A few months ago I had a nice long talk with a smart high-ranking, well-published (ex-) military officer who focuses on soldier psychological issues. He said most war movies aren’t at all realistic. When I pressed him for a realistic film, he offered Catch-22, at least for emotional realism. This doesn’t appear on any of the four lists of most realistic war films I found in a quick search (
Well said Rob. "Come and See" is a real eye-opener - seeing how civilians tried to survive as the "front" swept through their locale - as seen through the eyes of one barely able to lift a rifle. There is no "when the battle is over" because it won't be over for heaven knows how long.
Given your high rating of "Come and See," I will respect your other recommendations and have a look.
---Speaking of realism ---let's have a little realistic and unflinchinglight on the awesome, indeed staggering, genocidal legacyof Hollywood's 'fave' mass market paradise ---ACROSS the Pacific.
70 million exterminated in 'peacetime' unoutted and utterly unanswered for ----FACT.
All this esp. galling on this, the 60th Anniversary of the epicand STILL unfolding ----and once again 'mysteriously overlooked'----KOREAN WAR.
Hollywood covers for Red China ---plain and simple---NOW ---deal with it!
Actually, that was the only complaint I've heard about The Hurt Locker - that they didn't have an escort. But the main character is supposed to be a reckless wannabe, and his squad members hate him for it, not to mention when he dons the hoodie and runs around looking ridiculous, that scene was meant to be ridiculous - he doesn't get anything from following the man home, and he gets in trouble as soon as he comes back.
An interesting side question would be something along the line of "what performance is the most like real life?" (waiting for godot, perhaps?)The military seemed like that, but more so; the boredom more intense, the excitement a bit higher.
The "complaints" about "Hurt Locker" were technical observations about the B.S. being portrayed in terms of how EOD people actually defuse ordnance. Hint: they do NOT use a pair of pliers. There are no generalities to be made about "war"; the subject does not exist. The first questions anyone who is seriously honest about their military experience will answer are Which war? Which sector? When? How close to the front lines? Which unit? Who was in charge? Robin's friend may not have answered these questions, or they may not have been asked; but without knowing them, there is very little to be said and certainly no justification for all the blather about "our" soldiers. Without the answers to those questions we are all in the realm of the Lone Ranger-Tonto joke; and we have yet another reminder of why the punch line ("What you mean, 'we'?") should be engraved at the top of the black/white board in every classroom. There is no "common" experience about getting shot at. What war movies have in common is that they all use dummy ammunition and exploding gasoline bombs - the one thing never used in any war - and lots and lots of music; and all of them exaggerate grotesquely how much anyone actually knows about what is going on. In that sense, Yossarian's monologues do come closer to poetic truth that anything with splatter.
An accurate and watchable film will accurately portray a few of the emotional and tactical issues and then use fluff to fill in the rest. That way, the most memorable things portrayed are accurate. The inaccurate parts are in the fluff.
This includes emotional issues. It would be a real community service to find out what our soldiers are really facing and how they really deal with. Then, portray a piece of that.
Accurate film is entirely sensible, just like an accurate lecture or accurate blog article is sensible. Neither one portrays every detail. However, it can at least get it right for its most important points.
Having never been in a war, I can't be certain of how 'realistic' it is, but "Deutschland Bleiche Mutter," certainly seems to give a good representation of a German civilian's perspective in WWII. I am a Jew, and I still found this to be one of the most depressing war movies I've ever seen, perhaps because of its realism.
I agree with Tim, I found Generation Kill realistic (OK, I've never been a soldier, so I have no idea what constitutes realistic), in that it is about 5% real danger, peril and action and 95% boredom.
Plus there are the 'office politics' of who likes what commander etc, the bureaucracy of the US army, constant accidents and ineptitude (eg dropping a 500lb bomb on a small farmer's hut killing 5 innocent people because the soldiers misheard each other over the radio).
I found the above combination much more believable than the traditional 95% action 5% dialogue war movie. Plus, Generation Kill was based on a journalist's book of the first 100 days of the war, which makes it 10 times more realistic than any Hollywood screenplay.
Among films in English, Peckinpah's Cross of Iron is often overlooked and probably a more accurate slice of war on the Eastern Front than Enemy at the Gates.
Alien was pretty realistic for showing that exotic infections are often more powerful killers than arrows or cannonballs. Most war movies don't focus at all on the psychology of disease and being infected, but historically it was a big deal.
HBO's Generation Kill is considered a very realistic portrayal of the invasion of Iraq. One of the primary consultants was a Marine who played himself in the show. It illustrates the reason why war films usually aren't that realistic, too: long, boring stretches of nothing punctuated by moments of hyperventilating terror in which nobody gets hurt. Show that over and over and audiences get either bored or numb.
One thing I really liked about Band of Brothers is that it is the only war movie I've seen that accurately captured the complex internal social and cultural dynamics of the US Army as I remember it. Real militaries don't have heroes and villains, they just have average folk trying to muddle their way through as best they can.
I'm sure this is highly contextual. Different theaters have different experiences. My own perspective was as part of a light infantry company very similar to Easy Company in Band of Brothers, so it is less surprising that I might identify the accuracy of that depiction; there are many unique subcultures within the military.
Well said Rob. "Come and See" is a real eye-opener - seeing how civilians tried to survive as the "front" swept through their locale - as seen through the eyes of one barely able to lift a rifle. There is no "when the battle is over" because it won't be over for heaven knows how long.
Given your high rating of "Come and See," I will respect your other recommendations and have a look.
---Speaking of realism ---let's have a little realistic and unflinchinglight on the awesome, indeed staggering, genocidal legacyof Hollywood's 'fave' mass market paradise ---ACROSS the Pacific.
70 million exterminated in 'peacetime' unoutted and utterly unanswered for ----FACT.
All this esp. galling on this, the 60th Anniversary of the epicand STILL unfolding ----and once again 'mysteriously overlooked'----KOREAN WAR.
Hollywood covers for Red China ---plain and simple---NOW ---deal with it!
Actually, that was the only complaint I've heard about The Hurt Locker - that they didn't have an escort. But the main character is supposed to be a reckless wannabe, and his squad members hate him for it, not to mention when he dons the hoodie and runs around looking ridiculous, that scene was meant to be ridiculous - he doesn't get anything from following the man home, and he gets in trouble as soon as he comes back.
My father was a fireman and he worked a lot with the police department and he said the only realistic cop show was "Barney Miller".
As far as the military (he fought in WWII), he said the only realistic military character on TV or in movies was Sargent Cater in Gomer Pyle.
BTW I assume that the CIA is much like "Barney Miller" (or BTW like your office) also.
http://www.theonion.com/con...
An interesting side question would be something along the line of "what performance is the most like real life?" (waiting for godot, perhaps?)The military seemed like that, but more so; the boredom more intense, the excitement a bit higher.
The "complaints" about "Hurt Locker" were technical observations about the B.S. being portrayed in terms of how EOD people actually defuse ordnance. Hint: they do NOT use a pair of pliers. There are no generalities to be made about "war"; the subject does not exist. The first questions anyone who is seriously honest about their military experience will answer are Which war? Which sector? When? How close to the front lines? Which unit? Who was in charge? Robin's friend may not have answered these questions, or they may not have been asked; but without knowing them, there is very little to be said and certainly no justification for all the blather about "our" soldiers. Without the answers to those questions we are all in the realm of the Lone Ranger-Tonto joke; and we have yet another reminder of why the punch line ("What you mean, 'we'?") should be engraved at the top of the black/white board in every classroom. There is no "common" experience about getting shot at. What war movies have in common is that they all use dummy ammunition and exploding gasoline bombs - the one thing never used in any war - and lots and lots of music; and all of them exaggerate grotesquely how much anyone actually knows about what is going on. In that sense, Yossarian's monologues do come closer to poetic truth that anything with splatter.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
An accurate and watchable film will accurately portray a few of the emotional and tactical issues and then use fluff to fill in the rest. That way, the most memorable things portrayed are accurate. The inaccurate parts are in the fluff.
This includes emotional issues. It would be a real community service to find out what our soldiers are really facing and how they really deal with. Then, portray a piece of that.
Accurate film is entirely sensible, just like an accurate lecture or accurate blog article is sensible. Neither one portrays every detail. However, it can at least get it right for its most important points.
Having never been in a war, I can't be certain of how 'realistic' it is, but "Deutschland Bleiche Mutter," certainly seems to give a good representation of a German civilian's perspective in WWII. I am a Jew, and I still found this to be one of the most depressing war movies I've ever seen, perhaps because of its realism.
I agree with Tim, I found Generation Kill realistic (OK, I've never been a soldier, so I have no idea what constitutes realistic), in that it is about 5% real danger, peril and action and 95% boredom.
Plus there are the 'office politics' of who likes what commander etc, the bureaucracy of the US army, constant accidents and ineptitude (eg dropping a 500lb bomb on a small farmer's hut killing 5 innocent people because the soldiers misheard each other over the radio).
I found the above combination much more believable than the traditional 95% action 5% dialogue war movie. Plus, Generation Kill was based on a journalist's book of the first 100 days of the war, which makes it 10 times more realistic than any Hollywood screenplay.
Among films in English, Peckinpah's Cross of Iron is often overlooked and probably a more accurate slice of war on the Eastern Front than Enemy at the Gates.
Alien was pretty realistic for showing that exotic infections are often more powerful killers than arrows or cannonballs. Most war movies don't focus at all on the psychology of disease and being infected, but historically it was a big deal.
HBO's Generation Kill is considered a very realistic portrayal of the invasion of Iraq. One of the primary consultants was a Marine who played himself in the show. It illustrates the reason why war films usually aren't that realistic, too: long, boring stretches of nothing punctuated by moments of hyperventilating terror in which nobody gets hurt. Show that over and over and audiences get either bored or numb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
One thing I really liked about Band of Brothers is that it is the only war movie I've seen that accurately captured the complex internal social and cultural dynamics of the US Army as I remember it. Real militaries don't have heroes and villains, they just have average folk trying to muddle their way through as best they can.
I'm sure this is highly contextual. Different theaters have different experiences. My own perspective was as part of a light infantry company very similar to Easy Company in Band of Brothers, so it is less surprising that I might identify the accuracy of that depiction; there are many unique subcultures within the military.