Our primary experience of war is not as participants, but as spectators. Most of us do not fight. A war film should therefore not only reflect an intimate relationship with fighting but also with the understructure that girds up that fighting, that is, images.
On the surface, to infuse a war film with the politics of images seems somehow anti-thema. War films have tended to be relegated to a sub-genre of the action film. But perhaps this is simply the route of least resistance, the most efficient and--judging by U.S. Army commercials--most appealing way to depict war.
The danger of metaphors is that one becomes so accustomed to the comparison, it's easy to forget the comparison is only supposed to reflect the real thing. It is not the thing itself.
Indeed, watching the second Iraq War's "shock and awe" campaign (an interesting itself)--led up by enthusiastic pre-game coverage, glittery post-production images, and an obsession with the high-tech tools of war rather than their effect--it became apparent that this was the simplest template for understanding death.
Perhaps if there is any purpose for a war film, it should be to complicate things, and reflect the mixed bag of life. It shouldn't lean on crutches: "War is good," or "War is bad," or "War is hell." It shouldn't have messages. It should do something more complicated, and more unsatisfying. It should reflect the limits of comprehension.
After all, one reason why veterans don't talk about war experiences is because, very simply, there is nothing to say.
TO BE CONTINUED!
May 15, 2007
contact: silvarobert@gmail.com | RSS feed | about me
all contents (c) robert silva