People in the US don't go to movies to watch real violence. There's no actual war footage in most war movies, even though it's readily available. Audiences like indulging in a fantasy of violence, but we don't really glorify real violence.
Tangentially: Isn't it interesting that no anti-war movies are being produced anymore? I'm guessing it might be because we're living in a bit more peaceful times than before and there is no need for such movies, but also access to military equipment for producing such movies would be very limited.
I still remember the pictures of real war injuries they showed to us during a first aid course at military. Such pictures should be shown way more. People have a way too clean conception of war, probably because of movies. It's dirty business with horrific consequences.
US military spends a lot of time and effort on propaganda. Lines like "bring our boys home" are literally inserted into hundreds of movies. They also release a lot of this type of footage to portray combat as less horrific than it actually is.
'Tptacek mentions a great list. What I'll add to that is that, contemporaneously, criticism of the military doesn't sell movie tickets. Nobody wants to watch a movie about how American soldiers might be put in harm's way for a bad reason, or might not behave honorably, at least not unless the event is historically removed enough that the audience can separate the message of the movie from their own family, friends, and kids on the front lines.
It's not just propaganda, it's also the fact that a lot of what is portrayed in films is outside the realm of experience for regular people. People just can't tell what is realistic and what isn't, because many people just don't know.
Battles, gun fights ("it's just a scratch, walk it off"), stabbings, fights and so on.
Then there's topical films like Contagion, and Outbreak.
And then there are disaster films portraying tsunamis nothing like the ones we saw in Japan and Banda Aceh.
It's not just movies. Real life attitudes toward war are similar. Hawks advocate for fighting, especially fighting on foreign shores, with little regard for collateral damage. And that attitude is far older than movies, so movies didn't create that attitude, though they may reinforce it.
Actually, I have to admit that I haven't seen that film and know little about it. I tried to dig up the exact quote from "This Film Is Not yet Rated" but couldn't find it, so I may have misremembered it.
But the underlying point still stands, even if that film is not a great example. Depictions of war should probably be treated be differently than the kind of over-the-top violence in most action movies that I can only describe as fantasy. Yet the ratings board seems not to take that into account, and just counts splatters of blood in a way that's taken out of context.
I grew up watching Soviet movies about war, which usually depict very different picture. Sure, there are heroes, but they are not super heroes as in American movies. They get injured, die. Soviet war movies show that wars really suck.
I'm saying that noting that people enjoy war movies and kids play games about war, doesn't mean they support war at all. Disaster movies are liked for the same reason as war movies. There is adrenaline and excitement and suspense. Thinking about how you would react in those situations and discussion with friends afterwards. No one wants to watch movies about boring everyday life.
> To be fair, they are never portrayed in a very realistic way. Or at least not in a way in which you care about the characters dying on screen.
I'm not sure I agree. Usually they are not, but perhaps you might re-watch Saving Private Ryan. It's not the only gory war movie, but it does a remarkable job of showcasing horrific things we humans do to each other. The knife fight scene is especially disturbing.
"The Tudors" also had some pretty cruel punishments, though often it's not carried off on-screen. Even when the people being tortured are not protagonists, it's hard not to empathize in the "oh god that's just not right" way.
You make a good point though about there still being terrible things going on in other parts of the globe.
Yeah, but that would require different filmaking. War and horror movies made for entertainment pretend to criticize violence, but mostly glorify war presence and makes you wanna be soldier or hero.
It is possible to make war movie that feels bad, but generally they tend to be obscure (as you wont watch it for fun).
I didnt realize this until I went to a film festival in another country and saw war movies about conflicts the US eventually was involved in, but during time periods before or after and heros and protagonists from other countries in the war.
It was a mixture of noticing how Hollywood has barely any of this, and the awkwardness of rooting for the hero. Just a juvenile cognitive dissonance being overwritten.
reply