What is the Purpose of War Films?
March 9, 2010 2:50 PM Subscribe
Erik Malmstrom, veteran, writes an opinion piece for the New York Times about the purpose of war movies Malmstrom talks about The Hurt Locker and The Messenger, as well as the documentary Restrepo. He argues to give the Hollywood films some slack, yet he argues that the documentary provides "reality" because it operates without the Hollywood filter.
It is unlcear to me why the abomination of war - even "good" wars, let alone our ongoing war crime in Iraq - is undeserving of manifestos against it. Even "virulent" ones.
It's not that it's undeserving. It's that manifestos usually make for bad movies.
posted by Rangeboy at 3:17 PM on March 9, 2010 [2 favorites]
It's not that it's undeserving. It's that manifestos usually make for bad movies.
posted by Rangeboy at 3:17 PM on March 9, 2010 [2 favorites]
Let's go and make the greatest war movie ever!
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:51 PM on March 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:51 PM on March 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
This piece is part of a five-part series.
Restrepo site.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:39 PM on March 9, 2010
Restrepo site.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:39 PM on March 9, 2010
So, what's the verdict on The Hurt Locker these days? Is it a conservative masterpiece, or a liberal abomination how that some veterans have criticized the movie for it's lack of realism?
Lack of realism is an odd thing to hear about war movies. I think back on all the WWII movies I saw as a kid on TV. Seems like there were a million of them. But even the highly regarded classics struck me as often kind of corny even back when I was a kid. Did The Greatest Generation get all snippy about the war pictures produced back then? Or are modern vets hyper sensitive about their portrayal on film?
posted by 2N2222 at 4:39 PM on March 9, 2010
Lack of realism is an odd thing to hear about war movies. I think back on all the WWII movies I saw as a kid on TV. Seems like there were a million of them. But even the highly regarded classics struck me as often kind of corny even back when I was a kid. Did The Greatest Generation get all snippy about the war pictures produced back then? Or are modern vets hyper sensitive about their portrayal on film?
posted by 2N2222 at 4:39 PM on March 9, 2010
Agreed that The Hurt Locker isn't about the Iraq War at all. Instead, it's about a single man who finds the one thing he's meant to do in war. It's an old story, but an important one. What brought the film home to me wasn't the directing or the screenplay (both were excellent pieces of journeymanship, and, yes, action-movie-esque and factually-suspect, respectively) but Jeremy Renner's performance, which I felt was absolutely perfect.
posted by Football Bat at 5:13 PM on March 9, 2010
posted by Football Bat at 5:13 PM on March 9, 2010
To say that The Hurt Locker isn't about the Iraq conflict is to deny that the use of IEDs has been significantly higher there than it has in any previous conflict.
I cannot understand how someone can say that this movie would essentially be the same if it took place in Korea. Really? What was the life of an EOD soldier like in Korea?
posted by Dagobert at 10:28 PM on March 9, 2010
I cannot understand how someone can say that this movie would essentially be the same if it took place in Korea. Really? What was the life of an EOD soldier like in Korea?
posted by Dagobert at 10:28 PM on March 9, 2010
What was the life of an EOD soldier like in Korea?
There wouldn't have been IEDs but that is pretty incidental detail, isn't it? The Hurt Locker is about the drama of bomb disposal and the way it affects people psychologically. Both of those are constants throughout modern warfare.
It's that manifestos usually make for bad movies.
Maybe but I find it hard to believe that any films are actually virulent anti-war manifestos rather than just virulently anti-war (and I don't know too many of those). Malmstrom doesn't give any examples either.
posted by ninebelow at 3:17 AM on March 10, 2010
There wouldn't have been IEDs but that is pretty incidental detail, isn't it? The Hurt Locker is about the drama of bomb disposal and the way it affects people psychologically. Both of those are constants throughout modern warfare.
It's that manifestos usually make for bad movies.
Maybe but I find it hard to believe that any films are actually virulent anti-war manifestos rather than just virulently anti-war (and I don't know too many of those). Malmstrom doesn't give any examples either.
posted by ninebelow at 3:17 AM on March 10, 2010
The psychologist character bothered me, in particular; portrayed as a one-dimensional, skittish desk jockey, his ride-along with the soldiers ends predictably.
god yeah. That was so clownishly predictable.
The SAS being complete losers compared with the awesome sniper-fighting skills of US Army bomb disposal teams was a bit WTF as well.
posted by Artw at 9:16 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
god yeah. That was so clownishly predictable.
The SAS being complete losers compared with the awesome sniper-fighting skills of US Army bomb disposal teams was a bit WTF as well.
posted by Artw at 9:16 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
SAS being complete losers
Reminds me of this picture from Iraq.
posted by Tenuki at 5:10 PM on March 10, 2010
Reminds me of this picture from Iraq.
posted by Tenuki at 5:10 PM on March 10, 2010
« Older "Clearly, even people who play Farmville want to... | “Just close your eyes and don’t let the show into... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It is unlcear to me why the abomination of war - even "good" wars, let alone our ongoing war crime in Iraq - is undeserving of manifestos against it. Even "virulent" ones.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:09 PM on March 9, 2010 [3 favorites]