Blog 7. The War Game. (Great Britian, 1965. Director: Peter Watkins)
As we said in class, The War Game was commissioned by the BBC; when they saw it, they decided it was too horrifying to show to a television audience—although new information makes clear that the British government played a role in its censorship. It was not shown in England until 1985. However, it did the Oscar for Best Documentary in 1966—which makes no sense for it was not a documentary at all, but a fictional film with locals playing roles in the film.
1. Reaction to the film? What stuck with you since this morning's viewing—and why?
2. We've been talking about the how's and why's of these films; so what happened to the world to cause the ecological disaster of The Road? What created the undead in Dawn of the Dead? What specifically created the waste land of Mad Max? And how did that C-whatever get released into the atmosphere? Well, The War Game addresses these questions and answers them. So do the answers change the way you view what happens in the movie? Do they make you feel better? In fact, what's the effect of knowing why the missiles were fired?
Everyone: write 200 words. Some of you have been skimping on the recent entries.
On Monday we will begin Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Here is the trailer.
Remember to have this posted by 5PM on Sunday. Have a great weekend.
1. Reaction to the film? What stuck with you since this morning's viewing—and why?
2. We've been talking about the how's and why's of these films; so what happened to the world to cause the ecological disaster of The Road? What created the undead in Dawn of the Dead? What specifically created the waste land of Mad Max? And how did that C-whatever get released into the atmosphere? Well, The War Game addresses these questions and answers them. So do the answers change the way you view what happens in the movie? Do they make you feel better? In fact, what's the effect of knowing why the missiles were fired?
Everyone: write 200 words. Some of you have been skimping on the recent entries.
On Monday we will begin Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Here is the trailer.
Remember to have this posted by 5PM on Sunday. Have a great weekend.
I think I can answer both questions at the same time... because what makes this movie so heart wrenching and depressing for me is that the circumstances are realistic and possible. Apocalypse movies are bearable, and even enjoyable, because the science never truly lines up with what we know as reality. The documentary-style of the film and the comparisons to similar events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really showed the audience that burning flesh and dead bodies are a reality of our world. And the worst part is that the death and destruction is by the hand of one person who presses a button. The how's and why's of the first 4 films we watched were unclear for a reason-- if we have a logical reason for every crazy thing that leads to the end of the world, we see ourselves in the situation. Those 4 movies weren't made to scare us about the end of the world. They were created to spur conversations surrounding themes about humanity, love, loss, etc. I think that this "documentary" is different. I think it's supposed to scare us. It was made to show us that the destruction of both humans and humanity has happened in the past, is happening right now, and will continue to happen in the future. The scariest thought of all is that there can only be so much destruction until the human race ceases to exist forever.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat past the midpoint of "The War Game," there was a scene that, to me, changed the film completely. Before that scene, I was sure of what the film was: a run of the mill pacifist film intent on lecturing its audience about how the warlike nature of man will lead to our destruction. I was sure the film was going to show us unspeakable images of nuclear ruin, and then demand the audience to stop a future like this from occurring. I was sure that the film, while it would show destruction, would also ask that the audience have hope for the future and join in with rising social movements around the world. I knew that the film would assert the "problem" of war was solvable -- if enough people stood up against an oppressive government.
ReplyDeleteThe scene of which I speak takes place as a Kent policeman asks a middle-aged, middle-class white woman to shelter evacuees. Her response: not if they are colored. To me, this marks a turning point in "The War Game" where the film ceases to simply question war itself but begins to interrogate society. The type of society that would destroy itself in a nuclear war, "The War Game" asserts, is the type of society that already destroys itself every day by oppressing people that cannot stand up to defend themselves. The type of society that starts a nuclear war is the type of society that spends so long arguing about the effects of war that it spends no time to actually prevent a war; repeated quotes of "intellectuals" are shown to be empty rhetoric as the world burns to the ground. Society is consumed by its need to oppress and rationalize -- these desires lead to complacency and ultimate paralysis. Even society's traditional outlet of change -- liberal activism -- is shown to be ineffective and ultimately counterproductive as they do nothing but increase societal complacency. In the end, we will be consumed by our own paralysis as we continue to disregard human life. Here, the film does more than indict society, it effectively turns the blame back upon the audience.We are the ones that are doing nothing, we are the ones that continue to oppress those around us, and because of this we are the ones that will be the cause of the next war, and the audience must accept this as we watch images of families and communities being ripped apart by our own avarice. Politics do not matter, it is a human issue. "The War Game" argues the choice is simple -- war or no war. "You can reasonably expect a man to walk a tightrope for ten years; it would be unreasonable to do so without accident for two hundred years," Bertrand Russell once said of nuclear weapons. We need to stand up now -- before it is too late.
Unless it is too late -- or just purely impossible. "Yes, we'd have to retaliate if they attacked first," a woman on the street explains in the film's later half. The woman knows what would happen to Russia, but she desires retaliation nonetheless; humanity is of lesser value to her than vengeance. It is not simply that woman; everyone interviewed by the filmmakers agreed. "The War Game" suggests there is something deeply human about war, about our complacency, about our acceptance with the oppression and ultimate destruction of others: somehow, we still view it as a "Game." While the great powers are the proximate cause of the war, we, the human race, are ultimately responsible. Even when the stakes are astronomically high, can humans ever overcome this fatal shortcoming? Or is it who we are? Is seeing the images of young children who have lost their sight, lost themselves, or seeing families torn apart, enough to cure us of this ill? Is anything?
This film scared me. Nuclear weapons have not gone away; we only think about their existence less. A war with Russia, or Iran, or North Korea could be just around the corner. Or it could be another fifty years until a world war strikes again. But that Sword of Damocles will always be hanging over our heads ready to fall. "The unleashed power of the atom has change everything, except our modes of thinking," Einstein said after the first successful nuclear test. Can our modes of thinking change? Or Isabel is right -- and humanity is drifting towards unparalleled catastrophe.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) This film was short, but effective. Although the graphics were not very good and reduced the reaction that I had to the could-be-more-horrifying images (burns looked like tin foil and blood looked like chocolate syrup), the subject matter made the film particularly scary. A nuclear war can easily happen in real life (especially with our current politics). The scene/image that has stuck with me is the bucket full of rings that people had been collecting off the dead, so they could help their spouses potentially identify them. I remember this because the bucket must have had at least 300 rings in it. It puts the amount of causalities in perspective in a really personal way, a wedding ring.
ReplyDelete2) The creation of the different apocalypses in each movie was not directly given to us, so we had to hypothesize about them based on the evidence in the movie. Nuclear warfare caused the disaster of the road and made the wasteland in Mad Max. An outbreak of some disease/virus created the zombies in Dawn of the Dead, and global warming caused humans to release the C-stuff into the atmosphere, freezing the earth. In The War Game, it is nice to have some background information and to be able to see the before and after of Britain. The answer, nuclear war, is definitely meant to scare us. It is scary because it is very difficult (and expensive) to protect yourself from a NUCLEAR BOMB. Also, as civilians, we do not have control over a nuclear bomb. We can not convince foreign governments to not drop bombs on us. The answers do not make me feel better. They make me feel worse, actually, because the answer is basically, “as human beings, we want to control everything and to be more powerful than everybody else, and we are willing to kill thousands of human beings to accomplish this.”
This movie was surprisingly haunting. Many images stuck with me from such a short seemingly low budget/low-quality film; The kid with his arm burned off, The woman holding hands of food the dead police officers next to her, The firing squad, The burning of the bodies.
ReplyDeleteEven things we didn't see that we're just descriptions stick with me. Because of the close to reality aspects and the documentary style it makes it more impactful than the more fictitious feeling action adventure horror films we saw before. The lack of narrative makes it feel real.
I don't remember exactly why the missiles were fired but the intensity of the pain experienced by these people and the depravity really makes the one or two sentence explanation for why the missiles were fired seem really trivial. All the other movies were post apocalyptic movies and this one, although on a smaller scale, is really the first apocalypse movie we've seen. As an extension of that it makes the world of mad max seem to come from a cosmic indifference towards humanity because of the way lasting ecological and social changes are born out a minor political skirmish. It doesn't make it better but it changes perspective.
This film seemed overall more real to me than the other movies. It was modeled like a documentary, and there were repeated references to tragic real-life events such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which emphasized that the events in this movie could actually become reality. Because of this, the burned and deformed faces and rows of disfigured bodies seemed real. Like the "documentary" stressed, it is real, because this has happened to people before, which is the real horror of this movie. This sense of reality is what I think caused its censorship. This movie also showed us how we are as humans. Even in the title (The War Game), we are shown that war is a continuous cycle of which we more than often take advantage. It has become a kind of disturbing "Game" to us, which does more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteWe have hints at the causes of the apocalypse in Mad Max, The Road, Dawn of the Dead, and Snowpiercer. All of them were caused by some sort of nuclear warfare, creating a wide range of problems from zombies to world-wide ecological disaster. The War Game, however, tells us exactly what happened. Missiles were fired by (I think) Russia, hitting numerous places in Britain. It ripped about families, destroying lives and taking them. After watching the previous movies, most of us wanted to know what happened to cause such disaster. However, after watching The War Game, I wished I had not been given that information. Knowing the cause of all that death forced us to connect with people. We could no longer ignore death as unrealistic, but had to face it as a part of reality, which made watching The War Game even more unbearable.
This film is, for lack of a better term, a bit enlightening. I've seen on paper what the effects of a nuclear war could have but I have never seen it visually. Even if it was fictional, it went into a lot more detail about the effects of the nuclear bomb. Documentary style movies are not really my preferred type so my enjoyment of this movie is minimal. However seeing the effects of nuclear war can really open your eyes and further confirm one's belief that we should avoid it at all costs. The scene where a child a good distance away from a bomb dropping had his retinas destroyed because happened to be looking in the direction of the explosion stuck with me. He was so far away from the destruction yet was still affected by it and is now most likely to be blind forever. It showed how removed you can be from this nuclear war and still be affected by it. Radiation spreading and the shaking earth from the explosions are terrifying to think about.
ReplyDeleteThe answers to these questions are all the same. Humanity. Humanity is most likely what caused the disastrous environments in The Road and Mad Max. I'm unsure what started the zombie apocalypse in Dawn of the Dead but it's possible that humanity created some type of chemical spill or explosion that started this epidemic. Humanity was undoubtedly the reason for the world freezing over in Snowpiercer. The War Game only further confirms the fact that humanity will be the cause of its own downfall. This is an unfortunate fact. I enjoy living and am a part of humanity. However Earth was not necessarily made to sustain us, it can sustain life, however humanity has pushed its limits. It's heartbreaking to know that we are the reason the ozone layer is thinning and that global warming is occurring. The animals here before us lived in the world as it was and adapted to fit their needed. Yet when we came along, we changed the Earth to fit our needs. It is in our nature to want more and do what we think is best for our survival. However, like it was said in class, why does the survival of the Earth have to be the survival of humanity when we are the ones destroying our home?
What a fantastic movie. I think that it is amazing how they were able to condense their message so effectively in only 40 minutes. There are so many parts that stuck out to me that it is hard to choose only a couple. I think that the first scene that actually impacted me was the scene that showed the effects that the burst of light from the bomb had on people's vision, and they showed a little boy and a baby screaming because they were blinded. It was incredibly unsettling to see children shrieking in pain, and I wanted for that scene to be over as quickly as possible. The next scene that impacted me is, in my opinion, the most horrifying scene in the entire movie. This was the scene where the doctor was describing which types of patients they would actually treat, and then he described that if somebody was burned badly enough they would just place them in a corner to die in agony. They then showed that they started to execute people who were in this situation.
ReplyDeleteI think that knowing the backstory behind the apocalypse changes the message of the movie. If we are given a backstory and the cause of the apocalypse is a realistic threat in the real world, then I think that the movie comes off as a warning. This is what separated this movie from the rest. This seemed like a warning message to everyone about the horrors of a global nuclear war, and the point of the movie was to show what would realistically happen (the credits at the end showed that most of the information from this movie was obtained from nuclear testing and the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima). The other movies do not come off as warnings at all, since the causes of the apocalypses are not a realistic threat to the real world. These movies are instead used to explore human nature, and how humans would react to an apocalypse. The fact that The War Game is based on a realistic threat makes it seem more "realistic" than the other movies. Add that to the filming style (a fake documentary) makes this movie an extremely frightening experience.
1.I was completely blown away by the bleakness and yet realisticness of the the film. The extent of which society has crumbled in Britain throughout the movie, as shown by the riots, food shortages, etc, is incredibly horrifying to watch. I don’t think there would be the existence of Great Britain as a country, more just an anarchistic island that used to be a global superpower. One image that struck me was of the children, especially the orphans, that were covered by disfigurements and general filth. This was incredibly powerful because it shows how much the innocent will suffer, especially with many dying early deaths due to the radioactive nature of the environment. This film truly paints a hopeless image if there were ever nuclear war.
ReplyDelete2. We never really get much detail in The Road, but it’s clear power got knocked out and the world is getting slowly colder; so maybe nukes or some kind of World War 3? In Dawn of the Dead, it’s fairly obvious that some sort of necrotic virus gave rise to the zombie apocalypse, but we never find out if it was manufactured in a lab or if it naturally occurred. I think that some sort of extreme drought coupled with nuclear warfare created the world of Mad Max, but we never find out what, if any, part Immortan Joe had to do with it. And it’s fairly clear that the chemicals released into the atmosphere in Snowpiercer were meant to solve global warming, but went overkill. But in the case of War Games, I don’t feel better knowing why the missiles were launched because I know the situation was avoidable. When you don’t really see much of a background into the why of the apocalypse like in the other movies, I think you tend to view it as more of an inevitability and therefore focus on it less and enjoy the movie more.
This movie was very shocking to me. Throughout this movie I was thinking about the comment that John said about this movie having been the idea of BBC but they were to shocked to send it out when they saw the final product made by Peter Watkins. I thought it was weird from the beginning because why would they want to make a movie about the worst case senario so close to the event that it could actually happen. This movie was actually very well made for its time too. The explosions looked real and so did the injuries. It had a quirky touch to it but I don't think that the director intended to put on it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact we actually know how the world reached the chaotic state that it is in does affect the way we view the move. It actually makes this movie in particular much more terrifying because it's actually realistic. If we saw that misses hit a country we would be much less shocked than if we heard that there were zombies coming of that the Earth was dying because we know that that might happen. Although it might not be as surprising just the fact that we know the steps in how the world we live our regular lives in went to hell is much more fear-provoking. Also the idea that we are killing each other rather than the world changes the way we see the movie because that's just a flaw in the human design unfortunately.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was much less fun than most of the movies we’ve watched (though The Road is probably an exception) because it wasn’t a fantastical, far-away scenario like with the desert world of Mad Max or the world train. It felt almost like a survival pamphlet, but less about HOW to survive and more about “Look at how gruesome this potentially real future is - this is why we should probably not blow up the world.” It wasn’t fun; it was a warning.
ReplyDeleteAll of these apocalypses (except for Dawn of the Dead, if we disregard "hell is full" as a legitimate cause) were the direct result of humans trying to solve problems. Someone was trying to stop global warming; someone was trying to win a war. Who wouldn't want to do that? It seems the reasonable thing, to try to save yourself and win over your enemies, but at what point does the latter outweigh the former? When are you willing to destroy yourself if it means the enemy is proportionally harmed? “It’s just a vicious cycle isn’t it? But I suppose yes, I would.” God, it’s just so civil. Yes, I suppose it would be proper to kill a proportional amount of enemy civilians. It would be the reasonable thing to do to double the casualties in neat proportions like that - an eye for an eye, a city for a city. It seems so nice and so neat when it’s just numbers, and not screaming children. It’s horrifying, and it would be especially so for those who lived when it was made: I can see why they wouldn’t air it. But that real, visceral reaction is the point they’re trying to make - that “just” use of the bomb is nonsensical. They show statements about how grateful someone-or-other is that the bombs will be used for good and reasonable purposes before switching to, “inside this car, a family is burning alive.” It’s gruesome and frightening and completely attainable. For a time many people thought this future was unavoidable, and for two cities it was the current reality. Knowing that retaliation is the expected action doesn’t make anything better at all. No amount of “I suppose it’s proper” will convince me that winning a war is worth destroying the majority of Earth.
1. After watching the documentary, I understand why it was commissioned. However, some moments from the documentary upset me. It was interesting to watch a documentary about this time era. In the past, when I learned about the Cold War in school, we only focused on the US and the Soviet Union. I had never though about how the tension impacted other countries. After watching the film, I really understood how scared people were that their country might be attacked. However, because I haven't learned a lot about the Cold War, I didn't comprehend all of the references in the documentary. One thing that bothered me about the documentary was that it played with the idea of something that had devastated people. I understand why the documentary was created, as it was probable that England may have been attacked. But, I thought that it was insensitive to create a film about fighting in England that didn't happen. The documentary was all about what would happen if the Cold War included Britain, but the Cold War didn't. Missiles weren't aimed at Britain, and people didn't die of radiation. I just thought it was insensitive to create a film about radiation and shock waves hurting millions of people, when this had actually happened to people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after the US attacked Japan (and the Native American reservations in the desert of New Mexico during testing of the atomic bomb). And I am aware that Britain had a reason to feel scared that they would be impacted but the war, and that movies about war are produced so often. And it's hard to put this into words, but the film just seemed too real to be not real. As the credits said, they based the film on actual bombings of cities. They used factual evidence from the aftermaths of devastating tragedies. It seemed as if they were just playing with the idea of war. I believe that Britain should have been lucky that they weren't bombed, and that creating a "what if" documentary was offensive to people who had been murdered or had their lives ruined as a result of war. After the movie had been released, what would have been the point of showing this to people? And the fact that it was too "real" to be released to the British public really upsets me. If you're going to make a movie about something that actually happened to other people, then you should have to watch it. If it's too realistic, then instead of not letting people see it, have people watch it and realize how lucky they are. And I understand why people may not agree with me. There are so many movies about war. But to me, this one took the actual real facts about devastating bombings in other countries and just substituted in Britain. This just isn't right to me. And what angers me even more is that the movie was banned in Britain. Other countries were actually bombed, but a movie about a theoretical bombing was not allowed to be shown.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that when we know about the reasons behind the state of the world, it allows us to compare this to our present day. In movies that don't explain why the apocalypse happened, we don't have a definite answer. But in The War Game, we can see the direct outcome of the fighting and the missiles being fired in a war. You don't guess why the apocalypse happened, because it's obviously due to war. And because war occurs in our present day, we can really relate to the film. It makes me feel worse to have a definite answer to why the apocalypse occurred, because the only reason is war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis movie literally epitomises one of the worst ways to spend one’s last moments on earth. It's unflinching portrayal left no room for imagination and instead showcased the capabilities of manufactured weapons. More than anything, this “documentary” serves as a warning to individuals; as Isabel addresses above, the fate of the future is subject to the actions of individuals and one bad decision can thus cost humanity's future. I was struck by the response of the police post bomb. I can't begin to wrap my head around their choice to use violence on family members of the deceased. I can't condone their justifications and instead can't wrap my head around their choices to use violence on the families of the deceased. I can understand how having family members comb through buildings in search for their loved ones can be chaotic in aa situation like this, but the choice to shoot someone in their time of grief is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases, the ability to understand why something happened makes individuals feel as if they have the ability to justify their actions or feel as if they are able to assert control. But in reality though, many times this newfound understanding fails to ignite long term change in individuals. We understand and have scientific evidence to why global warming exists, yet we as a society contrite to perpetuiate it. We choose to drive instead of walk, use coal in our factories, decline to recycle, etc. We have the ability to lessen and even cease global warming yet we fail to do so and thus in the end, our demise is a reflection of our decisions/ faults. So no, knowing why these disasters occurred does not make me feel better and instead makes me lose hope in humanity. I'm not saying that not knowing is better, but for myself, the knowledge of why destruction occurred is not a game changer. Instead, it's a reflection and reminder of the carelessness of the human race. Understanding why the missiles were fired gives individuals a chance to admit to their wrongdoings and revert the damage, yet this path is seldom taken.
This is a very sad film. The scenes that stuck with me the most were probably the burning bodies scene and the hospital scene where they had left out the people that weren't going to make it to die. The whole movie really made me sad because it seemed so incredibly real. The stacked bodies and riots are all things I had heard of but seeing it was so much more impactful. Honestly if you told me this was a really documentary i would have believed you. Some of these scenes were so real and the possibility of a war happening is a really threat in the world. The scariest thing is we know the damage bombs and wars can do but it isn't a threat that is going to go away.
ReplyDeleteIn all the other movies I was guessing about how or why something had happened but in this movie they told you. Knowing the reason behind the war really made me think about how stupid wars are. Bombs get dropped quite often in other countries and they are suffering from the same pain. One thing that really changed my reaction to the movie was because it is something that could very possibly happen.
This movie was extremely disturbing to me. It really was so realistic I could definitely understanding not wanting to stir things up with its release, but at the same time I think that everyone should see this movie. This movie highlights the ignorance of people and humanizes war. The reasons these apocalypses have happened is because of human error. In daw of the dead, the characters have de-humanize death and withdrawn any sort of empathy for other humans by the end of the movie. In mad max the unique qualities of the heros are their wills to help humanity and stand up for other people instead of giving into a system. In snowpiercer, the heros also have the insight to try and stand up for what they believe in, but even here the movie raises the question of what would happen when they got to the front? The negative system they created for themselves wouldn't be destroyed, just reimagined. In all these films humans just keep remaking what they tried to escape from over and over and end up lacking the ability to see others as individuals, leading to huge amounts of violence. Out of everything in this movie the thing that struck me the most wasn't the civilians and children. To me being a soldier forced to kill criminals and be the strength of the country really hit me. It probably got to me because my brother is planning on joint the military in a year, and this movie shows the country taking advantage of their military. No one in the army in this movie signed up to take people from their home and kill people committing survival crimes, but their country forced them to do so. It disturbed me so much to see that my brother in this scenario would have to overlook his emotions and clean up the dead and kill and not be able to indulge in his own horror because he would have to protect his nation from a problem it itself had created.
ReplyDelete