Four Eras of World War II Movies, Part 4: The Modern Era

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. Four views of the war that reflect the time, attitudes toward the war, and the sensibilities of the movie industry. There are a few that don’t fit into these categories of course, but for the most part these categories work. 

The last category is what I would call the modern era of WWII movies. These movies are somewhat like those of an earlier time in that they focus on interesting stories in smaller units of men rather than sweeping vistas of campaigns, but they also unflinchingly portray the harsh realities of war. These facts do not automatically make them better movies – you will not find many movies of any genre better than Patton or Stalag 17 – but they do reflect changing sensibilities and approaches to movie making.

Why did it take so long for filmmakers and studios to make realistic war movies? I can think of a few factors, the first one being that the World War II generation was getting older and was going to fewer movies. As a rule, WWII veterans tended to deal with their experiences by internalizing them, never speaking of the horrors they saw to anyone. They were not interested in seeing gore and violence portrayed on the screen, since those experiences were almost a hallowed thing that only veterans could understand.

Another factor is the simple fact of the so-called Hays Code. This was a “voluntary” code the Motion Picture Association of America adopted rather than face government censorship of their movies. Movies did not receive a rating, but they all had to pass the MPAA code in order to gain wide distribution. In 1968, the MPAA rescinded the Code and developed the ratings system we know today. Despite that, most WWII films in the 70s remained in the PG category (or even G - the rating system in the 70s was much different from the one we know today, even though they use the same letters), mainly because that was the way WWII movies had always been done.

It was not until movies about Vietnam like The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now came out that film makers felt comfortable treading into more controversial territory with WWII movies. To me that is the most important factor. I know I am generalizing, but Vietnam-era veterans were nearly as likely to internalize their experiences. They were less hesitant to discuss them, and they appreciated an honest portrayal on screen. It took movies about a much more recent war to get Hollywood comfortable with taking a fresh look at WWII. This era began with films like The Big Red One and Das Boot, films that featured young men trying to do their duty and survive the horrors inflicted on them by old men in boardrooms.

The best movie of this era is Saving Private Ryan. It’s certainly unflinching in its violence and grit. Yes, it is set against the backdrop of the D-Day invasion, and if you don’t understand the details of the invasion it detracts from your understanding of the movie. But on a deeper level it connects with everyone because hopefully we all are lucky enough to know or have known someone like James Ryan, a man who answered the call to duty, suffered terrible, unspeakable hardship and then came home and lived a productive life despite the horrors of war. Yes, James Francis Ryan, you are a good man.

This era is also the era of the great Holocaust movies. Yes, there was Diary of Anne Frank and Judgment at Nuremberg in previous eras, but neither of those packs the emotional punch of Schindler's List, The Pianist or The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. This has a lot to do with the relaxed standards in Hollywood with regard to onscreen violence - both of the former movies were made in the Hays Code era.

A couple of other movies I want to mention here that fit the modern sensibility. Both of them are foreign-language movies. The first is Downfall, a German picture about the last days of Adolf Hitler. This movie is famous for the scene where Hitler screams endlessly about how the war is going. It has been spoofed a million times on YouTube as people change the subtitles to portray Hitler ranting about anything and everything. But there is much more to the movie than that one scene. It shows a delusional, demolished Hitler manically swinging between bouts of depression and confidence that he will ultimately win. No history-book, postwar, and certainly no war-era movie was going to portray Hitler in any kind of sympathetic light, but 60 years is enough time for us to look at his tragic life again.

The other movie I wanted to mention is Letters from Iwo Jima. This is a Japanese-language film directed by Clint Eastwood. It is a companion piece to his American movie Flags of our Fathers. There are a few scenes that are similar in both movies. The American movie is kind of a disjointed mess, very difficult to follow. The Japanese movie is simply better. The story is easier to follow than the American movie, even though most of it is presented in Japanese with English subtitles. It portrays the Japanese general in charge of defending the island and the individual soldiers as honorable men doing their duty for their homeland. I know about Pearl Harbor and about their brutal treatment of Chinese and Koreans, but let’s not forget the Germans actually voted for Hitler. The Japanese didn’t have a choice in their leadership. Not that any participant in the war is excused from the individual atrocities they may have committed, but let’s keep things in perspective.

Four Eras of World War II Movies, Part Three: The "History Book" Era

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. Four views of the war that reflect the time, attitudes toward the war, and the sensibilities of the movie industry. There are a few that don’t fit into these categories of course, but for the most part these categories work. 

The third category of World War II films is what I call the “History Book” era. This era begins as early as 1960 and extends to about 1980. This era was concerned with historical accuracy above all. They are so accurate and so good at getting the big picture of the war that one could string enough of these together and be pretty well informed on the history of the war. These films focus on specific battles, like Tora, Tora, Tora, A Bridge Too Far, and The Battle of the Bulge, or they are biopics of notable characters. They focus on the top of the chain of command rather than the bottom. In these films the war is not fought so much in the field as it is fought in map rooms, with the main plot being carried forward in high-level meetings rather than action. Significantly, for the first time we see some sympathy for the other side. For example, in Tora, Tora, Tora, we almost feel sorry for Admiral Yamomoto as he grieves over what the attack on Pearl Harbor will do for the American resolve.

This poster from A Bridge Too
Far doesn't tell you anything
about the movie besides a
list of the stars. And a
paratrooper.

This era is also characterized by the “cavalcade of stars” approach to big productions. It is not uncommon to see film posters of this era with nothing but a listing of some of the big-time actors who make an appearance in the movie. This approach was true not only in war movies but in all genres of films in this era: think about The Magnificent Seven or The Towering Inferno. The two notable films that kick off this era are Judgment at Nuremberg and The Longest Day. Both feature a long list of notable actors, and they both feature real, historical events.

These films are also of note because they frequently feature real war footage in action sequences rather than staging it. This is especially true for films involving planes and ships. I guess it was easier to film guys in uniforms on the ground than it is to set up an elaborate air or naval battle. A couple of films will even mention in the opening credits that they will feature actual footage in the name of “historical accuracy.” Of course the main reason they spliced in war footage was because it was cheaper than actually building a set and filming the necessary elements. Computer-generated effects were still decades away; you had to really film something in front of a physical camera. In the worst films of this era, it’s obvious the writer went through the supply of free footage, found the most interesting scenes, and wrote the film to fit those scenes. Midway is a good example of this kind of shoddy plot development. 

Another reason for using war footage was because the studios’ supply of war surplus props was running low by this time. It’s funny to see, for example, a general jump into a Jeep in a big hurry and the 25-year-old Jeep chokes and sputters as it tries to start, then smokes like a freight train as it scurries away.

The best movie of the history book era is Patton. It is a textbook case for the history book era. The action out in the field is secondary to the actual plot. The plot is carried forward by Patton’s feuds with Allied generals Montgomery, Bradley and Eisenhower, countered by the attempts of German generals Rommel and Jodl to actually defeat Patton in the field. Yes, we sometimes see actual fighting in the movie, but more important to the plot is military and international politics.

A couple of notable films that don’t fit the mold of this era are The Dirty Dozen and Kelly’s Heroes. The latter film is an out-and-out comedy, which is kind of weird to think about, but it kind of works, especially if you ignore the 70s pop music and the anachronistic hippie tank driver played by Donald Sutherland. The Dirty Dozen’s sensibilities are from the previous, postwar era but the galaxy of stars lets you know this is definitely a late-60s movie.

Four Eras of World War II Movies, Part 2: The Postwar Years

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. Four views of the war that reflect the time, attitudes toward the war, and the sensibilities of the movie industry. There are a few that don’t fit into these categories of course, but for the most part these categories work.

The second category is the postwar period. This period runs from 1945 to approximately 1965. This category and the next one kind of overlap, but I will mention them separately because they are distinct visions of the war.

The postwar period knows the good guys won. It also knows that it’s in the past. So there’s no need to involve other countries and keep the folks at home involved in buying bonds or supporting our allies overseas. These films focus almost exclusively on Americans, with a few English added for color. They carry over the sensibilities of the war period in that they focus on small groups of soldiers in a specific place. (This is in stark contrast to the next era of war films.) The films also have the advantage of having access to warehouses full of war surplus tanks, Jeeps, planes, uniforms, weapons, etc. Soon after the war the studios invested a lot of money in procuring lots of this stuff, knowing it would make for great movies for years into the future.

These films are also aware that a big portion of their audience actually went to war and were not interested in reliving the actual horrors of the war. This is the era where the soldiers seem to spend more time dancing with pretty girls and brawling with the navy boys than actually fighting the enemy. Sure there is death in the movies, but you will not find much gratuitous violence.

This is the era of the great POW movies. I guess the studios felt comfortable enough dealing with the harsh realities of prison camps than about the realities of the actual fighting. Bridge on the River Kwai, The Great Escape and, my personal favorite of the genre, Stalag 17, were all made in this time period and reflect the sensibility of the time. The Great Escape also sort of fits into the era I will discuss in the next article, but it also fits here.

One classic film that deserves mentioning here is The Best Years of Our Lives. It features the struggle of three veterans returning home from the war. For its era the plot is fairly realistic and it shows the experiences of the characters during the war and how those experiences affect them in their new civilian life. No doubt many veterans identified with this movie. It was the biggest box office hit of the year and won seven Oscars. The film is most famous for the performance of Harold Russell, who really was a soldier in the war and who really did lose both of his hands. Russell's character feels like less of a man and he has trouble connecting with his old girlfriend from before the war. A poignant scene shows Russell taking his shirt off and showing his girlfriend and us in the audience how he was fitted with prostheses. He remains the only person to receive two Oscars for the same performance, one for best supporting actor and another special, one-time award for “bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.”

My favorite film of this era is one that does not fit the mold of milquetoast action and plot. Attack features Eddie Albert as a cowardly American captain who only got his rank because he is the son of an influential judge back home. He attained his rank because a corrupt colonel played by Lee Marvin wants to get in good with the judge after the war. The men under them all hate both Albert’s and Marvin’s characters, but they have to obey orders, even when Albert’s incompetence leads to some of them being killed unnecessarily. The disgruntled soldiers are led by Jack Palance, who plays a master sergeant who has seen a lot of action and is a better leader than either the conniving colonel or the wimpy captain. "Attack" is by far the most cynical World War II movie made before 1980 I have ever seen, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It’s not well known or widely available, but if you get the chance to see it, take advantage of it. It’s well worth your time.

Four eras of World War II Movies, Part 1: The War Years

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. There are some that don’t quite fit, of course, but for the most part these categories work. This series focuses primarily on American films.

The first category is the War era. These were films made during the war, from about 1940 (remember the U.S. did not officially enter the war until December 1941, but it was obvious we supported the Allies from the beginning) until 1945 or so.

It is unfair to blanketly state that all the films from this era were for propaganda purposes, but I’m going to say it anyway. The government did not expressly tell the movie companies what to make, but they did apply pressure to make sure the movies were helpful to morale, both of the troops in the field and the people at home. They were to portray Americans and the rest of the Allied nations positively as they bravely stood against the evil hordes of the enemy. For the first couple of years the war went very badly for the Allies, so the films that showed action tended to portray small army units or a single navy ship defeating their enemy at hand. The overwhelming majority of these movies are so unmemorable that they are almost impossible to find these days.

The more memorable movies from this era are the ones that portrayed civilian life in some form or fashion. Lots of movies were made that depicted someone being falsely (or rightfully) accused of being an enemy spy, but lots of filmmakers successfully used that premise to make a thrilling movie. The unsubtle implication of these movies was that there may be spies all around us, and we must be ever watchful.

The best movie from this era is the one that I consider the best movie ever made, Casablanca. It might not jump to mind immediately as a blatantly propagandist film, but there are some key elements. The most obvious element is the celebration of the French as loyal allies. The reputation of the French took a beating when Germany swiftly defeated them. The propagandists were going out of their way to show that while France might be in enemy hands, the French people were still with our side. In the film, even though the hero, Victor Laszlo, is Czech, he seems to know French well enough to loudly lead the group in singing La Marseillaise, the French national anthem. And in the end, the events of the film were enough to persuade the neutral Captain Renault to join the Free French.

Also notice the multitude of characters from various Allied nations portrayed in the movie. I already mentioned that Laszlo is Czech. Ilsa is from Norway, Karl and the funny old married couple are from Denmark, Sacha the bartender is Russian, Ugarte is Romanian, and then there is the plucky young married couple from Bulgaria. All of these countries were victimized by the Germans during the war.

Another film from the war era that bears mentioning is Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. This film was actually made in 1940, before the U.S. joined the war. Chaplin, a Jew, portrays a character obviously a send-up of Adolf Hitler. Chaplin had more insight into Hitler’s evil than most of the leaders of Europe did. It plays like a propaganda piece now, because we all agree Hitler was an evil man. But in 1940 there were plenty of Americans who thought of Hitler as a popularly-elected Kaiser Wilhelm, a narcissist with delusions of greatness. Chaplin’s film took great courage and vision in a time when Hollywood lacked both.