Wartime Film Essay Example for Free

Wartime Film Essay If, in the midst of the true-life films all through World War II, the British films were exemplified or distinguished by their humanistic vision of man’s capability to tolerate and triumph, and the Nazi films by their intimidating bellicosity and aggression, the American films were well-known equally for their bold, nationalistic and perceptive or insightful justification of why the Americans were fighting, and for their complicated yet refined cinematic artistry. The wartime true-life film propaganda of Allied and Axis nations alike show an exaggerated depiction or representation of society, morals and power. The American films illustrate an influential and virtuous state, confident in its future to save and protect humankind from oppression, cruelty or autocracy. Based on an account made by Allan M. Winkler (1978), the propaganda used during these times â€Å"reflected the way that most ordinary Americans viewed themselves as they worked to defeat the Axis powers. † He also adds that â€Å"in the end, American propaganda reflected American policy, and indeed America itself. † A lot of of the true-life films finished throughout World War II were described or illustrated by the unchanged traits that famed the feature films of the earlier decade. They were sentimental and corny, witty and intelligent, simplistic and superficial, hard-hitting and zealous. In addition to this, not like the American true-life films of the 1930s created mainly by individual or group filmmakers on the East coast, several of the films during the period of war were completed, under the administration of Washington, by Hollywood experts in the world’s motion picture capital. This venture or project concerned an extraordinary partnership involving industry and government. As Americans were drafted into the armed forces service, so too, were cinematographers, writers, editors, and directors of Hollywood and individual films drafted into the motion picture units of military, with the resources of dominant distributors, studios, film archives and motion picture tools producers put at their disposal. The Hollywood part of this endeavor was corresponded by the War Activities Committee of the Motion Picture Industry, which was structured into seven divisions that replicated the multifaceted American motion picture industry such as distributors, theaters, newsreels, trade press, public relations, foreign markets and Hollywood production. Together with Washington were the dominant government agencies such as Justice, Inter-American Affairs, Interior, Agricultural, Treasury, State, Transportation, Civilian Defense, and definitely including War, War Information, War Production Board, and War Relocation Authority. Collectively, the movie industry and the government created or formed an astounding amount of movies of various categories or types for several functions. Several offer documentary accounts of battle and struggle, others demonstrate the national offerings to the war effort, and still others give tribute to a person’s courage, strength and valor. In the Untied States, the solitary Allied country unscathed by hostilities and war activity inside its continental boundaries, civilians had to rely for their war reports on private communication from armed personnel in the war zones, newspapers, journals, motion pictures, radio, or media prepared by the Office of War Information. National television broadcasting, the primary or main source of public information in the Vietnam War, was not present in the 1940s, and neither did the idea or notion of the â€Å"living room war. † Certainly, though their weekly attendance at the movie theaters, viewers were able to observe up-to-date newsreels and government combat movies or pictures, as well as narrative films, which offered or presented information, amusement, and getaway from their apprehensions or concerns with regards to the war. The joint venture linking Hollywood and Washington made certain or guaranteed a steady flow of suitable and well-timed information to film screens in the nation’s theaters, civilian hospitals, to industrial plants and to military camps. These movies helped Americans appreciate the very important significance of several new things, as well as the need for struggle in areas they had by no means heard of before, twenty-four-hour industrial assembly, and food rationing. This information not only informed and educated the public, but also encouraged their munificent support of the war effort. During the war, turnout was soaring at local motion picture theaters, which demonstrate to be an ideal location for advertising and selling war bonds or for accumulating financial support for such reasons or functions as war relief. In the United States, gathering support for the war endeavor was not at all times trouble-free, for numerous Americans had not only a rugged isolationist predisposition, but also a deep-rooted suspicion and disbelief in the United States administration propaganda. Industry and government leaders, who were overwhelmed by the Nazi and British film programs, were certain that film could be successful in informing the predominantly isolationist Americans of how, where, when and why they were combating and thus awaken their patriotic sympathies. According to Elmer Davis (1968), the wartime head of the Office of War Information (OWI), there were at least three other complications or hindrances to film production during the period of war. The hazard that the propaganda is a sign of partisan views particularly that of the president’s. The deficiency of military collaboration and teamwork in gathering and reporting facts, especially when it might aid or give comfort to enemy; and the belief among some members of the press that they should be free to gather the news without having to rely on a government spokesperson. During the Second World War, true-life film helped and gave support to the unification of the public in its loyalty and nationalism and to promote its support of military participation. Even though Allied films do not idealize war, they attempt to justify World War II by explaining it in clear, non-ambiguous terms. Still, bound together by a common goal, freedom from Fascist aggression and tyranny, Allied filmmakers often set aside logic and convention, as well as civic and personal values, to support the overriding idea of victory over the enemy. One of the most significant tasks of narrative feature film war propaganda, or war propaganda in general, is to create specific role models through whom filmmakers create or reinforce important values. Particularly in World War II when American pro-war propaganda films experienced their heyday, the government knew it needed to overcome an ingrained American trait: stubborn individuality. Audiences had to be shown that although in peace time, â€Å"doing one’s own thing† was an acceptable, even praiseworthy, American entrepreneurial virtue, team play and regimentation are more desirable goals in wartime. In John Ford’s â€Å"They Were Expendable† (1945), John Wayne depicts or portrays an archetypal model of the strong individualist faced with a conversion decision. Tired of no-glory milk runs in the P. T. boats to which he was assigned, Wayne wants a transfer. He’s convinced that his ambitions can only be served if he is reassigned to a destroyer, where he can make a name for himself. He even goes so far to fill out a transfer application, but tears it up when he hears the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. His ambition and search for glory must wait. Similarly, Robert Montgomery, Wayne’s P. T. boat squadron commander, is aggravated by his admiral’s reluctance to use P. T. ’s on combat missions. On one instance, the admiral, in prototypical World War II pep talk, uses a sports analogy to remind Montgomery of the need for teamwork. â€Å"You and I are professionals, if the manager says ‘sacrifice’. We lay down a bunt and let somebody else hit the home runs. † Duly chastised, Montgomery adjusts his attitude. Correspondingly, in â€Å"Crash Dive† (1943), Tyrone Power is resentful for being transferred to submarine service, especially since he has recently made a name for himself in P. T. boats, his favorite naval craft. But, through various espirit de corps-building experiences on board the submarine, the hardheaded role in the team effort to win the war. At the conclusion, with patriotic music rising in the background, Power recites a litany of naval craft, from P. T. ’s to battleships to carriers, extolling their individual contributions to team victory. Regardless of era, these films state clearly that individualism must take a back seat to the needs of the military organizations. In the American movies, the audiences are also thought from selfish to being selfless. As such, there is a great resemblance between John Carroll in â€Å"The Flying Tigers† (1942) and the characters in the previous section. Like Edmund O’Brien and James Cagney, Carroll plays a veteran pilot not used to taking orders, very short on cooperation and obedience. But Carroll offers a bridge from the previous category to this one because of his motivation: Primarily, he’s a modern-day bounty hunter out strictly for the money paid to Flying Tigers for each Japanese plane they shoot down. Unlike the other Tigers, who, like Texan Jimmy Dodd, agree that â€Å"Where I come from there doesn’t have to be a bounty on a rattlesnake to kill him,† Carroll is selfish and is only motivated by money. He abandons wingmen if he can shoot down another plane, takes reckless chances, and endangers others, all for money. But when he sees the results of Japanese bombing of an orphanage, his outlook widens. And when his irresponsibility causes the death of a fellow Tiger, Carroll repents and takes on an expiative suicide mission. Similarly, three 1943 film heroes, George Montgomery in â€Å"China Girl†, Alan Ladd in â€Å"China†, and Ward Bond in â€Å"Hitler: Dead or Alive, are concerned solely with money at the outset of their adventures. Montgomery, a salty photojournalist, is out to document the war for fame and tidy profit, and, like Carroll, is unconcerned about what is happening to the Chinese people he photographs. Ladd sells truckloads of gasoline to anyone who will pay, Chinese guerillas or the Japanese. When both protagonists experience the love of Eurasian women (Gene Tierney and Loretta Young, respectively), and witness first-hand Japanese atrocities committed against Chinese civilians, they put aside profits and personal security and protection and join the Chinese guerillas. In â€Å"Hitler: Dead of Alive†, a predominantly silly grade-B hooligan adventure movie, Ward Bond is a criminal world â€Å"big-shot† who, along with two other hooligans, accepts a million dollar agreement, let by a rich American entrepreneur to kill in cold blood or kidnap Adolph Hitler. At first only concerned with the money, Bond witnesses a Nazi â€Å"blood purge,† the killing of innocent women and children. Horrified, he discards the chance to kill Hitler. As an alternative, Bond tries no discuss an end to the war in return for the â€Å"fuhrer†, whom he has kidnapped. This unselfish effort fails, and Bond dies. But in memory of Bond’s endeavor, the industrialist nevertheless â€Å"pays off† the hooligan by making a contribution of a million dollars worth of planes to the war endeavor. In addition to this, the viewers through the films during the wartime were taught from being cowards to heroes. In Act III of Julius Caesar, â€Å"Cowards die many times before their deaths, the valiant never taste death but once† (Shakespeare, 29). Films portraying an assortment of wars have constantly managed to deal with those who faced fear and mastered it. War propaganda must address the subject of fear, and supply its audiences with reasons sufficient to convince peaceful men to engage in mortal combat. Patriotism, responsibility, revenge, espirit de corps, and other motivations are presented as explanation or rationalization for risking one’s life. Object lessons about fearful men are most helpful. That is why one of the frequently heard stock discussions in combat movies is the one in which as soldier new to combat is surprise to discover that the old sarge, or the captain is sacred too. In two occupied-country war movies, Charles Laughton in â€Å"This Land is Mine† (1943) and Roman Bohnen in â€Å"The Edge of Darkness† (1943) represent men for whom courage is a foreign concept. Although an adult in his forties, Laughton’s character is a â€Å"mamby-pamby mama’s boy†, afraid of everything, especially guns and hostility. But he lives in busy France throughout World War II, and Nazi mayhem and associated air raids are ordinary occurrences. A schoolteacher, Laughton is ashamed of himself, because he is a poor example to his students, who show no respect and mock him. But as soon as his headmaster and mentor, who had advocated or recommended him to develop into a positive model to his students, is killed by the Nazis as a retaliation for resistance activities in the area, Laughton turns out to be both furious and courageous. He candidly speaks out in opposition to the enemy, influencing the townspeople to join the fight and engage in resistance and sabotage. His students now look on him with pride and admiration. Immediately before the Germans guide him out of his classroom to be shot, he reads the French Declaration of the Rights of men to his pupils. When he is gone, he leaves a classroom complete of new young zealots for the cause of liberty. Roman Bohnen plays a salesperson in Norway in â€Å"The Edge of Darkness†. Different from Laughton, he has constantly been vocal in his hate for the Germans, and pictures himself as a soldier executing all of them. But Bohnen’s character is all harangue and chatter. In a face-to-face disagreement with a group of disdainful German troops, he has the chance to courageously say to the Nazis what he believes or thinks of them. But he becomes so frightened he can say nothing. The significance or meaning of the film is that even though as individuals, people are hard pushed to stand up to such an attacker, if each and everybody stands together, they can succeed. So when the whole village rises up as one against the Nazis, Bohnen takes his place among the men, picks up a rifle, and becomes conscious his daydreams. He unites his fellow townspeople in the annihilation of the whole German defense force. Furthermore, films were a sign of the mood of its audience when the unconcerned were portrayed and became concerned. This class or group of character conversion is moderately comparable to the selfish-selfless conversion, in view of the fact that in these situations or circumstances, concern with one’s self is often tied to a singular lack of concern for anything else. Unquestionably, Alan Ladd in â€Å"China† and George Montgomery in â€Å"China Girl† both were mainly concerned with money and fame but the unnecessary massacre of the Chinese had as much to do with their change to the reason as did the encouragements of Loretta Young and Gene Tierney. In addition to these films, Tallulah Bankhead in â€Å"Lifeboat† (1944) and Henry Hull in â€Å"Objective Burma† (1945) play journalists more interested in filing sensational stories than in the issues and outcomes of the war. Instead of helping victims of a U-Boat assault into her lifeboat, Bankhead receives movies and curses when John Hodiak unintentionally knocks her camera into the water. Hull, somewhat anti-military, uninterested and for the most part concerned with a good story, goes along with Errol Flynn on a paratrooper raid into Japanese-held territory. Despite their wishes to remain onlookers, both characters cease to be objective chroniclers and become active participants in events. The demure Bankhead in the end joins the others in savagely murdering their Nazi lifeboat-mate in retaliation for the execution of an injured man. Hull observes the remnants of American troops viciously tormented by the Japanese. Losing his usual or customary worldly cool, wilde-eyed and shaking he shouts, â€Å"Stinking little savages! Wipe ‘em out! Wipe ‘em off the face of the earth! † Earlier than the war, particularly, the documentary genre was dominantly concerned with motivating productive and significant thinking and with determining or scattering opinions and thoughts for the good of mankind. The greater part of true-life films created throughout the war were also concerned with teaching and information, but they were based on the basic principles, morals, ethics or values of the countries which created them. They may not have called upon the viewers to think critically or to depict rational conclusions, but they were swift to be virtuous regarding their own purposes, motivations and inspirations or to pass decision on the motives of their adversaries (Barsam, 175). Works Cited China. 1943. John Farrow, April 21. China Girl. 1943. Henry Hathaway, December 9. Crash Dive. 1943. Archie Mayo, April 22. The Edge of Darkness. 1943. Lewis Milestone, April 24. The Flying Tigers. 1942. David Miller, October 8. Hitler: Dead of Alive. 1943. Nick Grinde, April 3. The Land Is Mine. 1943. Jean Renoir, May 7. Lifeboat. 1944. Alfred Hitchcock, January 12. Objective, Burma! 1945. Raoul Walsh, February 17. They Were Expendable. 1945. John Ford, December 30. Barsam, Richard Meran. Nonfiction Film: A Critical History. USA: Richard Meran Barsam, 1992. Davis, Elmer. Report to the President. Journalism Monographs No. 7 (August 1968). Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. , 1991. Winkler, Allan M. The Politics of Propaganda: The Office of War Information, 1942-1945. Yale University Press, 1978.