This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
| viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
[removed]
I’ve always been against the term “anti-war” as a general political description, because it entirely depends on what war you’re talking about. Or at least, it should, if you want anyone at all to be on board.
Why does a movie have to be antiwar?
There are no anti-war movies and there are no anti-drug movies because both of those things inescapably look really cool. Yes I’ve seen The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now. Yes I’ve seen Requiem for a Dream and Trainspotting. But even when you portray either subject as miserable, it will always come across as cool anyway. Because ultimately nihilistic self-pity comes across as really cool to the people who aren’t there (i.e., the viewers), and both subjects usually render their leading characters in a state of nihilistic self-pity. I think it’s foolish to think movies could ever reduce the frequency of these bad behaviors.
Edit: I don’t mind downvotes but I’d love to hear why people disagree.
I think any sincere depiction of the realities of war will inevitably be anti-war. You can’t watch Come and See, or AQOTWF and think “yeah, war is good and just.” Of course war is a reality, but any honest portrayal of it should leave the viewer repulsed. I recently watched The Bombardment which I thought did a good job reflecting on how even in a war as one-sided in regards to justice as WW2 even the Allies by mistake or carelessness or strategic attacks on the axis still killed countless innocent civilians. War is wretched and i think anti war movie paints it in all of its color.
Great movie. Really unenjoyable. Over and over again what another war movie would paint as heroic and valorous, this movie makes meaningless and uncomfortably intimate. Any battle depicted doesn’t accomplish anything but satisfy their general’s proto-fascist views. Not a single death meant anything except a warning to never repeat.
War films are rarely to never truly anti-war, simply because a lot of viewers will see the suffering, violence and absurdity and feel compelled to join or support the military as a result. It doesnt matter what message you attach to it. Human beings are violent and social animals.
I think it is very easy to make an anti-war movie about any war 100+ years ago – the cause is obsolete and no one who fought it is still alive today so people and families don’t have a direct personal connection to the destruction caused by that war. If you want to make a truly anti-war you make it about a war that is still on-going or only recently ended.
I don’t think the quote about no movie being anti-war makes any sense. Leaving aside the suggestions about movies that legitimately are – like Grave of the Fireflies for example – the title of this video references a poem by Wilfred Owen. That poem is very clearly anti-war. Explicitly so. If a poetry medium can be anti-war, any artistic medium can be.
If anyone is on the fence about watching this, do it. It is hauntingly beautiful. Incredible cinematography and set design like I’ve never seen before. Truly a remarkable film. Though, I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again. It is brutal and blunt and does not hold the audiences hand. Definitely on my list of greatest movies I’ll never watch again alongside Requiem for a Dream.
Most war movies tend to be anti-war unless it involves some superhuman like Rambo.
Clearly this person has never heard of *Come and See* (1985). It’s so horrific that you’d NEVER mistake WW2 as anything other than an apocalyptical nightmare.
How is no one talking about his heavy Dutch accent?
Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
I can’t believe all the acclaim AWOTWF is getting. It is a mediocre movie at best. Its depiction of ww1 is uninteresting and cliched and doesn’t really take me back to that era. The book is far superior and more under stated (and as such more psychologically true to the era).
It’s got 9 Oscar nominations, while the Thin Red Line which is so incredibly superior in every way, only got 7.
Anyway rant over, I like German cinema, have interest in the historic period and like the book so this movie was very disappointing to me
The greatest war films don’t need to show any combat to get their point across. Come and See, for example, is a great film but it’s attempt at being anti-war is undermined by it’s incredibly voyeuristic and immaculately produced scenes of inedible violence in all its brutality, ultimately allowing the audience to enjoy it if they choose to. Same can be said for the violence in Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now etc counteracting any sentiment of pacifism by creating a very enjoyably violent film. These are all great films don’t get me wrong but I don’t feel they are really anti-war as they all profit off showing violence as entertainment.
Some truly great war films that don’t lean into stylistically glamorizing the horrors of violence to get their point across include:
The Spirit of the Beehive (1973)
Testament (1983)
The Sacrifice (1986)
Life Is Beautiful (1997)
No Man’s Land (2001)
Turtles Can Fly (2004)
The White Ribbon (2009)
But even then I have always agreed with that François Truffaut quote, if someone is using war to generate entertainment, to create profit, to further their career etc. then it is impossible for that entertainment to be truly anti-war as to be truly against something is to not profit from it.
Imagine if someone made an anti-rape film and instead of focusing on the aftermath decided to film a bunch of well made highly graphic rape scenes (Irreversible for example enjoys showing you rape as much as it attempts to be “anti”), or how about making an anti-pedophilia film but choosing to go about recreating highly produced scenes of child sexual abuse for an audience just to prove a point. Everyone would see through the thinly veiled attempt at being edgy and those films would not be considered “great” by most audiences.
But for some reason most people require a “great anti-war” film to recreate in as much detail as possible “the horrors of war” so people can sit back and enjoy the spectacle, humanize the violence and desensitize from reality. And there is always the genuine risk that showing people detailed depictions of what not to do is a sure fire way of getting idiots to try it.
Being truly anti-war means not making a film about the power and devastation of war but rather making a film about the healing beauty of love and inspiring an audience into an entirely different way of perceiving the world.
Dersu Uzala (1975)
Platoon, Come and See, Deer Hunter (historical inaccuracies aside), Downfall all do a great job of making war look not fun.
Any well made war movie is an anti war movie. You can’t watch those depictions of violence and not see the horror of war. It is so frustrating to see what we do to each other over things like land, religion and resources.