Film impact and use during the Korean War

Starting from World War I and progressing to the present film has taken an active

role in delivering messages to its viewers. Whether through propaganda, subliminal messaging or other methods, film has served many purposes during times of crisis. Here we will examine the particular uses and effectiveness of motion pictures during and post-Korean War.

Korean war film holds a strong historical value and while still offering entertainment

to its audience film from this period can serve to highlight many war horrors. The unfortunate truth is that film during this time often failed to a) remain unbiased and b) expose all sides and opinions of a given story. War to this day remains one of the strongest controversies and hence is portrayed in many different fashions in film. The controversy within war issues may provide a reason for the inability of producers to expose equal (or balanced) sides of war stories. When we take a look at popular Cold War film it becomes obvious that these films are not entirely factual, but they are effective in bringing issues to the forefront. Take, for example, The Manchurian Candidate. Prior to this motion picture, ideas and speculations regarding mind control had circulated as a result of China’s revolutionary leader Mao who employed the methods in an effort to achieve political reforms and succeed in battle. These origins of mind control continued with Chinese communists who during the Korean War attempted to brainwash captive American soldiers into abandoning their country. These ideas of mind control were further exposed with the release of US author Richard Condon’s novel in 1959 entitled The Manchurian Candidate. This was the first novel to explore such a concept and was quickly transcribed to film in the 1962 adaptation starring Frank Sinatra.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is set during the Korean War and centralizes around the brainwashing of a US Soldier, Sgt. Raymond Shaw. Shaw is brainwashed in Manchuria to gain public respect as a fake hero and later on assassinate a political leader who is running for President alongside himself. Though this is a dramatization of events from the actual Korean War, it holds true to the concept of mind control as an attempted method to succeed in battle.

The film addresses an issue that may have seemed far-fetched to many traditionalists during this time period, but there is irrefutable proof that types of mind control experimentation did take place. A documentary by National Geographic identifies some of the conditions and processes test subjects were exposed to during the Cold War[1]. Ken Earl, a Senior Aircraftsman for the Royal Air Force, was a volunteer for an experiment he believed was aimed to help find a cure for the common cold. He was unaware that scientists were in fact testing to determine lethal doses of Sarin, a nerve agent deposited on the surface of the skin. Experiments such as this were common during times of war and reflected a constant need for growing knowledge.

Mind control feeds off of mental weakness[2], which make soldiers viable candidates for experimentation due to mental ruin caused by warfare. The use of soldiers as opposed to regular people exemplifies this. Also one can imagine that being out in the trenches and fighting over long periods of time events would start to blur together and sometimes be forgotten. Soldiers returning from war were often diagnosed with depression and/or paranoia, which only increased their qualifications for brainwash experimentation.

The irony of mind control depiction in the film industry is that this method arguably exists today within the films themselves. Consumers are brainwashed with concepts of what a perfect life is, what perfect romance is and what it means to be happy. Though it is a much less literal take on brainwashing, it is nonetheless ever so present and continuing to grow. The prevalence of brainwashing outside of film also exists in modern society in cases such as Elizabeth Smart, who claimed to be brainwashed during her kidnapping.

But the film goes much further than this one large issue. Thomson Gale writes in an evaluative essay:

The [Manchurian Candidate] offers a twisted overview of the whole period—a reflection on the cynicism of the domestic politics of the time, on the anxiety at the fragility of individual will, and on the nature of paranoia.[3]

Audiences were vulnerable and fearful of their surroundings during this time, and this film exposed issues that had not yet been publicly explored. This is an example of how film during the Korean War served to put a spotlight on subjects that people were forced to pay attention to. In this case, the subjects were uncomfortable truths of war.

The social impacts of this type of exposure are always gruelling but I would say it is a necessary process. It comes down to the choice between a frightened yet aware public and a comfortable yet unaware public. Filmmakers, including John Frankenheimer (producer of The Manchurian Candidate,) hold the power to influence the level of exposure the public has towards these ‘frightening’ issues. If the movies are never made, there is no opportunity for the exposure. The Manchurian Candidate saw limited circulation upon its initial release because of its coinciding with the assassination of J.F.K. Themes resonating from the film were chillingly related to the assassination and so the film was promptly removed from the market. When re-released in 1988, the film received a very different reaction from its audience. In an interview with journalist Scott Tobias, Frankenheimer discusses how timeliness can affect an audience:

Certainly in 1962 or '63, the picture was something that attacked McCarthyism and was very effective then, because we lived with it. I think the only difference is that in 1988, the audience knew it was okay to laugh. But in 1962, everyone took McCarthy so goddamned seriously because they were right there to witness it. I think the other thing, too, is that it's easier to say great things about something that's in the past than to embrace something new. It's safe. [Critics] can say, "Oh, God, this picture's wonderful!" and so forth. It's harder to do that when it's new. [4]

McCarthyism in its most basic form means acts of disloyalty, mostly through acceptance of communism. Obviously an American portrayal of a communist during this era of war would be a negative one, and so any attack on McCarthyism was widely encouraged by US citizens.

While The Manchurian Candidate appropriately links film to war in a historic and serious way, the Cold War also brought forth a time of comedic film relief. Motion pictures such as Doctor Strangelove and MASH strengthened a genre of dark war comedy. These two examples of film during the Korean War still addressed themes of substance, however they were written in a manner that allowed people to laugh with a less ‘in-your-face’ approach. Many people are familiar with the television series MASH, the film based on this series from 1970 is set during the Korean War but has little correlation as it mirrors the confusion of Vietnam[5]. Doctor Strangelove covers nuclear weaponry in its plot with an uncommon twist. Both of these films contributed to presentation of war as a more approachable topic. This is integral to both the industry of film and of war itself, because peoples’ interest in warfare began to increase with the success of this genre. While MASH may not have been the most honest depiction of trench conditions it gave the subject a ‘relatability’ for viewers.

Author Ronnie D. Lipchutz said in his book Cold War Fantasies: Film, Fiction and Foreign Policy that “[…] the very concept of brainwashing was probably another response to the social changes following World War II.” [6] Society continues to adapt, whether positively or negatively can be argued, to the changes it is subject to. Film found ways to transform the unapproachable themes and topics of the Korean War into less intimidating ones, and other times film forced people to face the hard issues. War film informed, educated and entertained. War generated a booming and fresh genre for motion pictures, which stimulated the economy during times of crisis. We have film to thank for the documentation of events during the Korean War, so that people today can look back and learn from what surpassed on battle terrains and in trenches. We have film to thank for forcing us to overcome fears of the unknown. We can only hope this industry develops in new ways that will continue to enhance our knowledge of the world and our visual experiences.


References

[1] CIA Mind Control [Video File] (2008, March 06). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUW-frxo2X4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[2] Singer, M.T (n.d.) How Does Mind Control Work?. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm

[3] Gale, T. (2005) The Manchurian Candidate Summary. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.bookrags.com/research/the-manchurian-candidate-sjpc-03/

[4] Tobias, S. (2000). Interview John Frankenheimer. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-frankenheimer,13639/

[5] Wikipedia (2010). MASH (film). Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MASH_(film)

[6] Lipschutz, R.D. (2001). Cold War Fantasies: Film, Fiction and Foreign Policy. (First ed.). Oxford, EN: Rowmand & Littlefield

Kelli Zacharopoulos

The Role of Film in Communicating War

Sunjeev Prasad

The role film has played as a communication tool during war efforts has been utilized by many leaders dating back to the inception of film itself. Film can be approached from many unique angles when it comes to communicating the events of something as significant as war. Whether it is propaganda films created by the leaders of a nation to win the support of their citizens during war, or it may be documentarians recounting wars of the past that resulted in the lives of many soldiers being sacrificed to protect their nation, and possibly it could even be Hollywood producers looking to make the next box office hit while glamorizing the violence of war as was the case with “Saving Private Ryan and Inglorious Bastards,” whatever the situation may be the aforementioned approaches to film must maintain a certain level of integrity and truthfulness when delivering their message.

The message is undoubtedly the most important aspect of a memorable film, without it the movie is simply a series of pictures that lack purpose. But if viewers of the film are so distracted by the aesthetics and sound quality of the movie itself then the intent of the directors and producers is completely lost. This brings up the interesting case of Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda for the German army during the Second World War who banned the showing of the first film in Agfacolor simply because the German cinema was unable to replicate the level of quality the Americans had obtained with Technicolor in “Gone with the wind” which came into his possession after the German navy procured a copy from defeated American ships. The point being is that the Goebbels felt ashamed that the very industry he was the head of was unable to manifest a product equal to if not better than the army that opposed them. Not only is the pride of his nation brought into question but his ability as a leader is questioned because the enemy is able to stay technologically advanced in the film industry. This being the case, leaders of other nations and even the Germans themselves may start to believe that if the Americans can produce something as simple as a higher quality film, perhaps they possess superior weapons technology as well. So by not releasing a lackluster color film, Goebbels holds off until Agfacolor is improved to prove to the world he is able to keep up with American cinema. (Virilio 2000, p8)

The reason film has such a powerful impact on its viewers and is able to appeal to a mass audience relates back to the simplicity of sitting in front of a campfire and being entranced by the flickering light. At its most basic form film replicates this action and is essentially appealing to these receptors within the human mind. The bright colors, the sound effects, and the overall encompassing sensation involved with being in a theater works on a number of different levels that other media forms are unable to engage. The colors allow people to associate with certain emotions. An example being the color red this is typically associated with blood, passion, or anger. The auditory aspect allows viewers to internalize what is actually going on, it gives them the feeling of depth and if used effectively enough it can place the movie-goers right inside the story. This could be as simple as the silence displayed in “The Diary of Anne Frank” when Nazi soldiers burst into their house looking to haul them off to internment camps, a situation in which being as stealthy as possible is literally life or death allows audiences to fully engage in the seriousness of the scene. In the modern era film has become increasingly effective during a period where people’s attention spans are nowhere near as lengthy as they once were. Rather than engaging in a book which only truly appeals to the sense of sight, members of developed nations are rarely looking to newspapers or textbooks for the information that they seek. This is the age of information where individuals are able to browse the internet from a mobile device that is small enough to fit inside a pocket. Information is so readily available so why strain yourself if it is no longer required? Generally speaking, why read hundreds of pages in a book that will take up to a few weeks to finish when you could purchase a movie ticket and save yourself all of that time? Though information is so easy and fast to access for most individuals, being able to determine what is truthful and what could be fabricated in order to backup the author’s claims is something all information seekers must know. When viewers are deceived and the material of a film or any other publication is found out to be a false account of what actually took place then the effect of the communication is no longer impactful.

Returning to the idea of using film as a tool for propaganda as was the role of Joseph Goebbels in the German army, propaganda is typically used to depict a particular nation’s soldiers as the “good guys” while painting the opponents in such a light that would invoke an intentional emotion which would eventually lead its viewers to take action. When the opposite takes place many viewers are naturally confused when their sense of patriotism is called into question. Such is the case in the documentary series “The Valour and the Horror” which stirred up a great deal of controversy in the 1990’s and upset more than a few of Canada’s war veterans even though a number of media critics praised the series and the National Film Board has received requests to manufacture over 2,200 copies.

As a result of numerous personal letters sent to both the Canadian government and the CBC an investigation by a committee appointed by the Senate had been conducted in order to find out how public funds had been allotted to the production of what war veterans viewed as a slanderous depiction of Canadian war efforts. The label that the Senate investigative group had been given was the Senate Subcommittee on Veteran Affairs and deemed by Chairman Jack Marshall as a forum for veterans to be heard. Perhaps there never would have been so much attention drawn to the documentary series if it had been produced on different terms. According to E.J. Dick (1993) in "The Valour and the Horror" Continued: Do We Still Want Our History on Television?:

“If the series had been done by private television, the reaction might well have been less vigorous and less prolonged. Many were angry that public money was spent to research and prepare an interpretation of history that was considered ‘untruthful.’” (p255)

“The Valour and the Horror” was a three part series which aired on CBC and was directed by brothers Brian and Terrance McKenna. The reason for the controversy surrounding the film is associated with the so called “bullet-proof” evidence that the McKenna brothers had presented as truthful claims about the Canadian army’s tactics in the Second World War which were eventually found out to be false. All three episodes aired on consecutive Sundays in January of 1992 and were titled: “Savage Christmas Hong Kong 1941, Death by Moonlight: Bomber Command, and In Desperate Battle: Normandy 1944.” Though some argue that a few valid points were raised, for the most part the documentary series did not distinguish between the actual facts of the war and what had been falsified to enhance the Brothers’ claims in the series. The overbearing theme of these episodes depicted the Canadian army’s efforts as barbaric, tactless, and as a herd of lambs serving the bloodthirsty British government. The McKenna brothers’ composed the films by using black and white archival footage of war events from the relevant time period, interviews conducted by the McKenna’s with both ally and enemy war veterans, and grossly misleading reenactments which some critics have compared to the likes of “America’s Most Wanted” and other such misleading television portrayals.

The first episode of the series: “Savage Christmas Hong Kong 1941” is the McKenna brothers’ twist on Canada’s inability to be prepared for a proper fight with the Japanese army. They highlight Canada’s loss of the city to the Japanese, the loss of hundreds of so called “underprepared” soldiers, and the deaths of hundreds more who suffered as prisoners of war after the army’s loss in the city.

The series’ second episode titled: “Death by Moonlight: Bomber Command” is a depiction of what the McKenna’s refer to as Canada’s “blanket bombing” of German cities which lead to the death of a great number of German civilians. The use of the “blanket bombing technique by Canadian troops is explained in the following excerpt:

“…such bombing of German civilians was part of the British grand strategy. Others argued that the bombing of civilians was justified in order to bring the war to an end; that the Germans had initiated a comparable bombing of British civilians” (Dick, p254)

The actual tactical strategy and the factual results that came about after the bombings took place were failed to be mentioned by the McKenna’s throughout the documentary. As a result of the public outcry lead by war veterans the CBC conducted an investigation of their own which at the time was headed by CBC ombudsmen Bill Morgan who stated that:

“…the series was ‘flawed and fails to measure up to CBC’s demanding policies and standards and the conclusion drawn (was) that the documentary-makers were selecting evidence to suit their interpretation.’” (Dick, p256)

Morgan was specifically referring to the CBC’s Journalistic Policy which discourages the use of drama in information programming. Once the investigation was complete, the CBC decided it would no longer air the program unless it was amended and presented the information in an accurate manner. This of course stirred up controversy within the organization itself which lead to one thousand signatures being collected for a petition that berated the CBC for not standing by its own programming. (Dick, p256)

The third and final episode in the series titled: “In Desperate Battle: Normandy 1944” once again refers to the massive loss of young Canadian troops and accuses the Canadian army of war crimes against German soldiers that they were never officially charged for once the Second World War had come to its conclusion.

Being as controversial as “The Valour and the Horror” turned out to be, why would the McKenna brothers follow through with producing such a series? First of all they used public funds to finance their series which did not turn out to be as “bullet-proof” as they claimed it to be. Secondly they only presented the information that would back their accusations while leaving out relevant facts that completed the story. And finally the use of dramatization lacks in credibility since these are simply depictions that are scripted and not of actual wartime events. No doubt this was a bold move by the McKenna brothers which of course did not really pay off because of the negative attention drawn to the series and the subsequent investigations.

Playing the devil’s advocate may allow outsiders to view the situation from the McKenna brothers’ perspective. The possible motivation behind the McKenna’s so called documentary was to highlight events of the war that are typically swept under the rug by mainstream media and government officials. Obviously a nation would not choose to depict their soldiers as under-qualified nor would media outlets dare to call out war veterans at the risk of alienating themselves from mainstream success. Those who are willing to cross the line of the aforementioned risks are looking to blaze another trail or to follow the path less travelled because they have invested themselves into a product that very few are unwilling to risk their credibility for. In the case of the McKenna’s it would seem that the bold move has paid off since a great deal of attention was drawn to the situation and they somehow managed to dodge a class action lawsuit that would have undoubtedly ruined them. Most notably Brian has gone on to direct other films which would include, “The Making of a Leader, Fire and Ice: The Rocket Richard Riot, and Chiefs,” all of which have drawn nowhere near as much publicity as “The Valour and the Horror” did. (“Brian McKenna,” 2010)

The role of film as a tool of communication during and after war comes in many different forms all of which if utilized correctly can have a long lasting effect. Joseph Goebbels used cinematography during the Second World War as a form of propaganda which persuaded German army followers to take action and truly spoke to their sense of national pride. Propaganda has been effective in swaying masses to take up a cause they may have never considered being a part of prior to the message being engrained. In the case of Brian and Terrance McKenna they chose to cover an aspect of war that very few have dared to speak of. The path less travelled as some may refer to it as, the McKenna’s brought to light issues that supposedly plagued the Canadian army during the Second World War that very few were aware of. Though subsequent investigations, after the uproar that was caused by the documentary series, lead to the McKenna’s claims being falsified which essentially destroyed the series’ credibility. Nonetheless viewers remained curious and as the National Film Board claims, approximately 2,200 copies of “The Valour and the Horror” were produced (more than most amateur filmmakers can boast). When questioning the motives of your own nation or to even refer to Canadian war veterans as under-qualified you are definitely drawing a certain amount of attention to yourself. No matter what the message of your film may be, the most important part of delivering said message is to do it with integrity in order to maintain credibility or run the risk of the message no longer appealing to the audience since they cannot trust what is being said. If it was not clear yet, film has played an intricate role when associated with war. It has been a substantial tool for leaders and a deep source of information for everyday citizens to refer to since film was first conceived. Once again film relates back to humans being entranced by the flickering light of a fire. Before the emergence of television families would gather around the fireplace to see how everyone’s day went along with enjoying one another’s company since this was the socially accepted norm. Today movie theaters draw millions of patrons every year so they too can engage in a social activity that gives them an opportunity to escape from the monotony of their daily routines. Fantasy becomes “reality” when it is right in front of your face on a twenty to thirty foot tall screen.

Reference List:

Dick, E.J. (1993). The Valour and the Horror Continued: Do We Still Want History Our History on Television?, 253-266. Retrieved November 20, 2010 from: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Ky6SmbM84WwJ:journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/download/11901/12854+the+valour+and+the+horror&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgYG9Q21NmUSWgXal_E-LHpnV9TdLZKxF8rvsysPYkjzJaoCsARqQZ-DhHUgc6wyezI7KA8OFX4CUppmkd-zeLQBSQQJKpBsn6xXqzIwpjiOI5osKDXe80eqsju9ErRYYwv_vGe&sig=AHIEtbSg6iTgYkIC0ORfiLVq9O4Z87Jdmg

Film and Video (2006). Library and Archives Canada. Retrieved November 27, 2010 from: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/military/025002-7083-e.html

N/A. (2010). Brian McKenna. Retrieved November 27, 2010 from:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0571338/

Sloniowski, J. (2010). The Valour and the Horror – Canadian Documentary. Retrieved November 28, 2010 from: http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=valourandth

Virilio, P. (2000). War and Cinema: the Logistics of Perception, 8-10. Retrieved November 28, 2010 from: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1BqRgA9KZXwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=Film+in+Communicating+war&ots=45Lhp5iv-B&sig=EbjjqBfyK5WKTW1ePqUVyROTaY0#v=onepage&q&f=false

World War One Film Study

Introduction

The portrayal of World War One in film has often been that of which shows the war as the as a depressing and hopeless struggle. The victories of World War One are not celebrated the same way he allied victory of World War Two is shown in movies. It could be argued that film began to peak after the end of the Third Reich and since the second World War was still fresh in the minds of many, it received the majority of attention. However, the way film has evolved and changed its stance on the Great War.

To understand this change we must take a closer look at both past and present films and recognize the differences and subtleties of substance regarding the First World War. All Quiet on the Western Front, the 1930 film represents an early portrayal of the horrors of the war told from the German side of the trenches. Lawrence of Arabia, a 1962 British film represents the successes of acting in portraying more obscure but still heroic stories of the great conflict. Passchendaele, a Canadian 2008 produced film, represents the war as a defining moment in Canadian history and approaches the war as a more historical event.

By researching these movies, we are provided with a historical and a contemporary version of the same conflict. By analyzing these films, we are able to gain an understanding on how we revise our history after time, and it turn represent that in film. World War I represents a turning point in history, it also represented a historical case study that has been approached differently throughout modern film. By understanding these portrayals, we are able to gain a larger perspective on the conflict as a whole.

As a society we often look to film to answer our questions regarding history. Often times our vision of time is formulated by what we watch in movies. By understanding this connection, we must then ask if what we watch is similar to the actual events. By researching ideas and perspectives on war we are able to apply this to film and understand whether what we see, is actually what happen. This is a distinction we must understand. World War One historically is seen as a watershed moment in time. It must be examined whether or not film truly represents the importance of this conflict

All Quiet on the Western Front

This film, produced in 1930, was an attempt to portray the horrible nature of war. The film follows squads of German soldiers are initially excited at the prospect of war, and then find out its horrible nature as the film progresses. The soldiers see the horrible conditions of trench warfare, and end up battling sickness and rats, more then the enemy. The film was based on the book by Erich Maria. The author of the book was himself a German veteran who experienced the war first hand.[1] It was his experience that leads to the graphic depiction of the novel and therefore the movie,

This depiction is one that is both vivid and realistic. The movie comes straight from a primary source in the author and therefore reflects a firsthand account of World War One. This depiction is important because it shows World War One the way those at the time saw it. Very often, film will look at history and apply present values to past events. Since the author was an original witness of the event, All Quiet on the Western Front represents a different perspective then contemporized versions.

The soldiers’ perspective is dirty and brutal and the movie does not hide this fact. This is important to recognize because film is often times used to glorify or alter events. Rather then hide the facts to the audience, the film provides people an understanding why thousands of returning soldiers chose not to speak of their experiences. By providing the audience with clear visuals, the film takes both those who were too young, and those who didn’t go overseas right into the heart of the battle.

By providing an accurate first hand account, The Film, All Quiet on the Western Front shows the ability of the film media to tell accurate stories. The war was a watershed moment in History, and the soldiers’ tale was often disregarded for the more grandiose stories of politics and strategy. This film provides an exception to the saying that “History is written by the victors.”

It is in this way that this film represents Communication as tool to provide truth. We are often subjected to the accounts of governments and revisionist historians. The film is an example where we given a common man view of a larger conflict. This small view is not insignificant. In a time where literacy was for the elite, the common man was left without means to explain the world around him. Film based on first-hand literacy was able to provide the world with a graphic depiction of the atrocities that were inflicted upon the common soldier during World War One.

Lawrence of Arabia

This 1962 Academy award-winning British film portrays the struggles of T.E. Lawrence, a British officer who would lead Arab tribes against Ottoman Turks during the First World War. The film features the well known actors Peter O’Toole who plays Lawrence and Sir Alec Guinness who plays Prince Faisal. The movie is seen as one the best of the 21^st century and is considered perhaps the very peak of British film-production.[2]

This film is important because it represents a part of World War One that is often regarded. Most depictions of the conflict depict the squalor conditions of the Western Front in France and Belgium. By depicting the war against the Turks in Arabia, the film is able to provide a story that is new and interesting to audiences. This shows films ability to adapt story-telling in a way that creates awareness of the past. The story of the war in Arabia, although crucial the fall of the Ottoman Empire, is not often discussed when referring to the war. Film is able to take the story of T.E. Lawrence and combine it with good story telling and acting to make a brilliant film that communicates a story that did not previously have a medium.

It is in this way that film as a communication device is able to provide the public with education of interesting topics not explored by regular curriculums. The story of T.E. Lawrence, although interesting, would not be as well known without the film to provide a common theatre for it. Film is able to educate audience at the same time as entertaining them. The legacies of uncommon heroes are saved for history through the depictions in film.

The Film differs from All Quiet on the Western Front because it relies on acting and well written dialogue to tell the story of T.E. Lawrence, the story of Arabia is explained though word rather then shared experience. The film uses the medium of communication and expresses story through acting and conjecture. The exploits of individuals are shown through film and acting.

Passchendaele

This Canadian film, produced in 2008, is the product of the actor Paul Gross. The battle of the Passchendaele represents a turning point in Canadian history. It recognizes the single greatest battle in Canadian History, and Canadian passion and bravery are proved during this battle. It would be after this battle that Canadian soldiers would be known as “stormtroopers,” for being the first line of defense in the battle. The story focuses on the efforts of one soldier (played by Gross), who fights during the battle and goes through a series of personal conflicts on his was the well known battlefield[3]. The movie represents the heroic Canadian soldiers during the conflict and focuses upon there efforts.

This movie represents a more contemporary take on World War One. Rather then rely on the brutally witnessed by first hand account, the movie intends to create a knowledge about the efforts of Canadian soldiers. This means that actions are dramatized and based on mythologies and stories about the war, rather then eye witnesses.

This is a distinct type of story-telling. World War one is an important time in Canadian history however since Canada was still marginally under British control, there efforts are perhaps regarded as simply colonial support. The film and gross succeeds in provided awareness of a Canadian story. This is important because since most movies are ripe with American bias due to the influence of Hollywood movies, the heroes of other cultures and countries are often times portrayed with an American point of view. Since the film is Canadian produced, it is able to create and portray our own mythologies without bias.

The “War Epic” is an extremely popular genre of movie. Gross wanted to take this genre and give it a Canadian perspective. He was able to do so. This is important because it shows the ability of a common communication tool like film to take a conflict and help us explain cultural stories and myths. World War One is seen very different by the Canadians who fought in it and their story is celebrated by this film.

This film shows how we can use the medium of film to explain mythology. Unlike All Quiet on the Western Front, this film relies on story-telling rather then first hand accounts. This movie is designed to inspire a nation about the bravery and commitment of Canadian soldiers. The conditions of World War One are depicted but their existence is not the point of the story. Mankind has always created cultural myths to celebrate our history. Passchendaele represents mankind’s history of storytelling, and film is the perfect medium for the story of Canadiana during World War One to be celebrated and recognized.

Conclusion

Since the beginning, film has had the ability to tell the story of war. The First World War has been depicted several different ways through film. The case studies shown in this paper represent three distinct methods, that film has been used to communicate this conflict. These methods, although similar in technology represents three distinct communication theorems of story-telling. All Quiet on the Western Front is a film that uses eye-witness accounts of the Great War and applies them straight to film. This eye witness account provides the viewer with a graphic depiction of the atrocious conditions of the average soldier during the Great War. This shows that film has the ability to take the conflict in reality, and portray it to an audience in a very real way. Lawrence of Arabia represents the ability in film for acting to take center stage and provide the viewer with a heroic story. The story of the War in Arabia is not a well known one except for what is depicted in this film. The stories of the Great War often focus on the Western Front. The film allows us to see past this side of the conflict and understand that the war was in fact a `world wide` experience and not just a European one. Passchendaele represents a war film created outside of Hollywood. By taking an American genre in the War Epic, and telling a distinctly Canadian story, the film is able to perpetuate the mythologies of Canadian heroicism during the First World War. This is important because the telling of mythologies has been an integral key in telling the histories of mankind. In all three case studies, we are able to communicate the idea that we are indeed storytellers.

---

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/plotsummary

[3] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1092082/maindetails

Blog Introduction: Film as a social tool during and after war

Film as a Social Tool during and after War

Though nowadays we are provided with several channels from which we can gather information, technology did not allow for such options in past times. Methods such as the internet were non-existent, leaving media outlets such as the film industry to provide larger volumes of information to consumers. But what profound effects did film have during times of desperation, such as war? How did those in charge use film to influence their public? This blog will explore the uses of 35mm pictures throughout war. Starting with World War I, we will also expand to discuss World War II, the Korean War and parts of the Vietnam War. We will also explore the development of independent film during this time period.