Over There and the evolution of war films
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:17 am
So I got hooked on the TV show which is a fictional story about a squad of infantry soldiers sent over to Iraq. One of my classmates who just got back from MP duty in Afghanistan claims it isn't realistic based on the interaction between the troops whereas a friend of mine who just got back from Baghdad (combat virtually every single day- Ranger sniper) claims it's fairly realistic.
Aside from the fact that I find it hugely entertaining, what's fascinating to me is how the portrayal of war films has changed yet again in the last 10 years. All Quiet on the Western Front (a classic movie and book) was the ground breaking antiwar/anti-military movie from the 1930's but was soon followed by a slew of prowar propaganda films during WW2 and afterwards (c.f. any John Wayne movie) which culminated in The Green Berets. Clear "good guy v. bad guy" type stuff. Apocalypse Now broke sharply with the past and its apotheosis was Stone's Platoon in 1986 where the message was again not only antiwar but anti-military.
In the 1990's and beyond the message is changing again, with Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers all decidedly antiwar but empathetic to the soldiers on both sides of the conflict while preserving a strong streak of patriotic fervor that had its echoes in the films of the 40's and 50's. The Thin Red Line was essentially the last of the previous antiwar/anti-military movies and seemed decidedly out of place compared to its contemporaries. The other trend that really became commonplace in these films was their simultaneous treatment of the home front to let you know that soldiers don't operate in a vacuum when in the field.
Enter Over There and its treatment of the American soldiers involved in the Iraq conflict. They opted for the usual Hollywood grab bag of diversity to make the squad interesting but they at least made an effort to give their characters some depth. So many plot lines that would normally have resulted in self-flagellation of the military wind up just the opposite (e.g. shooting of people running checkpoint, sniping of suspected terrorist with his family, accidental shooting of civilians in midst of a firefight, interrogation of terrorist, etc... etc...). I could go on and on here with examples but I'm always stunned when they don't do the predictable stereotypical treatment of plot lines and characters. We seem to have come full circle and Over There winds up in this apolitical region of not really antiwar, but not prowar either. It's pretty much "pro American soldiers" which is a refreshing change.
The other thing I love which really started in Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down is the way the scenes are shot. Crystal clear shots that are zoomed way in and convey all of the confusion and turmoil as you follow a small group of soldiers into the chaos of small unit combat. I think Ridley Scott is an absolute master at this and it's clear that director Bochco decided to follow the same techniques.
Ultimately what it lacks in realism it more than makes up in entertainment. Flame on.
Aside from the fact that I find it hugely entertaining, what's fascinating to me is how the portrayal of war films has changed yet again in the last 10 years. All Quiet on the Western Front (a classic movie and book) was the ground breaking antiwar/anti-military movie from the 1930's but was soon followed by a slew of prowar propaganda films during WW2 and afterwards (c.f. any John Wayne movie) which culminated in The Green Berets. Clear "good guy v. bad guy" type stuff. Apocalypse Now broke sharply with the past and its apotheosis was Stone's Platoon in 1986 where the message was again not only antiwar but anti-military.
In the 1990's and beyond the message is changing again, with Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers all decidedly antiwar but empathetic to the soldiers on both sides of the conflict while preserving a strong streak of patriotic fervor that had its echoes in the films of the 40's and 50's. The Thin Red Line was essentially the last of the previous antiwar/anti-military movies and seemed decidedly out of place compared to its contemporaries. The other trend that really became commonplace in these films was their simultaneous treatment of the home front to let you know that soldiers don't operate in a vacuum when in the field.
Enter Over There and its treatment of the American soldiers involved in the Iraq conflict. They opted for the usual Hollywood grab bag of diversity to make the squad interesting but they at least made an effort to give their characters some depth. So many plot lines that would normally have resulted in self-flagellation of the military wind up just the opposite (e.g. shooting of people running checkpoint, sniping of suspected terrorist with his family, accidental shooting of civilians in midst of a firefight, interrogation of terrorist, etc... etc...). I could go on and on here with examples but I'm always stunned when they don't do the predictable stereotypical treatment of plot lines and characters. We seem to have come full circle and Over There winds up in this apolitical region of not really antiwar, but not prowar either. It's pretty much "pro American soldiers" which is a refreshing change.
The other thing I love which really started in Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down is the way the scenes are shot. Crystal clear shots that are zoomed way in and convey all of the confusion and turmoil as you follow a small group of soldiers into the chaos of small unit combat. I think Ridley Scott is an absolute master at this and it's clear that director Bochco decided to follow the same techniques.
Ultimately what it lacks in realism it more than makes up in entertainment. Flame on.