hesmond, on 10 January 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:
but i must say its a very strong director who when makeing a war movie does not fail at some point to try for the anti war why are we here or doing this speech ?
I guess it just frosts me because it doesn't happen in real life. There's a famous helmet-cam video of British soldiers in Afghanistan who realize that the Taliban are only meters away, about to attack, and the squad leader says calmly, "Right, we're gonna earn our pay."
Soldiers of the western democracies are brave, heroic, amazing people who deserve better than the portrayals of them created by pampered, multimillionaire filmmakers blubbering away didactically, lecturing us as always about how we need to change every single aspects of our lives because we're just not good enough.
I recently learned that the movie Patton,
directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, was intended as an anti-Patton film that backfired spectacularly. It was made in 1970, so the producers were trying to capitalize on antiwar fever, but it turns out that even though people already know war is hell and they were sick to death of Vietnam, they admire and respect fearless, unapologetic warriors who fight for the cause of good and who fight to win.
There was a recent made-for-cable movie about Eisenhower preparing for D-Day, with Tom Selleck as Ike. There was no speechifying. The only "antiwar" message in it came when Eisenhower was being driven past a group of paratroopers about to board a transport plane, and he told his driver to stop so he could talk to them. The driver said, "Sir, you don't want to talk to them, because a lot of them are going to be killed."
And Ike-Selleck said, "That's why I need to talk to them." So he got out and went over and asked their names and shared a smoke with them. It was much more effective and moving than all the blathering and spelling out we see in so many other war movies. The Eisenhower movie was about his strength in taking on the responsibility for organizing a monumental task and not shrinking from the cold, hard fact that he was sending men to their deaths one way or another. But it had to be done.
I guess that's why I hate all the antiwar yapping, especially in movies about the world wars. The wars had to be fought. The enemy had to be stopped. The antiwar message seems to be that nothing is worth fighting for, which I find an obscene sentiment coming from a rich, safe filmmaker who depends on the military to protect his wealth.