This realism comes on two levels. The first level is basic relationships between soldiers. As I reported in my first essay, the tried and (un)true stereotype of Colonel Blimp is still alive and well within the movie industry. To show realistic representations between soldiers, the moviemakers should come to understand, or at least to appreciate that due to the nature of the military relationships between officers and enlisted soldiers are unique and should be shown as such.
The second level is that staple of the movie industry: combat. Some of the earliest movies; for example, BIRTH OF A NATION, showed combat. Milieus of movies since then have showed combat in various stages of realism. Most of the World War II movies producing during or just after the War were short on realism and long on patriotism. A particularly bad example is THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE. Filmed in Spain, it shows.
The post-war realism movement has led to more "realism" in war movies, if that "realism" can be defined as more blood and gore. However, the movie producers have missed the boat when it comes to the other aspects of war - explosions, battle behavior, and soldier relationships. Of course, exceptions make the rule as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN can attest.
This attention to detail in making a war movie calls for a big budget and a bigger determination to the director to produce an accurate movie. I guess the argument comes down to this: if the producer/director/what-have-you has enough time and budget to get the actress's hair just right, he has the time and budget to get the combat right.
Go To Page: 1