the book store before it closed at 11 pm.They had the book andit took me on a journey that I will never forget.

The opposite happened with We Were Soldiers I read the book and saw the movie with my children in their home. It was a serious time and not a form of entertainment for any of us. Again the movie could never tell the story contained in the book. I do think there was one good thing that came out of that movie and that is a more respectful view of the Vietnam Veteran and what he lived through. Other than that I would agree completely with your statement that Hollywood War Stories are largely poronographic violence.

Arrow>>>>>

[BLUEHAWK]

I have wondered though, could it be possible that film versions of warfare seem to be "pornographic" violence only, or primarily, because they, like pornography, are portraying an act where a human is seeing something that can only be experienced personally? That is, witnessing a version of an intensely private experience so huge in its effects upon us that, perhaps, NO version or a rare few anyway, are able to approach the truth?

I have found myself deeply touched by certain war films... e.g. I thought GOOD MORNING VIETNAM (as I may have said elsewhere) seemed plausible, and was poignant somehow, maybe close to real. There have been many others throughout my 57 years too, all the names of which I do not bring to mind this minute (GUNS OF NAVARONNE, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or THE DIRTY DOZEN would be examples), but which seemed to teach something about war, or warfare... who knows if it was the "correct" lesson, but it was communicated nevertheless.

I have not gone to COLD MOUNTAIN yet, and may not. However, when the book first came out years ago a dear friend made sure I got an early copy... knowing of my interest in that particular war, and I too found it a moving story, plausible and instructive.

Maybe for those among us who have actually seen the elephant there is not and cannot be ANY portrayal of war which is able to meet its meaning...

[revwardoc]

I've found that the best way to find out what war was/is really like is not to read novels or watch movies or TV or even history texts. It's to read forums like this one, written by the men and women who experienced it first hand and by reading the diaries and letters of combat vets. These are the people who know. A history text will tell you of the slaughter of a battle in general terms but the diary of a combatant will tell you of the face-to-face, hand-to-hand struggle, of the screams of the wounded, having your face splattered by the blood of a guy who was your best friend, of a horse struggling to stand despite having its leg torn away by a cannonball, of pissing your pants watching the human wave rushing at you while you stand behind a shield wall waiting for the first shock of contact. That is the reality and obscenity of war.

Yeah, sure. You can see a Hollywood star "die" in battle, but a few months later he's in a romantic comedy falling for the girl next door. So if you're like me, a guy who served but never saw combat, or just someone who wants to know about what can happen in battle, find those letters, diaries, journals, or talk to a vet.