War. Huh. What is good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again. War. Uhh. Good Gawd y'all…
Actually, war is good for one thing: movies. From John Wayne to Black Hawk Down, war films have always had an inroad to the American imagination.
However, movies can also be among the best weapons against war. While there's no doubt a rich a tradition of movies glorifying the "great wars," there's also an alternate movie history, one that has consistently attacked the evils of modern warfare.
But what exactly is an anti-war movie? Some films, like All Quiet on the Western Front, or Oliver Stone's Platoon, clearly give us the impression that war is hell, but they don't necessarily tell us whether the war in question is unjust.
Then again, as the great French director Francois Truffaut once argued, even the best anti-war films end up being pro-war advocates simply because they end up (indirectly) glorifying violence. That is, any time you have a battle scene—even if you're trying to make an anti-war point—you're showcasing the violence that invariably would lead some kid in the audience to say, "Cool! I can't wait to be a soldier…"
I'm not sure I subscribe to that argument. Yes, there is such a thing as "war porn" (Pearl Harbor) where excessive violence is celebrated in orgasmic fashion. But the best combat scenes in the most powerful anti-war films are responsible enough to make it clear that violence is not the answer.
Instead, what Truffaut's argument fails to acknowledge is that there are a number of ways to address the anti-war message. For further proof, I've put together this list of my five favorite anti-war films, which, hopefully, will give you a sense of the different approaches filmmakers have taken in speaking out against war.
1. Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Stanley Kubrick's Cold War classic follows spineless president Merkin Muffley and his war room team as they try to stop a renegade general who has taken matters into his own hands and has ordered his men to drop nuclear bombs on the Russians.
True, the Cold War is over, but the movie remains just as relevant today as it was some four decades ago. Simply substitute "Islamo-terrorists" anytime they mention "Russians" and your problem's solved!
What makes Strangelove so effective is the combination of Kubrick's dark humor and anti-authoritarian stance mixed with Peter Sellers's brilliant and highly entertaining multiple-performances. Sellers simultaneously portrays Capt. Lionel Mandrake, the nervous but dutiful British soldier trying to prevent Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper's coup attempt; he plays President Merkin Muffley (*and if you don't know what a merkin is, I'm not telling…), the put-upon president who clearly hates confrontation; and, of course, he plays the eerie title character, a crazy-haired scientist trying desperately to suppress his Nazi urges as he finally sees Hitler's plan for a master race come to fruition as the nuclear Armageddon becomes more likely. Along with Sellers's three Oscar-worthy performances were brilliant contributions by Hayden and George C. Scott.
This is the best anti-war film of all-time because it goes straight to the top in its attack of war. On display is the hubris of nonsensical Gen. Ripper, the lack of vision—if not downright incompetence—of the president and all his men, and the blood-thirsty influence of the military-industrial complex as seen through Scott's "Buck Turgidson" character. Pulling no punches, the absolutely best thing about this film is that you'll never be certain whether you should laugh or cry—or both.
2. Paths of Glory (1957)
Once again, a Kubrick masterpiece. This time around, though, there is absolutely nothing to laugh about. Kirk Douglas portrays Col. Dax, a French platoon leader during World War I, who receives the order from an ambitious general to have his men charge and capture a key hill during a fierce battle--despite the fact they are severely outnumbered and lacking adequate supplies. When the men refuse to heed the order, the commanding general (who had banked on a promotion had the hill been captured), orders Dax to randomly pick three of his men to face the firing squad. Dax, it turns out, is an attorney in his civilian life and so he takes it upon himself to defend his men during their court martial hearing.
Military justice, though, turns out to be a sham and Dax's defense is in vain. The men are executed and we come to understand the utter corruption within the higher ranks of military leadership that so casually sends men off to die simply for personal gain.
The battle scenes are vivid and through Kubrick's sharp eye seem more like journalistic accounts rather than fictionalizations. One would have to be pretty sick to apply Truffaut's argument to the graphic nature of the battle scenes depicted.
3. Seven Days in May (1964)
Another Douglas performance—and again he portrays a lawyer. This time around he's Col. Martin Casey, counsel to General James Mattoon Scott (brilliantly portrayed by Burt Lancaster). The movie, directed by the great John Frankeheimer (he of the original "Manchurian Candidate" fame) is a nail-biting anti-war film that doesn't include a single battle scene. The action centers around the charismatic Scott, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who also has presidential aspirations. Scott decides that the current president is weak for wanting a nuclear treaty with the Russians. Instead, he decides to break off and strike the Russians before they can strike us.
Casey gets word of this coup attempt and decides to take the news directly to the president. Together, they set the wheels in motion to thwart the takeover.
Seven Days in May could never be made these days. It's very heavy on dialogue, it addresses issues like the integrity of our constitution, it takes place mostly within the confines of White House and Capitol offices, there are no major explosions, no gratuitous sex (although there is a somewhat gratuitous love interest for Douglas), and—like Kubrick's Strangelove—the enemy is the overreaching American military-industrial complex. (Blackwater, anyone?)
Still, if you have an interest in government, if you appreciate the tightrope walk our civil and military leaders must make to ensure our safety while not abusing their power—or if you simply want to see some restrained but powerful performances by Douglas and Lancaster, this is definitely one worth watching.
4. Forbidden Games a.k.a. Jeux Interdits (1957)
This French film is one you'll never want to see a second time—but you owe it to yourself to see it at least once. Little Paulette, who can't be more than six years old, witnesses both of her parents and her dog murdered right in front of her when they are among a group of civilians gunned down by German planes. The girl walks off with her dead dog until it is snatched out of her hands by an elderly lady, who admonishes the girl for carrying along the dead weight before tossing the dog's carcass into a nearby river…and that's all within the opening 20 minutes!
The film continues with Paulette's journey as she finds her way to the countryside and is taken in by a poor farming family. Along with the farmer's young son, she retrieves her dog and gives him a proper burial…the kids become so obsessed with death that they start burying all the dead animals they find—and they take the crosses off the local graveyard to decorate their own animal cemetery.
The movie is a stark reminder of the toll war takes on the civilians, the innocents, and especially on children. It also has a beautiful message that goes beyond anti-war into the realm of pro-life (and not in the heated abortion-rights way)…that is, it makes a wonderful statement about the beauty and importance of all life—not just human. The incredible acting by the children will stay with you long after the movie has ended.
5. The Documentaries of the 2000s
Okay, I admit it's a cop-out to list three films as tied for the number five spot on this list, but, hey, until we develop a playoff system for movies, this is going to be a recurring problem! (A little BCS humor for you…I'm sure it didn't bowl you over…okay, I'll stop).
Anyway, I've been less than thrilled with the recent war-related output from Hollywood. Films like Lions for Lambs only scratch the surface of our problems. Other films, like In the Valley to Elah, simply aren't kept in theaters long enough to make any sort of impact.
With that in mind, the best source for anti-war arguments in current cinema has been through the documentary genre. There have always been powerful anti-war documentaries, most notably the brilliant Vietnam-era Hearts and Minds, but lately documentaries have been supplying far better news coverage than traditional media news outlets—and their stark, unflinching portrayal of the Iraq War has been among the most convincing evidence to date about this particular war's futility.
Of course, no discussion about the popularity, effectiveness, and controversy of recent documentaries would be complete without beginning with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004). Yes, Moore is a loose canon, prone to wild attacks that lead first with the heart, but overall, no single filmmaker has done more for the documentary genre. Like him or not, Moore has introduced or perfected so many practices (on-camera confrontations, juxtaposing humor with tragedy, using the personal to explore the political) that he has done to documentaries what Orson Welles did to feature films. Moore's tactics may have pissed off more people than those he convinced, but regardless, his movie was the first major exposure audiences had to the challenges faced by our troops in Iraq.
The other two recent documentaries worth noting are Why We Fight (2005) and Occupation: Dreamland (2005). Why We Fight is a chilling expose on the corruption--and disproportionate influence--of the military-industrial complex on our foreign policy decision-making. Perhaps most chilling in this film is the very opening scene where President Eisenhower, during his farewell address, warns in no uncertain terms about the dangers of the emerging convergence of power between the military and the private sector—and at that moment, when he coins the phrase "military-industrial complex," a chill will run down your spine as you realize how little his warning was heeded.
Occupation: Dreamland, meanwhile, is a mostly overlooked film that follows a group of soldiers from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division as they patrol the streets of Fallujah just months before that city erupted into major violence. Unlike other anti-war films, Dreamland actually goes out of its way to humanize the soldiers. It shows them as complex characters—not just a monolithic fighting machine. Soldiers complain about the impetus for this war, they denounce the president and his corrupt cabinet. They speak directly about the futility of the occupation, and yet they try their hardest to accomplish their mission, a mission, of course, that truly does seem impossible. Just when you think Occupation: Dreamland is secretly a pro-Army film (because you so easily like these soldiers), you realize just how terrible it is that our own leaders have put these men—and the Iraqi civilians—through this un-Godly situation for no real good cause.
There are, of course, several others that just as easily could have been on this list (Three Kings, The Grand Illusion, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, M*A*S*H, even Jarhead...) Unfortunately, we've had so many wars that there also is an abundance of great anti-war films. Still, these five are the ones that left the biggest impression on me. I hope you enjoy them as much as one can enjoy a movie about war and death. At the very least, they are a testament to the power of cinema--and the role of art--in helping to shape public opinion, in promoting peace, and in spelling out our shared humanity.