ChristineCB

Steve and I were battling over OPERATION BURMA's impact and goals, and I often read about "unrealistic..." or "realistic war films". The foot-soldier veterans I've listened to have claimed that no war film can be very realistic - 'no smell, sounds are different, no concussive blast impacts, no real fear can be transferred into a theatre', etc.

OPERATION BURMA does express one attitude that seems 'real' to me - that's of a group of men's continual disappointment, day after day. But I'm sipping on coke and eating popcorn - I certainly don't understand their thirst or hunger, much less the fear and thoughts of 'giving up'.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN delivered a new level of rifle-machine gun sounds, but nothing else seemed THAT realistic. William Castle would need to rig up theatre seats, probably, to achieve the 'next level of realism'. "Filmed In ExplosiVision!!"

Do you base your reviews of war-films on realism? When known facts are dismissed or underplayed, does that automatically degrade the film's value (such as "Johnny Wayne beating Adolph")?

I'm still dismissive of arguments that Hollywood films don't portray other combatants' missions or deeds 'realistically', because that seems to indicate a belief that Hollywood (1) has a moral obligation to never deal in fiction, and (2) that Hollywood always is perfectly realistic for the American side.

Oh yeah... right... believing Fiction is Fact is the audience's problem.

At the same time, War Films are a completely different genre than LORD OF THE RINGS/STAR WARS fantasy types. Why do we give license to those fantasy types (none of which portray the British Army's realistic missions either despite Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee's presence) but hold War Films up to a 'more realistic' standard which then breeds discontent on Realism alone?

If you've found war films to be 'realistic', what aspects impressed you? Or conversely, which factors ruined the film for you?

I think when films claim to portray facts but ignore some aspects but heighten others (eh, Oliver Stone?), those reach a state of contempt within me.

Steve Crook

It also depends on how they're promoted. If they're made out to be "based on real events" then yes, I expect some accuracy about those events. If they're based on a totally fictional event, like the Rambo and similar movies, then they can do what they like.

Those veterans I've spoken to about it generally say that their main memory is of long spells of boredom with a few bursts of hectic activity in between. If you're within range of possible/probable attack then those long periods of boredom can have the added tension that you might be attacked at any moment. But long periods of boredom doesn't tend to make a very good film, so most films leave that out.

Saving Ryan's Privates has often been praised for its "realism" in the opening scenes. But that's just a short part of a movie that then degenates into stereotypes of American war movies like standing just a few yards in front of a tank when you blast it with your bazooka, and surviving.

It also has all the American soldiers shooting at everything that moves without checking to see if it's friend or foe. Oh no, wait a minute, that's quite accurate

Steve

NappieB

Christine poses an interesting question.

Perhaps the British equivalent to "Saving Private Ryan"'s realism might be "The Cruel Sea"

I'm sure there are other examples. "Das Boot" springs to mind.

Both The Cruel Sea and Das Boot could have been categorized as docu-dramas and hence I think substantial realism was required (and delivered!).

Conversely, films such as "Where Eagles Dare" and "The Dirty Dozen" are pretty much tacitly understood to be pure entertainment.

silverwhistle

Yup. If it's "based on real events", then the makers deserve a verbal hiding if they screw up. Some changes (such as omitting or eliding minor characters or incidents) are within the bounds of acceptability, in terms of dramatising the story; major changes are less forgivable.

But even with fictional stories, there are some that are more realistic, and others that are more fantasy-based. The Duellists is a fictional story (from a Joseph Conrad short story) but one of the best Napoleonic War films ever done. A pity Ridley Scott has got worse historically, the bigger his budgets have got.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"

D Cairns

Well, they're not docu-dramas as far as I know: it's a problematic term but it applies to documentary accounts of specific known events, based on witness accounts, as accurate a s possible, and presented in a documentary style. Though both films have aspects of documentary technique used to create an impression of realism, they don't go all the way. And I think in both cases they are works of fiction: THE CRUEL SEA is based on a novel, not on the factual story of a real ship.

Disregarding publicity, which does not necessarily reflect the filmmakers' intentions, I think we have to judge whether the film intends us to judge it as a reflection of a particular true-life reality, or as a fantasy. That dictates the standard of "realism" we expect and how much distortion we will find believable.

William Goldman, in writing A BRIDGE TOO FAR, experienced difficulties because sometimes the reality of what had happened in the war was so improbable that audiences might refuse to believe it. In one case, reviewers attacked the casting of Ryan O'Neil as a general, as he appeared too young. But the general in reality had been exactly RO'N's age. So it's difficult.

Moor Larkin

There is a temptation to say pooh pooh, it's only a movie......

On the other hand, if you combine a charismatic star (or two), a rollicking story, epic action scenes with an educationally ignorant audience and a critical media largely devoid of rigour you can get some alarming results.........
including a website promoting the break-up of Britain that has on it's Banner-Top:
a painting of Robbie Burns, a statue of Robert the Bruce and a photograph of Mel Gibson..........

Scottish Independence Guide - It's time for normal powers for Scotland.
If it wasn't so
It would be

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

NappieB

Yes, I agree, absolutely, but the point that I meant to make (poorly) is that one could certainly believe that a picture such as The Cruel Sea was a documentary. I believe that Nicholas Montserrat tried to inject as much realism as possible in his book - it was probably a good (fictional) account of the real thing..

Ljelja

One thing is factual credibility, another emotional. Even though I tend to incline towards any sort of poetic realism on screen, I doubt if cinema can ever either capture or convey "reality".

Perhaps it's war movies we really expect to provide a sort of reality, since they should have something to do with genre of historical features. But I always end up loving more such war movies that "celebrate" somewhat bent view, that satirize or mix realities. Types like Stalag 17 or Catch-22.

To save me some time, I'll rather quote smarter than myself, Tag Gallagher:

"I have no need of cinema to capture reality. There is more reality outside my window than in all the films ever made. What art provides is a sensibility toward reality. What is called Realism in cinema is not reality captured but the felt presence of the moviemaker, the dialectic between the subjective and the objective."

ChristineCB

I find THE LONGEST DAY to be the Longest Bore, and like THE BATTLE OF THE BILGE (er, BULGE) and MIDWAY, those extravaganzas compress huge events into a few hours of screen-time yet I'm surprised that they were still far below my expectations.

BATTLEGROUND, on the other hand, is a small story of a small group of soldiers. Like OPERATION BURMA, they take my attention to the human condition instead of some belief in events.

I find that the arguments used against OPERATION BURMA contained such wild statements as "The Americans won the Burma War singlehandedly" yet the film obviously displays NO event even close to that. But those ludicrous arguments remain - from the release-date huffing and puffing to this forum's statements. To me, this is an example where the Hype Itself is not just used but believed! It's like the LIBERTY VALANCE comments on "the legend versus the truth".

THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO has a lot of the 'real' events but it's a fairly good film representation of the author's book. I accept that film, unlike the others, as the author's 'view of his Truth' albeit with an Hollywood cast.

All of this made me wonder how my own ratings of films was affected by my expectations.

I objected to the recent LAST KING OF SCOTLAND because the film's hype let me expect a larger study into Idi Amin's regime and behavior, and that was fairly minimized. And the act of minimizing or excluding his crimes made me first consider that the filmmakers were tacitly condoning it - obviously, however, his years of terror were unable to be expressed into a film. But they violated some emotional boundary and I didn't like the film, and probably never will see it again.

HOLLYWOODLAND, on the other hand, was billed as an 'exposé' into Superman George Reeve's death, but as the film progressed, it presents "possibilities" - and certainly one of those can explain a lot more than all others. It seems to have a lot of 'facts' in it, but that film somehow didn't violate any emotional boundaries of mine.

But the truth? In film? Why should I ever expect that from a film?

And does that infect my views toward politicized or historical documentaries, which I tend to castigate because they so often cover up the filmmaker's bias.

Moor Larkin

Search me. But people do. I had a casual friend who told me that he had taken his son to "Saving Private Ryan" so that the youngster could see the horror of war........ .

I suppose it was a better choice than Objective Burma.

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

NappieB

Thanks for warning me about this, Christine. I haven't seen the movie, but fully intended to do so and expected that the extent of his crimes would at least be exposed in the film. Since this appears not to be the case, I refuse to see this movie! I was in Africa at the start of Idi Amin's reign of terror.

This seems to be a good example of a REAL docu-drama that fails to deliver!

Moor Larkin

So now you're believing what she says?

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

NappieB

Maybe you're being a bit harsh ...

"A Night to Remember" (circa 1958) was filled with reality and FACTS, important facts sometimes almost breathtaking in their accuracy. "Titanic" (1998) on the other hand was almost a farce... good entertainment but that's about it.

A case of two REAL docu-dramas but perhaps with different agendas?

batman

May I ask why?

If I had to choose between the two it would be 'Objective Burma'. I went to see 'SPR' with some younger work colleagues and the whole issue of whether it was 'realistic' or not passed them by. They had simply watched an 'exciting' action picture featuring one of their favourite stars (Tom Hanks). The conversation afterwards was purely about how much blood and gore was on show and who had the cutest bum in fatigues. I later got a couple of them to sit and watch 'OB' with me and both of them found it 'dull' and 'grim'.

So, I have to ask everyone the question .... 'Would you prefer young people to see films about war that are 'exciting' or that are 'dull and grim'?

I would have to pick 'dull and grim', anything to put them off the whole sorry business.

The Bat.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

Moor Larkin

Because Private Ryan had lots of blood and guts and it was realistic...........

[go to top of Thread]