Peter Jackson's Cartoon War Sanitized images like these are war pornography. That they are no longe

[niyad]

Peter Jackson’s Cartoon War

Sanitized images like these are war pornography. That they are no longer jerky and grainy and have been colorized in 3D merely gives old war porn a modern sheen.

by
Chris Hedges

?itok=LajOupb8
"It is fortunate all the participants in the war are dead," writes Hedges of the new film, They Shall Not Grow Old. "They would find the film another example of the monstrous lie that denied their reality, ignored or minimized their suffering and never held the militarists, careerists, profiteers and imbeciles who prosecuted the war accountable." (Photo: They Shall Not Grow Old/Warner Bros.)

When director-producer Peter Jackson’s World War I film, “They Shall Not Grow Old,” which miraculously transforms grainy, choppy black-and-white archival footage from the war into a modern 3D color extravaganza, begins, he bombards us with the clichés used to ennoble war. Veterans, over background music, say things like “I wouldn’t have missed it,” “I would go through it all over again because I enjoyed the service life” and “It made me a man.” It must have taken some effort after the war to find the tiny minority of veterans willing to utter this rubbish. Military life is a form of servitude, prolonged exposure to combat leaves you broken, scarred for life by trauma and often so numb you have difficulty connecting with others, and the last thing war does is make you a man.

Far more common was the experience of the actor Wilfrid Lawson, who was wounded in the war and as a result had a metal plate in his skull. He drank heavily to dull the incessant pain. In his memoirs “Inside Memory,” Timothy Findley, who acted with him, recalled that Lawson “always went to bed sodden and all night long he would be dragged from one nightmare to another—often yelling—more often screaming—very often struggling physically to free himself of impeding bedclothes and threatening shapes in the shadows.” He would pound the walls, shouting “Help! Help! Help!” The noise, my dear—and the people.

David Lloyd George, wartime prime minister of Britain, in his memoirs used language like this to describe the conflict:

… nexhaustible vanity that will never admit a mistake … individuals who would rather the million perish than that they as leaders should own—even to themselves—that they were blunderers … the notoriety attained by a narrow and stubborn egotism, unsurpassed among the records of disaster wrought by human complacency … a bad scheme badly handled … impossible orders issued by Generals who had no idea what the execution of their commands really meant … this insane enterprise … this muddy and muddle-headed venture. …

The British Imperial War Museum, which was behind the Jackson film, had no interest in portraying the dark reality of war. War may be savage, brutal and hard, but it is also, according to the myth, ennobling, heroic and selfless. You can believe this drivel only if you have never been in combat, which is what allows Jackson to modernize a cartoon version of war.

. . . . .


https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/11/peter-jacksons-cartoon-war

[Dennis Donovan]

1. I'm sorry, but...

...as a historian, this is way the hell off the mark.

[niyad]

2. in what way (s)?

[Dennis Donovan]

3. Restoring film is not a glorification of anything

...the whole premise is bunk.

[niyad]

5. did you read the article?

[Dennis Donovan]

12. yes...

...and he restored 100 year-old film.

[edhopper]

42. Did you see the movie?

[cwydro]

74. I did.

This article surprises me.

[edhopper]

81. Me too

I wonder if the OP saw this movie.

[cwydro]

85. I found it as horrifyingly moving as anything I've seen about the war.

I think it was a fantastic thing he did.

[edhopper]

86. Yes

I hope they go further and use this tech on more footage.

I could see a movie about the air war or the naval part of WWI.

[cwydro]

87. I agree. It's always better to remember.

I think re-doing these films serves that purpose.

[guillaumeb]

4. It is "war porn".

As are so many of the movies about the many wars. And the millions of dead soldiers from this first "world war", so many that countless European towns were essentially depopulated of men of certain age brackets, are all forgotten.

They are colorized images of people killed to satisfy power politics.

Recommended.

[niyad]

7. the glorification of war in all its many iterations makes me ill. and war porn it definitely is.

[guillaumeb]

8. But "war porn" is socially acceptable in many circles.

And considered suitable for children.

[niyad]

11. a fact that never ceases to make me ill.

[MicaelS]

37. Wow, you must be ill quit a bit.

Given the fact that quite a few movies are about some sort of armed human conflict.

We did not become the dominant lifeform on the planet, but being meek and mild, sitting in the shade, snacking on nuts and berries. We got it by being the meanest, toughest, roughest SOBs this planet has ever seen. You, like the rest of humanity would not be here if we had not.

To quote Star Trek: "We are a race of killers. All we can say is, we will not kill today."

[niyad]

93. what a truly ugly view of humanity you have expressed.

and, I don't watch those films that glorify and revel in human violence.

[MicaelS]

94. Reality is often ugly.

Sorry you have trouble with that. The animal world it is the same thing, eat or be eaten

[brooklynite]

71. Should we destroy all WW 1 film so we don't "glorify" anything?

If the answer is "no", what's wrong with ensuring that the film is as accurate and detailed as possible. as opposed to rickety, jerky footage we're all used to?

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. On the contrary - Hedges demands that WW1 films do not remember the soldiers

His article says the film should have been about the strategy of the generals, and the profits made by arms manufacturers. There is, of course, room for many books and films about that. But Hedges is a pompous ass who insists that all films should follow his analysis.

As EarlG says below, the film had plenty about the realities of the war. It's just that it was about the footage we have of what happened, rather than talking heads describing the leaders.

[guillaumeb]

25. And this reduction of many of the actual victims to wallpaper status

is in keeping with the great man view of history.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. And yet, you recommend the essay that reduces the "victims" in that way

(those soldiers that survived might not have seen themselves as "victims", or course). Jackson's film used their words, and pictures of what they did in the war; Hedges wants the film to have been about the stupidity of the generals, the censorship, the state and civil liberties, and the arms manufacturers' profits. Hedges puts forward the "failed great man" view of history.

[guillaumeb]

57. It is the stupidity of the generals,

and the willingness of people to be persuaded that every war is a great and just war.

[edhopper]

43. Sorry

this movie in no way glorifies war.
In fact it brings to life the disastrous consequences and uselessness of this war.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

51. Have you seen the movie?

Because it very clearly does not glorify or romanticize war. In any way. It is a brutal and, dare I say, touching look at the virtual hell those soldiers went through.

The end of the film has the WWI British soldiers talking about how they were no different than the Germans they were killing/capturing. They make they point you seem to think needs to be made.

[guillaumeb]

58. I was addressing the sanitized images.

And no, I have not seen the movie.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. I would imagine it shows a couple of hundred dead soldiers

'Sanitized' is just a lie.

I doubt you can watch it here from the USA, but in case you can, here it is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0brzkzx/they-shall-not-grow-old

There's a transcript here: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=they-shall-not-grow-old

[guillaumeb]

60. It is a UK only option. But thank you anyway. eom

[cwydro]

75. I saw it in the states.

A few months ago.

[edhopper]

63. It is now playing in theaters hre in the States

I saw it at a special one day showing, but now I see it is playing in more theaters.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

62. The images in the movie aren't sanitized.

At all. My daughter couldn't watch a lot of it. It shows the horrors of war and you hear actual WWI soldiers talking about it.

It's a great film and this review got it completely wrong.

[edhopper]

64. Then your opinion is ill informed

there is nothing "sanitized" in this film.

And in fact the restoration makes the horror of that war very real.

You have erred in your assessment.

[guillaumeb]

70. I will try to see the movie.

[edhopper]

72. I thought it was a moving experience

it might also end up on Netflix or something like that.

I do know what you mean by war porn. I thought that Mel Gibson WWII movie recently was such.

[MineralMan]

66. Then you know nothing about it at first hand.

Amazing. You just took Hedges word for it? Read on, guillaumeb. Others here have seen it. Read what they say, then see if yourself.

Have you served in the military? Do you have relatives who have?

[edhopper]

69. It is anything but war porn

it is a brilliant documentary that brings a century old cluster fuck to life.

Did you even see the film?

[wasupaloopa]

6. As a Vietnam vet it disturbs me to have a young person tell

me what my experience was.

I was not permitted to live in your black and white world. I don’t mean that ethnically.

[niyad]

9. to which "young person" do you refer?

I certainly know what my own experiences were, dealing with the consequences of that insanity.

[wasupaloopa]

24. We all in our way have to deal with things.

I wouldn’t try to explain to the world what I thought about what you experienced.

Having no first hand knowledge of it especially.

When I got home in 1968 I did not dare to tell anyone I was in the war.

I was drafted and did not choose to go to war. And you have no idea what my experiences where. You can’t define it for everyone.

[niyad]

92. please show me where I tried to define the experience for everyone. I certainly know

that is not possible.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

52. Not sure if I'm interpreting your comment correctly,

but the film uses archived interviews with actual WWI soldiers. Those are the only words in the film. They are telling their own story.

[wasupaloopa]

65. I have learned since coming home that history

isn’t written by those who lived it but becomes what a later bunch of people say it is.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

68. Absolutely with you there.

You might like this movie, then. He takes interviews that WWI vets did with the BBC and uses that as the narration. There is no non-involved party doing any commentary on the movie. It's just actual footage from the war and actual soldiers giving us their story.

[wasupaloopa]

77. I intend to see it.

[LanternWaste]

10. Having watched the film, the most unsettling experience was watching

Having watched the film, the most unsettling experience was watching some of the most violent scenes I've ever seen on film personalized through the weary eyes of soldiers long since dead.

Though it doesn't prove any new insights into the conflict (I don't think he even touched on the broader socio-economic aspects of the conflict), I don't think it was meant to do so, but rather place a newer perspective on the British soldiers themselves; turning the telescope around, so to speak.

[edhopper]

45. Exactly

it was about the every day soldier and their experience. It did not glorify the war or show it as anything but a horrible event.

[msongs]

14. restored images are just restored images. its the editorial content surrounding the images

that are drawing the criticism. IMO The last scene of "all is quiet on the western front" is a much better editorial summation of the futility of ww1

[Dennis Donovan]

18. My Grandfather served in WW1.

I've found the best "clip/response" to the conflict in this 3 minute video:

"Who would notice another mad man around here?"

[Ron Obvious]

54. I'm.... scared, Sir.

Brilliant conclusion to the series.

Both my grandfathers served in WW1 too, but never talked about it. I'd dearly love to travel back in time now and do so...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

53. What editorial content?

He uses actual footage. The only words being spoken are by actual WWI British soldiers telling their stories to the BBC. Jackson did a great job of matching footage to the narrative of the soldiers.

[Itchinjim]

15. Bullshit.

[edhopper]

46. +1000

[niyad]

16. Over The Top Blackadder Goes Fourth Final Scene

[FreepFryer]

17. Russian disinformation agent criticizes Western portrayal of WWI. Meh.

He and his handlers are lucky the American Expeditionary Force left Russia in 1919.

We won’t make that mistake again.

[EarlG]

19. I disagree with this review

Yes, the first part of the movie was about the men joining up and *thinking* that they were going to be part of a jolly adventure. It did indeed contain veterans saying positive things about the experience of joining up, thinking you were doing something patriotic, and how it made them physically fit.

Then the movie goes into graphic detail about the reality of the actual war, vivid descriptions of death and disease, filthy conditions, gas attacks, shell shock, men losing their minds, and a long segment describing the experience of going over the top and walking towards the enemy machine gun fire, being shelled by your own guns -- narrated by the surviving solders who actually did it. It's horrifying.

The movie contains footage of soldiers dying, and graphic still photographs of battlefield corpses. It ends by describing how the veterans who came home were basically ignored and then forgotten after the war was over.

I'm not sure how anyone can watch this movie and come away thinking that it makes war look good.

[Dennis Donovan]

20. I appreciated the restoration a great deal.

...and I didn't walk away from the movie thinking it as any sort of glorification of war. It was great work by Mr Jackson and I hope he does more (as a Méliès fan, I hope he provides the same treatment to Le Voyage dans la Lune ).

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. That was how I saw it, too. It was far more about how the soldiers saw it than Hedges's tirade

when he demands that a film explicitly about the experience of the common soldier should instead have concentrated on the politics, the economics, and the strategy of the generals. He thinks that there's only one story to tell about World War One. He is not a historian or documentary maker. He doesn't get to control how the world remembers a war.

[Docreed2003]

35. +1

The review reads more like someone who has an ax to grind rather than someone who actually watched the film.

Your assessment of the film was exactly my own. Personally, I thought the restoration of the film and photos added a level of connection for modern audiences.

[Hekate]

40. Thanks for your review, EarlG

[edhopper]

47. It was a brilliant documentary

and this "review" belongs in those makeshift latrines from the film.

[Adrahil]

23. I saw this film.

This review is shit.

Does it romanticize these young men? To some extent. Does it romanticize the war? It absolutely does not.

[Sherman A1]

36. Agreed

I found the film to put a human face on the men that went into the meat grinder that was WWI. It in no way romanticizes that war or any other war. It was very much Not War Porn.

[NurseJackie]

26. He's trying too hard. I get the feeling this is more about (re)establishing his own "creds"...

He's trying too hard. It's forced and pretentious. I get the feeling this is more about (re)establishing his own "creds" by being contrary and controversial, than it is about writing a fair, honest and thoughtful review.

[MineralMan]

28. I wonder if Chris Hedges ever served in the military.

I'm guessing not. The image of the men at an outdoor mess depicts one aspect of military life during wartime. We don't know who those soldiers are, whether they had experienced combat, or whether they might even be rear echelon support people.

War is a horror. War is not romantic. However, there are times when groups of men in uniform are relaxed and laugh, as they are in that photograph. Later, they may die screaming, but...

I've known veterans of four wars: WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Some were combat veterans. Others were in supporting roles. Those two groups often have a very, very different way of looking back on their time in the military.

One thing I have noticed is that the combat veterans generally do not speak of that experience often, and only to other combat vets for the most part. The rear echelon folks, on the other hand, often speak proudly of their service, their friends, the camaraderie, and the usual complaints about military life.

For many who served in the military, but who were not combat troops, those years are sometimes the high point of their lives. My father-in-law was one such person. He was a supply sergeant in the Army during WWII, and spend most of his time stationed in Panama. He had countless stories about funny things that happened while he was in the service, his friends, and things like that.

My father, on the other hand, was a 20-year-old B-17 pilot near the end of WWII. He never talked about the war or about his experiences until he was almost 70 years old. Then, he began sharing some of his experiences with me. It was not a high point in his life, and he had reservations about bombing runs in Germany that he was in. He saw a number of his fellow pilots and crews go on a mission, never to be seen again. He spoke about the ground crews who made a point of not getting friendly with the air crews, because so many didn't return from missions.

War is not one thing. It is many things. I haven't seen this film, but I suspect that it shows more than one aspect of WWI. I'm not sure that Chris Hedges understood what he watched completely, but he's welcome to his opinion.

Me? I was in the USAF from 1965-69. I was not a combat anything. I was a Russian language analyst. I was in Turkey. While some of my friends served in Vietnam, some of them not coming back alive, I was doing something completely different. Near the end of my service, I was stationed near Washington, DC and became part of the anti-war movement. My story is completely different from someone in a platoon walking through an Agent Orange treated jungle. I can't understand that experience, because I did not have that experience.

I'll probably see that film. Then I'll know how I feel about it. I probably won't take Chris Hedges' word for it. He wasn't there.

[Hekate]

44. Thanks, MinMan

[edhopper]

48. By all means do see this film

it is an incrdible experience.

[hatrack]

29. Hedges is full of shit . . . .

He's trying to shoehorn whatever his ideology happens to be into the act of remastering and correcting the speed of old film, and producing in the process a remarkable documentary.

Corpses and botflies, graphically portrayed in the movie, somehow transmute into "war porn" in his view. Would omitting them evoke criticism in the opposite direction, that the film had been "sanitized"?

And the veterans whose voices were provided by the Imperial War Museum were the voices of those willing to speak of their experiences, as opposed to the maimed, the blind, the psychologically shattered, which rather tends to blunt whatever edge he imagines his critique possesses.

Strange, isn't it, that some of the men and women who went through this, people born well over 100 years ago, those who chose to speak, might view their own experiences differently from the way Hedges views them?

[obamanut2012]

31. +1

[MineralMan]

32. "Hedges is full of shit" Concisely put.

Accurate, too, I'd guess.

[RhodeIslandOne]

84. He loves to hit all his buzzwords

Then wrap an article around it.

Well said.

[obamanut2012]

30. Yeah, epic fail -- this is a terrific movie

About a war and war experiences usually overlooked.

[Blue_Tires]

33. I don't get it... What's his problem?

If Hedges wants to partake in some gritty/horrifying/tragic/cynical media related to the First World War, there's already enough out there to fill the English Channel?

And last I checked, there's nothing stopping Hedges from getting his own film project together... What does he have against Jackson?

[sarisataka]

34. He sounds like someone upset

Because a person dared make a film different from the way he would have done it.

With the caveat that I have not seen this film, it is not inaccurate to say many did go to WW1 willingly and even joyfully; especially at the beginning when everyone expected a very short war.

I would dispute his anecdote about the actor's experience being "far more common". Most participants in war come back with no physical wounds at all, let alone a serious head wound.

There are high-level factors which drive a war but those are basically invisible at the individual level. The individual's knowledge of the war is limited to their 5 senses and the never ending rumor mill.

[VOX]

39. The Jill Stein-supporting Hedges must have seen a different film than I did.

Jackson’s film does NOT sanitize ANYTHING about the “war to end all wars.” Nor do the voices of the actual veterans, recorded long ago, toss cliches about— it was a different era, and men who experienced the insanity of trench warfare desperately tried to remain polite and respectful of their fallen comrades and yes, even their enemies. And the film does not flinch from showing piles of mangled, maggot-infested corpses in various states of decay. One shocking sequence shows (in long shot) a group of horsemen getting blown into mere vapor.

I abhor colorization of classic films. Yet here again, Jackson uses the refreshed images as a technique to make them more immediate. The film begins and ends in primarily black and white, but for the middle section, the screen ratio expands, and the crisp images look as if they were filmed yesterday.

It’s a monumental work, worthy of the highest praise. And the subject of WWI is of far greater interest to the Brits and ANZACS, who endured far greater losses than the latecoming United States.

To hell with Chris Hedges and his bullshit vision.

[edhopper]

41. I saw the movie and Hedges

is so far off the mark he isn't in the same theater.
The voices are from the men who served. How they remember it is up to them and the movie in no way sanitizes war.
The restoration is breathtaking and brings these men, the common soldiers, who w once only saw through choppy, grainy black and white, to life.
The movie is a remarkable achievement and deserves all the accolades it is receiving.

I recommend everybody sees this movie.

[edhopper]

49. I saw a special screning

that had was followed by Jackson explaining how the film came about.
He didn't set out with any predetermined ideas. Only to use the British War Musum's film archive in a different way.
When they found out they could restore it like this after experimenting, they movie grew organically.

[Recursion]

50. Chris Hedges knows people's feelings better than they do, apparently

What absolute garbage this article was, and trying to erase veterans' actual words like that is particularly vile and all-too-Hedges.

[Paladin]

55. Chris Hedges needs to lighten the fuck up.

There's nothing pornographic or cartoonish about photographic restorations of soldiers at war.

[harumph]

61. I like and respect Chris Hedges - but I disagree with his take.

If anything - it shows surprisingly contemporary looking
faces caught in the midst of the first mechanized war over 100 years ago.
It shows us that war is always a possibility in whatever time - functions as a cautionary tale - and reflects
cynically on human nature - which is a good lesson (I think).

I get what he is saying, but there is more than one type of war documentary.

I want to add that Chris thinks it's porn because he fundamentally thinks the audience is stupid.
IOW - he doesn't trust that normal people are capable of separating the aesthetics from the message.
He's a modern day Cotton Mather. He's got interesting things to say. But this article
isn't his best by a long shot.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. Tolkien wrote LOTR because of the trauma of WWI. I guess Jackson does not "get" Tolkien after all.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

79. You haven't seen the movie, have you?

Because Jackson explores pretty clearly the trauma of WWI in this film.

[bdjhawk]

73. I saw the movie and completely disagree with Hedges

The movie actually gave an intimate look at the horrors these people went through. My father was a combat veteran of WWII and we always saw WWII movies and tv shows. As I’ve grown older, I have thought a lot more
about the day to day grind- the details of everyday life. Besides seeing the horrors of battle in this movie, we also saw what it was like to have no toilet paper, wear filthy clothes, eat tins of crappy food and this was for months on end. One scene that was particularly stunning was looking into the eyes of a group of young soldiers waiting during a calm moment and being told that virtually all of them were dead 30 minutes later.

As others have mentioned , this was shown in the US on three dates only in Dec and Jan. Apparently, the response was good as it is now being shown on many more screens and on a daily run.

If you do see it, please do yourself a favor and stay for the post- movie addition of Jackson telling how the movie was made. No detail was spared in making this as authentic as possible (colors of uniforms, grass, etc) and the technology was so interesting to learn about. You can tell it was a labor of love to make this as authentic as possible. The effort should be applauded and not condemned. I highly recommend it!

[gtar100]

76. Thank you. I am sick of the glorification of war.

Military actions kill far more civilians - men, women and children who are innocent victims caught in the middle. There is no honor in that. It's a god damn nightmare brought to real life.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

80. "It's a god damn nightmare brought to real life."

Pretty much gets covered in the movie.

[edhopper]

82. If you saw th movie

you would know this movie is nothing of the sort and the OP is completely off base.

[gtar100]

89. Ok

Thanks. Sorry, guess I'm triggered by the issue.

[joshcryer]

78. This article is trash.

[Tarc]

83. Is this the last gasp of Generation Wavy Gravy?

"War Porn"...

[ismnotwasm]

88. I have no problems with shots from moments in the past

But Isn’t it interesting that if you post pictures of battle injuries, or mutilations,, much less deaths, even on DU you’d need a “graphic content” warning.

People don’t want to see it.

[RichardRay]

90. Straining to make his analysis fit.

The reviewer has an analysis. He’s trying to force the film into his analysis. People do this all the time on politics, racial justice, economic inequality, etc. It is a difficult way to view the world.

[cwydro]

91. Have you seen this movie?

You should.