Last night, a close friend of mine, who was brought up in East Germany, came round for dinner, and we ended up watching The Dirty Dozen, for some reason. This may sound insensitive on our part, but we always joke about the war, to the point where even I'm totally bored of it. It was interesting to watch it with a Kraut, not least because he was able to tell me which German-speaking characters were actually German. I get the feeling he was less than impressed by the semi-propoganda, American chest-beating on show.
The Dirty Dozen was one of those films which was very popular when I was growing up in the 70s. It had that classic war film status and took turns with The Great Escape as the safe bet for Christmas TV schedulers.
I never liked it. Don't know why, but somehow it left me cold. And, as a pre-teen boy who collected toy soldiers and loved his Action Man (with gripping hands!), I loved war movies. As a side note: my mother made knitwear for a living. Once I'd learnt to use her knitting machine, I made my Action Man trendy pure-wool pullovers. I even started a small business selling them alongside my mother's stuff at Camden Market - strangely, my sweaters were only bought by young, female, Sindy Doll owners. Don't know why...
Watching it now, The Dirty Dozen seems confused. On the one had, it has a macho and jovial attitude to war. But this is mixed, uncomfortably I think, with a determination to show grim reality. I don't mind them "showing it like it is". It's just they weren't. Our heros are anti-heros, who, as murderers, religious psychos, and open rascists, become the cliched, romantasized heros and the German army is shown, typically, as being made up of the usual, dim-witted cannon-fodder, typical of pre-70s war movies.
What interests me, though, is how unrealistic war movies were for the 20 or so years after the event. They were almost always one-sided accounts. Why? Surely the most accurate representation of World War 2 would be found being produced during and immediately after the war, as people's memories were freshest.
Not so. The war movies of the 40, 50s and 60s reflected how people who had lived through, and often fought in, the war wanted to view the war. They wanted to be told they were right to fight, to kill and/or to sacrifice their loved ones. They wanted to be told the German army (you rarely see the people) was made up of unsympathetic characatures, as depicted in war-time propoganda.
Monday, June 12, 2006
The Dirty Dozen
This is why, when you are looking back in history, you have to remember the people closest to the action are most likely to be prejudiced in its retelling. The Dirty Dozen, to me, is a reflection of it's audiences' increasing confusion. Made in 1967, the idea that "the war was good" is beginning to fade, eventually to be replaced by the reality that "all war is grim".
If the Jewish people in 1st century Plalestine were involved in a violent rebellion, they would want to be told they'd done it for good reason. One thing that hasn't changed over the centuries: story tellers always try tell stories their audience want to hear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


25 comments:
Do they still make Sindy dolls?
But seriously tho, I see your point. Propaganda is an effective tool. In the wrong hands, it's deadly.
Hollywood has long rewritten history. Maybe not completely rewritten but certainly given it a more positive (ie. pro-American spin). I think The Dirty Dozen was typical of movies of that genre, trying to counter the anti-Vietnam drumbeat that was beginning to re-cast the American military as unrighteous and evil. Hollywood did it with the wild west stuff too, portraying outlaw gunslingers as something to be admired.
I.
am.
trying.
very.
hard.
to.
forget.
what.
you.
said.
about.
the.
DIRTY MOTHERFUCKIN' DOZEN!!!!
Action Man took in the shit-chute.
That film has not gaed well, MS.
I don't see it as propaganda, even, Dabich.
Stories, including religion, are tailored to be as popular with their audience as possible. People who loved through the war DID NOT want to be remined of the grim reality - they wanted to put all that begind them; they DID NOT want to see the German army as real people, like them; and they DID NOT want any doubts about whether killing all those Germans (or Japanese) was justified.
Popular history - in other words, hidtory as presented by those who need to please the masses, like Hollywood - is presented in a way which is deemed to please as big an audience as possible.
Braveheart, for example, was made knwoing that everyone, except the English, like to see the English get their asses whipped. So a one-sided story is presented where Wallace is this squeeky clean hero and the English are a bunch of evil sadists.
Gladiator was equally ridiculous, as far as historical likeliness goes (let alone accuracy). Roman history was presented in way tailored to please a 21st century audience.
The story of Jesus began with him being just a impressive preacher and gradually evolved until he was eventually presented as no less than God himself.
Is a story's popularity an indication of its integrity or, in fact, the opposite?
I would say a story's popualrity is popular because it presses all the buttons the audience want pressed. The story of Jesus was slowly modified to be more effective at pleasing its audience.
*aged.
oops
great typos today:
*lived (not loved)
LOL you fixed 'em before I could :P
"The story of Jesus began with him being just a impressive preacher..."
The "story" of Jesus began as far back as Genesis 3:15 written by Moses 1500-1600 years before Christ's appearance on earth.
This goes to my previous point of what the bible says differing from popular notions of what it says.
ps. The bible doesn't say Jesus is God. Religions do.
Jesus certainly never claimed to be God. He often talked of not doing his own will but the will of his Father.
Chris, just curious, do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?
That's your version of the story, Chris. Plenty of Christians will disagree with you, not to mention followers of Judaism. Unless you can somehow prove your version is the indisputable truth (which is impossible, isn't it?), yours is just another opinion.
Whether Jesus was a god or the son of a god, is splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. Jesus was not the son of any god - we know that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Simon-I just got through saying that it comes from the bible. It's not my opinion at all. It's your opinion that he was just an impressive preacher who became God. That is clearly not based on a reading of the bible, which you have said you have not done nor have any interest in doing. Since you are a fact based guy, I'm just checking your facts.
Whose opinion counts most, yours, mine, or this guy's:
"The early material puts Jesus squarely in the Jewish world and his background as a Jewish peasant in Galilee assures that his education as a youth must have come from the Pharisees. Later gospels, particularly the canonical Gospel of John, mythologize Jesus and portray him as a divine Logos or "mind" of God. However, these post-Easter interpretations developed later by the Church should be viewed for what they are: stories about a Risen Christ and not historical facts about the real historical Jesus. Once we sort out the historical Jesus from the Risen Christ--the facts from the myths--we can better appreciate the Jewish peasant that changed the Western world." James Still
I haven't offered an opinion. You have offered an opinion and Mr. Still has offered an opinion. If you'd like I'll offer this opinion: Mr Still is likely a philosopher, as you are, and as such presents an alternate view of life and its questions. He does it by legalistically tackling the common misunderstandings in scripture. Instead of searching for truth and continuity, a search to find the fissures and cracks is undertaken in an effort, not to uncover truth, but to poke holes in it.
I'm struck by the sloppy quote and the muddled meanings. The bible is written to appeal to our hearts primarily and our minds secondarily. It is not a text book with facts, although factual in its content. To seperate historical Christ from the "mythylogical" Christ is somewhat humerous since the only source of Christ history is the very documents that identify him to folks like yourself and Mr Still as mythological.
And again, I point out, that a serious study of scripture will show that often what passes for the truth in Christendom and the world in general is in fact not that at all. Its not my opinion that you cannot show me in the bible the word "Trinity". Its not my opinion that you cannot show me in the bible the concept of the "eternity of the soul". Its not my opinion that you cannot show me from the bible that the Pope is identified as the keeper of truth and God's representative here on earth. Those doctrines, adopted by Christian religions, aren't bible teachings. That is a fact.
Mankind only has questions, not answers. To put faith in mankind for the answers to lifes questions is troubling given how man has only successfully managed to dominate man to his injury.
Chris, I understand what you're saying but my opinion is you have offered an opinion.
Do you know as fact Moses wrote Genesis 1500-1600 years before the time considered to be Christ's birth and can you demonstrate it to me? If not, it's an opinion.
Instead of searching for truth and continuity, a search to find the fissures and cracks is undertaken in an effort, not to uncover truth, but to poke holes in it.
That's how we test things. If we can poke holes in the truth - it isn't the truth.
It is not a text book with facts, although factual in its content.
This is a contradiction. Although, I understand you mean we shouldn't just employ our minds when reading it, we should let our hearts tell us if it is true or not.
But I actually think this is potentially dangerous. Religion encourages you to switch off your reasoning. For me, faith is born out of uncertainty and fear.
By reasoning I know that homosexuality is no more harmful than heterosexuality. Yet, someone reading a book which says homosexuality is wrong, because they take the book's truth on faith and not reasoning, they will believe homosexuality is wrong, even though there's no reason for it.
The concept of "trinity" was, I believe, created to solve a problem with the confusion over whether Jesus was a god or the son of a god.
As you can see, the Bible is still a work in progress - 2000 years after the event. It woud be ridiculous to believe it contained the unadulterated facts, yes - in my opinion.
Dabich- I do believe that.
Thank You Chris :)
that movie has aged beautifully because films like that are needed to combat the pussy-fied mantality of the current generation of males.
"Man"-tality? is that accidentally on purpose?
No!
I mean...YES!!!
damn...
I still think Kelly's Heros is a better film. I can see how D12 appeals to macho Americans like you, scibe.
Machos with man-tality :)
Heyl, I come from the same state where D12 the rappers are from so you daaaaaammmmmn right!!!
kelly's Heroes was OK.
I know KH is silly. But films like D12 are silly too, but they don't know it.
I dunno, I spotted a rather laconic sense of humor in D12.
Post a Comment