UKC

Murko's "need a war movie" thread got me thinking and even chatting to a real friend in a pub. We were pondering "what makes a movie a war movie?"

It seems that:
- it has to be based around a real war from history even if the story is totally fictional
- the war may be simply a backdrop to a small story but it has to be present throughout the narrative
- there doesn't need to be any combat scenes
- it has to be grounded in some sort of reality i.e. no aliens or supernatural aspects

So you end up with a few anomalies.

Ice Cold in Alex is included even though it is just people crossing a desert, yet Cold Mountain is debatable despite having a big battle scene at the start (also on a Minghella tangent, The English Patient is debatable)
Star Wars is excluded even though it's basically a Vietnam movie.
Southern Comfort is excluded because there's no war, even though you have "soldiers" with enemies.
POW movies are included even though there is rarely a combat scene and we don't see war.
Pan's Labyrinth is excluded even though the war is heavily present through the narrative.

Then there's murkier definitions.
Born on the Fourth of July? Bit of combat at the start (very well done too) but then the narrative shifts to the USA and Ron Kovic's life.
Gardens of Stone? Francis Ford Coppola's elegant Vietnam film set almost entirely around Arlington cemetery in Washington DC.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly? Ostensibly a Civil War backdrop but it's not thought of as any kind of "war movie"


What do you all think?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Would that include Henry V? Basically a propaganda story about war in France but does that fact that it is also literature exclude it?

In reply to Blue Straggler:


With the USA as the Empire and the Rebels as the Viet Cong?

In reply to DaveHK:

Many scenes in that film reminiscent of waist gunners in a B17 shooting at Me 109s and Fw 190s swarming round them, so more like WW2 than Vietnam.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

So by your definitions would you describe "The Man who Never Was" as a War movie as it is based on the true story of one of the greatest deceptions of WW2 but has no combat scenes?

In reply to Trangia:
I think they put together a development version of star wars using exactly that ww2 footage.

In reply to DaveHK:


Correct. I read all about this in an interview with Walt Murch (sound editor extraordinaire). Apocalypse Now was an idea that had been kicking around since the early 70s, when Spielberg, Lucas, DePalma, Coppola etc were all good buddies and frequent cross-collaborators. There had been talking of filming it actually in Vietnam during the conflict, as a pseudo-documentary. And at one point, Lucas was up for directing a version of it. Ultimately he basically turned it into Star Wars.

In reply to Trangia:


I was on about concept and theme, rather than style.

In reply to Trangia:


Sorry I wasn't very clear. They are not really "my" definitions, but rather my guess of how people might argue for or against a particular film being defined as a "war movie", based upon those listed in Murko's thread.

In reply to Trangia:

See "murkier definitions" in my OP.
That daft 'Enigma' film might fall into that category, though I have not seen it.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Another anomaly is 'Ryan's Daughter' maybe...how far do you stretch the influence of war?

In reply to Greenbanks:
To my shame I've not seen it, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. Woudldn't it be like calling First Blood or Tunes of Glory a war movie (i.e. a kind of PTSD theme)?

Another anomaly would be Courage Under Fire. It has flashbacks to combat scenes but it's mostly Denzel Washington frowning in the USA after the event.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Or the Jon Voight film - 'Coming Home' I think?

In reply to Greenbanks:

Oooh, less of a stretch than Ryan's Daughter. Good one, another anomaly but I think I'd put it in the "not a war movie" camp personally.

But this is the sort of thing that we were pondering in the pub, you see.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes - fascinating...but I hope you are not patronising me?
What then about Cold War stylee movies...or Bond films for that matter

In reply to Blue Straggler:


A war movie is a movie about a war or wars.

In reply to Greenbanks:


What makes you think that?


Not Bond films.

Cold War ones tend be "spy thrillers" or "submarine movies"


I mean, as you asked the question, could you suggest a Bond movie aor a Cold War movie that you would class as a "war movie"?

In reply to abseil:


Oh for Heaven's sake.

OK. Define "about", in the context of "about a war or wars"

More seriously, I'd say most war films are not "about" the war against which they are set, but rather, about the characters involved in the (usually) small story within that framework.

Apocalypse Now is not "about" Vietnam, nor is Saving Private Ryan "about" the Second World War, IMHO. But this is getting nitpicky of course.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


This:

<But this is the sort of thing that we were pondering in the pub, you see.>

Maybe I read too much into it. Sorry

In reply to Blue Straggler:





I would agree about Apocolypse now to a degree, mainly due to it being an interpretation of conrad's Heart of Drakness and that book in turn being about the darkness that lies beneath all men when they are placed into the unknown yadda yadda.

the second i think you're wrong. It is very much a war film in that is encompassess the bang for your buck, attempts to put across the reality of war and not the sanitised version of it that has done the rounds for years, and it centres on how a group of soldiers will fight for thier mates, not some noble distant cause. It is a film about soldiering, so in many respects this makes it very much a war film.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Would A Field in England Count?

It would be hard to set it in any other context than the Civil War and it is very much a comment on how the average man is at the mercy of the vagaries of those in power.

plus it's in black and white.

In reply to John Rushby:

And totally nuts.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Does Dr. Strangelove fit somewhere? And Casualties of War.

In reply to aln:


Surely that falls under the "Cold War" category that somebody mentioned. It does have scenes of bombers. Hmmm. Good one.


Cited on the original thread. I THOUGHT at first that it definitely counts, but you have got me thinking. What do you think makes it debatable? The absence of any engagement with the enemy (iirc)? I think that it has soldiers operating in an ongoing war, makes it unquestionably a war movie (and on that note, Apocalypse Now DOES feature scenes depicting the conflict in Vietnam. When I was mithering about it earlier I was thinking only of the Kurtz compound scene and forgetting the Air Cav and bridge scene both of which feature USA vs. Viet Cong)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Casualties is set in the middle of a war but I don't think there's any combat scenes or engagement with the enemy. Although at the end I think there's bombs being dropped in the distance.
On a slight tangent I was flummoxed to discover last night that the baddie is played by Sean Penn. Despite having seen the film at least three times I was sure it was Tom Berenger. Is there a similar film with Berenger playing a similar role or is it just my ageing grey matter letting me down?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

No war movie is complete without the battle weary young private ,(during a brief lull in the fighting) announcing;

Once this is all over ,I'm going to marry my sweetheart (produces photo) and open a little hardware shop in Conneticut /Chipping Norton.

Dead.

In reply to aln:



Tom Berenger is the unhinged Sergeant Barnes in Platoon.

In reply to aln:


Yes this is what I was saying (had forgotten about distant bombs). I still maintain that it's hard to say "not a war movie" about it though!

and then there's "The Night of the Generals" which has a ghetto clearance scene that can barely be classed as "combat" being so one-sided and a lot of talk and which is essentially a murder-mystery / character study. But 80% of it takes place entirely amongst military men during the Second World War. Possibly the trickiest one to categorise. Then again there's The Train. Both cited on murko's thread and at first glance both "obviously" war movies. The Train has a fair amount of interaction between German and French but most of those French are not quite the enemy, but essentially prisoners. Not really any combat (or do they show a bombing run??). I give The Train an "aye". The Night of the Generals is tricky though.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


That might explain my confusion.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

What about The Hill?
And the film I asked about a few years ago that you kindly PM'd me with loads of info on, Hell in the Pacific. Two guys on an island, the only battle the battle of wills.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Born On The Fourth Of July raises the question, when does a war movie become an anti-war movie?

Dr Strangelove???

In reply to The New NickB:



Most mature and intelligent war movies are anti-war. I don't think "anti-war movie" can exist as a separate genre.

In reply to aln:


I mentioned in my OP
"POW movies are included even though there is rarely a combat scene and we don't see war." (this was my perception of what most people would "include", not necessarily my own viewpoint. I class them as "prison movies" rather than "war movies" as "prison movie" is a genre and it doesn't matter what kind of prison it is)


Enemies face to face during war time. War movie? They don't settle their differences and learn to work together to survive, do they? It is another anomaly maybe.


I think Predator is a war movie And Aliens :-P

Where does Jacob's Ladder fit into this nonsense?!
And Good Morning, Vietnam.