Symbols Revealing the Absurdity of War in Anti-War Movies

Cinema has tackled the issue of war in various forms. It is interesting and frightening at the same time that during times of war most of the movies are usually pro-war and serve as propaganda. Anti-war films usually take place after the event. And as it often happens, the propaganda movies disappear into nothingness, but the ones that stick out

and receive recognition are those movies that reveal the absurdity and horrors of war.

For the following purposes, I have chosen three movies to discuss. It is a very random sample and I am excluding brilliant movies like Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, or even Paths of Glory and La Grande Illusion. All these movies do an excellent job of showing the effects of war, but I am limiting my reflections to the subsequent three movies because they use recurring symbols and themes to express the absurdity and randomness of war.

The Symbol of Reckless War in Bridge on the River Kwai

The Bridge on the River Kwai lives strongly on the performance of Sir Alec Guinness as Col. Nicholson. He is the perfect and noble gentleman officer filled with dignity and justice. In fact, he is ready to accept cruel treatment and punishment by the Japanese commanding officer to gain benefits for his officers and soldiers. It may be trifles from our point of view, such as officers not supposed to do manual work as a Prisoner of War, but Col. Nicholson insists on this issue with such steadfastness that he amazes the Japanese commanding officer, someone who is equally stubborn and rigid when it comes to dignity and discipline.

The movie thrives, at least for its first half, on the clash between the strong adamant wills of these two officers on different sides of the spectrum. When the Japanese officer finally gives in to the demands, Col. Nicholson becomes fully devoted to and involved in the Japanese project of building a crucial bridge. He motivates his crew to do their best and to create a steady bridge instead of sabotaging the whole effort.

Why? Because he acts as any self-respecting person would do. He wants to be remembered for his efforts. In fact, the crucial moment of pride and jubilation is when they put up the plaque taking credit for all their efforts. Unbeknownst to him, the allies are planning to destroy the bridge. The bridge becomes the symbol of lost efforts, of false hope because noble causes and dignity become mixed up and confused in the smoke of war.

War as Claustrophobic Space in Das Boot

Most war films dealing with the Second World War have been made in Hollywood. However, there are occasionally a few movies that reach international fame and that show us a different perspective of war. In fact, the excellent German movies Das Boot and Downfall give a glimpse of how the “bad guys,” the Nazis saw and dealt with war.

What the two German movies have in common is both a claustrophobic, doomed and fatalistic atmosphere. Das Boot is about a submarine that enters the zone of war. At first, the crew is bored and misses the thrills and actions of war because nothing happens and there is no enemy in sight. However soon enough, they are shot at and have to fight desperately for survival.

Das Boot makes us feel the pain and despair that soldiers feel; regardless which side they are fighting for, they share the same humanity. It is within instants that the hunter becomes the hunted. This submarine is the pride of the German army, yet it undergoes vicious trials. The crew becomes one with the submarine because for all of them it is their vessel of hope and salvation.

Similar to the bridge, the submarine is a sign of human accomplishment, but it is tightly connected to destruction as well. The crew becomes trapped and disillusioned. They had imagined war differently. They realize and experience firsthand that destroying other ships at the push of a button has devastating consequences. War is not a game, and many lives are at stake whether you are fighting on ground, in the air or at sea.

War as Russian Roulette of Personal Destiny in The Deer Hunter

The movie The Deer Hunter makes a humanistic statement about the Vietnam war. It demonstrates the regular suburban lives and how the experience of war alters and even destroys the lives of the soldiers involved. The first half shows us a jovial and fun-loving group of friends who work in a steel mine and have beer and go hunting deer in their free time. Life is simple and a traditional wedding is the highlight of their experience before they enter the war, full of hopes and aspirations.

Suddenly the movie throws us into the throes of war, without explanation. It is like entering an unknown country without a map. The friends find themselves in the hands of sadistic enemy soldiers that derive pleasure from playing Russian Roulette with their prisoners.

In fact, you never know when the bullet will be triggered, when you will die. It is the unexpected outcome, just like the sword of Damocles that dangles over your head and can end your life at any moment. War is like a grinning madman holding the gun to your head and spinning its chambers. Some will survive and others will not, and it all comes down to nothing but sheer luck.

Contradictions Versus Coherent Philosophical Systems

Young Karl Marx

Western philosophical systems are predominantly rational and are supposed to be logically sound and consistent in order to be taken seriously. This is the general norm. If there are inconsistencies or controversies in your philosophy, then you need to revise the problems or discard your system completely. This has been largely the legacy of ancient Greek philosophy with its reliance on rational reasoning and thinking, more particularly going back to the dynamic duo of Socrates and Plato.

Furthermore, when we are looking at individual thinkers, we tend to look for an integrated root philosophy, a so-called common denominator that captures and synthesizes the person's essential thoughts. Accordingly, a philosopher is either Marxist, Kantian, Existentialist etc. We feel the need to classify philosophers into a known and accepted catalog that we believe will provide us information about their stance and main view.

With philosophers and thinkers, this may actually change over their life time. For example, you may start off as an atheist, but then become a theist in your later phase of life, or vice versa. Some thinkers change slightly, while others do so in leaps and bounds because of radical changes in their life, behavior or thought, all of which may have a dramatic impact on or shift in their philosophical foundations and outlook.

Yet we mostly value and give the benefit of doubt to the later not the earlier phases. For example, St. Augustine is not remembered for his contributions to Manicheanism but for his Christian writing, which occurred in the latter part of his life. Was Marx more Marxist in his later writings than what he accomplished at first? The curious question also remains whether Marx indeed was a Marxist and whether Christ was a Christian since leaders are often identified anachronistically with movements they have helped initiate or bring about.

But with what authority can we claim that later is better? For example, in the arts it is the ending that gives the work a decisive genre; comedies end happily and dramas end tragically, while mixed genres, such as comedy-dramas or dramedies remain in no-man's land and can go either way. But what if the latter part of a person's life is senility or madness? We may acquire more knowledge in later life, but, at the same time, we might have reached or surpassed our prime in previous times; in fact, certain artists, such as Orson Welles or Justin Bieber, never seem to reach initial heights of achievements.

One example that has managed to give Western philosophical systems a major twist or kick in the shins is the case of Nietzsche. He did not believe in a unified philosophical system, openly criticized the over-reliance on logic in relation to the realm of feeling and passion, and he proudly and defiantly contradicted himself.

The scientific axiom of either A or not-A goes back to Aristotle. Yet we see in life, and even certain modern aspects of science like quantum physics, many cases where we do not get a clear-cut answer. Instead we get a weak and indeterminate “maybe” or “it depends” or “it could be this or that.”

Maybe that is part of the problem, namely that reason and logic may get far, but not hit the mark completely. When we are considering such weighty and complex issues like the meaning of life, we need to approach it from different perspectives and be ready to concede certain internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

In fact, readers of my blog will find contradictions in my philosophy. I am not ashamed of them because they are reflections of fixed points in my life, where I may have had different views on issues. At the same time, I reserve myself the right not to commit to any one category because one point of view may not be sufficient, and purposeful inconsistency is not necessarily a flaw in itself.

The Legacy of Ed Wood or the Director that Simply Couldn't

Ed Wood

Golden Turkey Award Recipient Ed Wood is both inspiration and comfort for aspiring directors and artists out there. He gives each of us hope that it is possible to do what you like, to make movies and create art. At the same time, he is relentlessly persevering, despite the fact that he lacks talent and vision. But who cares, follow your passion to the ends of the world and let the chips fall where they may.

Most of us who, all modesty aside, may be more talented than Ed Wood become roadkill on the road to success. After receiving rejection after rejection, even our thick skin becomes eventually pierced. We give up, take up another profession to pay the bills. We sacrifice our teenage dreams because of the reality of life. Being an artist takes more than courage, hard work and dedication; it takes endless perseverance and an insane amount of luck.

In the case of Ed Wood, he was so thrilled and passionate about making movies that he basically forgot about all the rest. The financial part is always a pain in the neck when it comes to film-making, but if you are crazy enough about your projects you will do whatever it takes. Rumor has it that Barbet Schroeder threatened with cutting off his fingers if he did not get his directorial stint of “Barfly,” a movie about another artist, Charles Bukowski, who went to extremes to live out in flesh and blood his poetry and fiction. It seems my life is too tame, “sane” and inane to make me eligible for the category of bleeding heart artist.

Notwithstanding, Ed Wood is also a source of comfort for us. He was by any standard a mediocre artist. His writing is often cited as jewels of bad lines, such as, the following quote from Plan 9 from Outer Space: “Earth people, who can think, are so frightened by those who cannot — the dead.” It is true that it takes talent to write bad lines like those and not everybody can do it, but it came naturally to him. 

At the same time, his directing skills were less than apt, not to mention his attempts at acting. He compares himself to Orson Welles who preferred to write, act, produce and direct his own movies, in other words, to have absolute control over his work; yet it is evident that the two are the apples and oranges of comparison.

Although I may be too harsh on poor Ed Wood, it is not only him I am targeting. He is just a random victim I have chosen for my own purposes here. He is the incarnation of the tragicomic artist who brims over with enthusiasm but seriously lacks talent. He is the one who is courageous enough to stand up despite the adversity of critics and the public and do his own thing. He is the M. Night Shyamalan who, Sixth Sense excepted, somehow manages to survive disaster after disaster; not even Titanic failures can diminish their love for the arts.

And when it comes down to it, who can really stop them. These guys will find funding, even if they have to scrap up money from the streets, work as a dishwasher in restaurants, or even get baptized. They truly inspire me, not for their work, but for their unfailing confidence in themselves. And I prefer them with their blind faith and passion over all those artists who work for commercial reasons only and do not see art as an expression of life, who do not breathe and sweat art, but regard it as another job that brings in a paycheck at the end of the day.