It is frequently said that you cannot make an anti-war film. By their nature, war films are exciting. As a viewer, we are safe and sound behind a screen and we watch our protagonist navigate dangerous situations for the sake of the greater good. Even anti-war films celebrate something.
Three recent examples spring to mind: Hacksaw Ridge, Dunkirk, and 1917. I would consider each to be seen as an anti-war film, yet all three miss the mark in fully being an anti-war film.
First, we have Hacksaw Ridge. Hacksaw Ridge's first, and even its second, battle scenes are truly hellacious. Nothing about either of those battles glorifies war. Then we have the final sequence of the film where Desmond Doss and the American troops take back the ridge in what is a glorious montage featuring dramatic music, slow-motion sequences, and plenty of victories for the Americans. The film undercuts its anti-war message with this final sequence. This is what you are leaving the viewer with. This is not just a happy ending, this is a celebration of war -- as long as you win.
In regards to Dunkirk, Noah Berlatsky of Slate sums it up beautifully by noting that Dunkirk subverts what you would expect from a standard "war film", but that in itself does not make it anti-war. Dynamics are shifted and the soldiers are largely, other than our handful of protagonists, seen as victims, often shown as helpless, and by-and-large are not the heroes of the film (again, with an exception or two, like the fighter pilot we focus on), but this does not mean that Dunkirk is inherently anti-war.
For 1917, you have a graphic and disturbing showcase of war, but you also have the climax that showcases the scale of war. You, like the protagonist, are in awe at the scale of the events happening around you. 1917 is also a spectacle in regards to its stylistic choice to be presented as a "one-shot" film. For both of these films, they become spectacles to gawk at. Dunkirk for its magnitude, 1917 for its choices made in the editing room.
My point is not that these are bad movies because they are not anti-war, but that you cannot truly classify these as anti-war films because they are still spectacles centering around the war that the protagonist is in. As a viewer, you lose yourself and your sense of war vs. anti-war because what is happening in the film is exciting. The message may be about a pacifist like Hacksaw Ridge, or even that war is truly a nightmare like Dunkirk or 1917, but because of the presentation of the vast majority of films about war, they cannot be read as anti-war because they still emphasize the excitement and the spectacle.
Then we have Come and See. A movie that is so incredibly anti-war that it blows any thought that I had that an anti-war movie could not exist out of the water.
What makes Come and See an anti-war film? Three key things: the protagonist, the events, and the ending. Let's talk about all three.
The Protagonist: Our protagonist is a teenager named Flyora, who cannot be older than 14. Flyora is not drafted, he is not against the war, he is excited to join the Russian partisan troops even as his mother sobs while sending him off. Flyora then experiences what war is like, and over the course of the film loses his innocence through a series of increasingly horrific moments. But what's special about Flyora as a protagonist is the fact that he is not a hero by any means. We are not following Flyora because he is special or a high-ranking member of the partisans. He is not like Desmond Dodd who does extraordinary things or like any of the characters in Dunkirk who have an integral part in getting the troops out, or Will in 1917 with his own mission essential to the war effort. He is a new recruit, a child, barely good for grunt work, and is ultimately left behind before going to the main camp which starts the events of the film. His experiences are, of course, unique, but there is nothing inherently special about him, nothing worth truly putting on a pedestal. He is simply a boy.
The Events: The events of Come and See are in no way, shape, or form spectacular. In fact, we never even see the "good guys" of the film, the Russians, in battle. Flyora is attacked by Germans in a forest, learns that his family is dead (which we see but he only hears about), is shot upon in a field killing a cow that provided him with the fleeting joy of milk and the only good moment for roughly the final ninety minutes of the film, watches Nazi troops set a building with women and children in it on fire, then watches as partisan troops murder Germans and their collaborators for the village burning. It is all as horrific and terrifying as it sounds. Not a single one of these events is presented with any excitement or given any spectacle. There is no big heroic moment to celebrate. Just the opposite, in fact, as we are presented event upon event to mourn over. The only "event" that is ever even worth celebrating is that Flyora, who we grow to sympathize with as he expresses his fear and concern in various ways, remains alive through everything.
The Ending: The ending is what you leave the audience with. There are three key events in the ending. First is Flyora's shooting of the picture of Hitler and the montage playing of Hitler's life in reverse. Flyora continues to shoot until there is a picture of Hitler as a baby on his mother's lap. He breaks down in tears. Flyora is still just a child. But he no longer has his innocence. He no longer has his mother. The stopping on the picture of Hitler as a baby emphasizes the lost innocence of Flyora. He cannot take innocence away from another. Even in memory, even of one of the evilest men in human history. There is then the call from a commanding officer to hurry up and rejoin his comrades. We witnessed a lifetime of tragedy through the eyes of Flyora. Yet he must continue, not because he is a hero, but exactly the opposite, because he is not. He is low on the totem pole. He must simply continue to march along. Then we see blankets of snow on the ground. Quite simply, the worst is yet to come, and that is simply horrifying.
Combined, these events in the ending do not give you any release or any joy. It is not like 1917 where Will completes his mission and ponders returning back home to his family. It is not like Hacksaw Ridge where Des is celebrated as a hero. It is not like Dunkirk where the evacuation of the troops is a rousing success. You are left with this looming, heavy, feeling of hopelessness and that things are only going to get worse, and that the life of Flyora will never be the same.
Come and See is one of the single-greatest films I have ever seen because it is willing to be so staunchly anti-war. There is nothing to celebrate in this film. There is nothing to gawk at. The climax of the film, unlike many where it is our protagonists doing the actions, is Flyora doing next-to-nothing, simply hoping to remain alive, watching others do the actions.
Taking things full circle, can we not have happy anti-war films? I think we can, but I simply do not know how effective they can be in presenting an anti-war message. Come and See forces the audience to acknowledge the horrors of war. It does not dress it up with action, or heroes guiding you through and littered throughout the film, or other technical aspects to direct your attention elsewhere. It is pure misery. Just like war.
Comments
Post a Comment