The TV Addict 

Over at Cinematical they have an interesting discussion going regarding the recent slew of Iraq War movies. Though the original author (Gene Novikov) spent most of the article questioning whether these movies have been the failures they are being made out to be, his prompt at the end of it regarding why people are maybe avoiding these films and not making them successful - at least at the box office - has inspired many intelligent, interesting and revealing responses from visitors of the site.  Definitely worth checking out.

Personally, I actually do avoid these films generally because, well, I know war is bad. I don’t need a film to convince me of that. Most of all, I don’t want to be spoken down to, like I don’t know war is horrible and bad things happen it, and that somehow these movies are going to change my entire perspective about the world. I’d be seriously shocked to hear that anyone who did see these films suddenly had their eyes opened.

 That’s the fundamental problem with these films, ultimately. What seems most important for them is to get their anti-war message across to you. But the thing is, successful anti-war films like PATHS OF GLORY, M*A*S*H*, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, work effectively as such because at their core they have a human story about people. By focusing on the human element first, the anti-war message blooms out of that, making it that much more powerful. I find that a lot of the recent Iraq war films do the reverse. It seems like they create the human stories around they pre-established didactic or ideological message they wish to convey. I mean, when you can find the message of the film in its title (RENDITION, STOP-LOSS) then you know you’re probably going to be hit over the head with it.

I think in the case of these films, it’s best to paraphrase that old Hollywood saying. If you want to send an anti-war message, try Western Union.