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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment