Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Wanna share Downfall 2004 as another great example of how War is Hell.

Downfall at least didn't shy away from pointing out how a big part of why it's so awful is because Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership are dragging their people down with them.

As for Avatar, it also didn't try to hide the reason the 100 year war started. The Fire Nation's imperialism is laid out as the cause. And while the Fire Nation people are given depth as the series goes on, it's made very clear that the Fire Nation still holds responsibility for the war.

Edited by M84 on Apr 15th 2024 at 8:27:38 PM

While it's not exactly works of fiction, reading Antony Beevor's Stalingrad and Berlin: The Downfall 1945 side by side paints a rather darkly fascinating picture of war in all it's brutalities.

I'm tangentially reminded of Operation Cinder in one of the Star Wars story, where Palpatine (I still can't believe his first name is Sheev, urgh) drafts a plan to torch down his Empire should he fall, IIRC.

I'm pretty sure it's inspired by "Nero Decree/Nerobefehl" where Hitler deemed the entire German race unworthy and he would take them all down with him...and while I haven't watched Downfall just yet, I have a feeling that the said event is portrayed in that work as well.

Edited by dRoy on Apr 15th 2024 at 9:33:07 PM

At least with Avatar, they had some of the Fire Nation members be aware of how terrible the war really is, with Zuko, who is apart of the Fire Nation, joining Team Avatar afterwards to make things right.

Actually, the first Aquaman made more money than Joker.

I'd also argue that the Joker isn't really much of a villain in that movie.

So he thinks one person going out and ”taking the law in their own hands” with violence is perfectly OK as long as the person doing it is an edgelord with, like, all of the guns.

Ennis doesn't think anyone should take the law into their own hands. He doesn't humiliate characters like Frank and Butcher the way he would Daredevil but he isn't pro-vigilante no matter who it is.

I know he has some respect for servicemen and women but I'd also argue he's anti-war. When has he been shown to be a Blue Lives Matter guy?

Edited by windleopard on Apr 15th 2024 at 5:10:34 PM

Correct, if the message is "we need to deescalate the polarization, before things go out of hand, and we end up in a War Is Hell situation" then that message will be less effective if you pick sides.

Because if your movie shows one side as evil, dangerous or irredeemable, then the message instead becomes, "We must stop and destroy this side; if left to their devices, they will cause the end of America".

..............................

In other words, instead of warning people about polarization, you encourage them to engage in it, a la "we must go to war, otherwise we will end up at war " type of messages.

Also read Linkara's speech about fascism?

Edited by LoneCourier0 on Apr 15th 2024 at 8:27:05 PM

Note that cops aren't exactly portrayed positively in Ennis' Punisher MAX either.

The thing about war movies though is that it's almost always set up as one side will look bad or be the bad guys no matter what. So like with Civil War, I can kind of understand why they didn't want to explain why the war started, because if the message of the film is to stop polarization or make sure that Americans don't fight amongst themselves, than having it explained that one of the states started the war, would make that state look like the bad guy and therefore, go against the message about being united as a country.

The problem with just saying War Is Hell without picking a side is then you get people saying "See? Better capitulate to us!"

All Quiet on the Western Front, being told from the perspective of a young German soldier who didn't really understand what he was signing up for in the first place, doesn't dwell too much on the cause for WW I. But then again, the reasons for WW I were both rather complex and rather stupid.

Some War Is Hell works prefer to focus on the effect war has on civilians, or normal soldiers, rather than assign blame.

Like All Quiet on the Western Front (the book) for example, which follows the life of a group of normal 19-year-old German soldiers during the First World War.

Though the book criticizes and mocks the higher-ups, and their apathy and self-righteousness in talking big about war while knowing nothing of the conditions on the front.

But the work is not interested in determining whose fault it is that World War I is raging; the book focus on the absurdity of war, the hardship of life for normal soldiers, and how meaningless it is,  culminating in  the narrator being killed,  and all the military report has to say is "everything is quite in Western Front" because the death of one person is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

This did present a great anti-war work and was more interesting, than if the book was busy trying to determine which country was at fault for World War I.

........................

On the other hand, writing about past conflicts is easier than doing the same about current ones, so there is that.

"Why don't you stop polarizing" may be easier to say for people who don't have a stake on the matter, and enjoy a 20/20 hindsight vision, so what do I know?

........................

EDIT: Catch-22 is another good example, though that work is a satire, and everyone is insane there.

Edited by jawal on Apr 16th 2024 at 10:23:07 AM

Fair, when the whole conflict is driven by rulers over things that a civilian would actually have no stakes in, sides don't really matter. On the other hand, there's not much point in telling civilians not to go to war in that case when it's not up to them.

Johnny Got His Gun, written in 1938^note funny how War Is Hell stuff sprung up after World War I isn't it? also doesn't dwell too much on the cause of the war. Only on the horrific consequences for its protagonist Joe.

Edited by M84 on Apr 16th 2024 at 5:30:00 PM

If a work(s) manage to reach a large number of audiences and convince them that War Is Hell then change may be enacted, even if by civilians.

After all civilians in Russia did manage to overthrow their government and step back from World War I, despite the wishes of the elite and rulers.

The Bolshevik revolution wasn't really a case of civilians overthrowing elites.

It was a case of one set of elites being smart enough to realize there were a bunch of tired and angry conscripts with guns in the cities who would probably prefer not being sent off to die.

I mean, the other set of elite did specifically appeal to the disillusioned masses which included the conscripted masses, to rise in revolution against the current elite. It still was the disgruntled civilians and conscripts on whose support, the February revolutionaries and later the bolsheviks relied on to overthrew the previous ones in power. I think every revolution in history has always been one set of rising elite leading disgruntled masses to overthrow the other current set of elite.

The point is that "elites" aren't a monolith.

Well, Bolsheviks were mostly counter-elites (as professional revolutionaries), not elites. And they were not as anti-continiuing-the-war when they took power as they portrayed themselves beforhand.

Question, how many people who are talking about the latest Civil War movie have actually seen it?

I honestly haven't seen the Civil War movie yet, so I can't really comment that much on it.

Talking about things we haven't watched, read, or played is a time-honored tradition in forums. Don't ruin the fun!

I'm asking so we can also include insight from people who watched it. Maybe we can get a second opinion on how the lack of explanation for the civil war might help push what message the director intended.

As I said, I didn't watch it, and I believe among the participants, the only one who said he did is @archonspeaks.

With that said, the focus of the last page seemed to be a general discussion about how right and effective it is for a war movie to not focus directly who is responsible for the conflict.

As for Civil War itself, according to wikipedia, it did set a record in the box office, and has generally positive reviews.

Edited by jawal on Apr 16th 2024 at 4:36:34 PM

Honestly, if it really doesn't fit what the director is going for, since he clearly stated he didn't want to shove an opinion down the audience's throat except "war bad" then I think the movie doesn't really have to make a movie that explains why the war is going.

Maybe it fits the vision better. I think a war that you're caught up in and you don't even understand why it's being fought can be quite topical.