Why We’re Still Watching Movies About a 73-Year-Old War
If there’s one thing that we, as American’s, can all agree on, it’s that Hitler was a bad person. An appalling, disgusting, convoluted person. He is the malevolent side of the never-ending battle between good versus evil, and even though World War II (WWII) happened nearly 75 years ago, we still obsess over the stories of the people who fought the Nazi’s. We still choose to relish in the knowledge that the side the United States was on, the Allies, ultimately won the war. We love to watch battles unfold between the US and Germany; but there’s a reality that many of us haven’t faced because of this. In truth, the Soviet Union (USSR) was the country that led the fight against Germany in the Eastern theater, and they had the highest number of military casualties in the war. Let me provide this example for you: Did you know the USSR lost more than 20 million men in this war? Probably not. Do you know about the Battle of Normandy and D-Day? You probably do. The US was involved with that, so of course you’ve learned about it in school, and possibly even watched it unfold on the big screen in movies such as The Longest Day. Films about WWII may not be at the forefront of the modern movie-making business, but there is a recurring theme amongst many of them. It’s a theme that was not actually present in the recent Oscar nominated Dunkirk, directed by Christopher Nolan. If you saw that movie, there’s a good chance you noticed that the US is not in it. Not one scene, character, or battle involves the great United States of America. It’s a rare film that goes against this theme that I have noticed; US films about WWII are being made more by the Generation X and Baby Boomers, and they dramatize the US’ success on the European side of the war, without referencing the major part of that involved the USSR. It’s easy to agree on a good vs evil debate this way, and time is running out to show these stories before they die out.
Many of the most well-known movies about World War II depict a battle that the US fought against some European force, including Saving Private Ryan, Red Tails, The Monument’s Men, and Fury. Saving Private Ryan, in particular, was a very successful movie, raking in a total gross of $481 million in 1998. This film is based on the story of brothers who were in search of one of their own amongst the war, and it’s a harrowing tale of bravery and self-discovery. Directed by Steven Spielberg, it’s not even a 100% true story. But that does not take away from the fact that it’s captivating, and it brought in audiences that only dropped by 22% from opening to second weekend. Why is this? Well, it ties back to the idea that Americans like to watch fictitious films that provide a sense of accomplishment; even though their stories may not be true and/or possible, we still attach to the storylines and experience a rush of satisfaction when the characters achieve whatever it is that they had set out to do. It’s the same concept that keeps a movie like Saving Private Ryan so successful. In addition to that, this film focuses on battles being fought in a war against Hitler. I would like it to be known that Germany spent about two-thirds of their military resources fighting the USSR, and about one-third of their resources fighting the US and UK. But with movies like this constantly showing the ‘US vs Germany’ battle, it’s easy to assume, if you didn’t already know otherwise, that the US was the main driving force in defeating Germany (when in reality, the US is accredited for defeating the Japanese in the Pacific theater). Again, I bring about the question, why? Why are we so captivated and protective of the fact that the US did have this glorious victory over Germany in the war?
The answer, as I see it, is fairly simple. As I previously stated, Hitler is extremely easy to hate. We like to see that we defeated him in any way, shape, or form throughout the war. Other movies that depict this concept include Red Tails and Fury. Both of these films tell a story about a group of American soldiers that overcome unlikely odds to fight in the war and put a dent in Axis powers’ forces on the European side. In Red Tails, this is told through the true story of the Tuskegee Airmen, the first group of African-American fighter pilots who fought Germany as a part of the US Army Air Corps in WWII. In Fury, this is told through the fictitious story (based on groups of real storylines) of an American tank directly fighting Germany’s much more advanced forces in the European theater. We see these movies and cheer on the messages they carry: the US was a relentless force against Germany in this war, the US made huge contributions in the European theater, the US had forces fighting almost all the fronts of the war. But these messages are not only that. They are blankets, covering the grim actuality of the war. The grim actuality that the USSR lost many more people, resources, and time than the US did on the European front, and the US actually had more success and a role in the war in the Pacific theater. Dunkirk, recently released with an impressive $188 million domestic gross, directed by Christopher Nolan, was a recent hit that actually did not feature the US fighting Germany. When asked about the effect Dunkirk had on audiences in different countries, Nolan did point out that the French did not take it as well as others, because this film represented a real-life beginning of Nazi occupation in France. But to many Americans, who had not been involved in the war at the time, they can simply sit back and watch the film knowing that the US did not struggle in this particular battle; and yet ‘we’ still won the war.
This sells in the movie industry, and people included in the generations known as Generation X and Baby Boomers have realized this and begun to tell all the stories previously unknown, of the people who fought in WWII, through film. Saving Private Ryan was directed by Steven Spielberg — a Baby Boomer -, Fury was directed by David Ayer — a Generation X -, and Red Tails was directed by Anthony Hemingway — another Baby Boomer. These are just some among many, and the pattern is only continuing to grow. It can be argued that most directors in the modern-day film industry do indeed fall into this age category, and that may be true. But it cannot be denied that they are deciding now more than ever to tell these WWII stories, and they are choosing the ones they know will do well from a business standpoint. The visual creations being made today about this war have morphed from historical references and acknowledgements to a metaphor for America’s undying thrive to be the best at everything.
Now, I just want to clarify; I am fully aware that there are movies out there that depict other sides of the war, such as Hacksaw Ridge, Enemy at the Gates, and Unbroken. They are out there; but there aren’t that many. There are people who believe that because war movies are not at the head of the modern-day film industry, this is not something that needs to be addressed, nor are people like me allowed to overlook that films that have been made that do indeed show the other side of the story. It’s almost like saying climate change is only something we need to pay attention to when catastrophic weather events or strange environmental happenings occur. It’s still there, and it is able to get any attention it needs even if it isn’t considered the most important topic at the time. It’s also important to note that these stories that are being told should not be overlooked. For example, Unbroken, directed by Angelina Jolie, just so happens to be my favorite movie. It tells the story of Louis Zamperini, a WWII veteran who had been on a plane in the Pacific theater that crashed in the ocean, and then was held as a prisoner in Japan for two years until the end of the war. It is a rare movie that shows one of the many parts the Japanese played in WWII, and though that is acknowledged in the movie, it’s central focus is still on the story of Louis; the American, and nothing is wrong with that. It’s amazing that these people are getting the recognition they deserve, because I believe that veterans like him have the right to have their stories be known and appreciated. But there is no denying that this is happening more often, and whether you view that as a good or bad thing is completely up to you.
Another anomaly to this whole idea is the film Enemy at the Gates, directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, which is a story about a Russian sharpshooter — in other words, a sniper for the USSR during WWII. It made around $96 million at the box office worldwide, which pales in comparison to the stats for other previously mentioned movies that do not involve the USSR’s role in the war (Unbroken at $163 million, Fury at $211 million, and Dunkirk at $525 million). So why is this one of the extremely few mainstream films that shows the war from the perspective of the USSR? I’ve got a reason for that too: The Cold War. America tries to stay far, far away from any mention of the Soviet Union, for fear that it will bring up problems with the audience that would not otherwise be brought up. Besides, why acknowledge that country that suffered a loss four times that of the US in WWII when you’ve got Nazi’s to endlessly show as the bad guys? That’s just it; you don’t. Take a second and answer this question for yourself: when faced with the decision, would you rather go see a critically-acclaimed movie about the story of a Soviet soldier in WWII, or a critically-acclaimed movie about the story of an American soldier in WWII? I’m willing to bet you’d choose the second, which is completely fair. It simply appeals to Americans more. As long as the US has not famously and undeniably won a war, and there are no direct wars/battles with forces viewed as horrible as Nazi Germany was (and still is), then films will continue to be made about the US involvement in the European theater rather than the Pacific (or the USSR’s spot in the European theater). It’s a fixation the American people simply cannot get over; it’s a fixation that has the definite capability of mesmerizing the film industry.
Enemy at the Gates follows a Russian sharpshooter, and that in itself is an oddity. It’s hard to judge the accuracy of a movie that follows a fictional plot about a real war, but it’s said that Russian veterans hate it due to its inaccuracy. Opinions aside, another fact to know is that at the time it was made, Enemy at the Gates was the most expensive foreign funded film, with a budget of $90 million. It was a risk the film industry took, and it some ways that risk was worth it. It is currently the 16th highest grossing WWII movie of all time, which may sound impressive; but it’s also worth noting that 12 of the top 15 top grossing WWII movies involve America. This isn’t a surprise, and I don’t think this commonality is going away any time soon. All this considered, it’s safe to say that this movie sticks out like a sore thumb in the realm of WWII films, and in some ways, that’s a good thing; but in many other ways, it brings up questions and problems that the US will never be ready to address.
Take this whole phenomenon and consider another: what if the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) had won World War II? What would the world be like? It’s a terrifying topic that is often steered away from, and stepping back from the big screen, the television show The Man in the High Castle, tackles this question. The show revolves around a world in which the US has been divided into two states after losing WWII: The Greater Nazi Reich and The Japanese Pacific States. Hence, two of the strongest powers that the US, UK, and other Ally countries were fighting in the war, have split the country between them. Sure, there’s a possibility that if it were made into a film, this concept would be a blockbuster. But is there really any way to know how people would react? We’ve become so accustomed to being assured with the insight that Nazi Germany lost the war that seeing an idea to the exact opposite on the big screen could be detrimental. Or, it could have the opposite effect, and it could rake in audiences left and right with its ‘next big, controversial, and deep-meaning’ ideas. Who knows? Maybe we’ll discover the answer to that soon.
