The PBS documentary on World War II recounts the story of those who refused to fight in the war. These men, numbering close to 40,000, appealed to their conscience, which would not allow them to kill anyone, even Nazis. The film uses a clear rhetorical technique to accentuate the refusal of these non-soldiers. It boosts the cultural perception of World War II, known as the “Good War” or great war. Most everyone in the United States and England rallied behind the troops and eagerly sought to fight. One cinematic tool was the musical scene with a singer and band promoting the war. Thus, the filmmakers create a pro-war cultural image of the time that sets up the “conscientious objectors” and portrays them as extreme.
The film also employs a variety of footage. It does not only include narration or wartime scenes but also incorporates interviews and other cultural footage. For example, the music I mentioned above offers a perspective on the world and war that no other medium could do. The interviews with the objectors create a personal touch to the movie. It prevents the filmmakers from creating straw men, allowing the objectors to speak for themselves. Yet we must remember that the editor of the film can include and exclude what he or she wishes. Thus, we probably get a particular viewpoint of the interview.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Movie Review: The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It".
The film includes war time footage. This black and white battle communicates a sense of antiquity, as we see that the second world war occurred back in time. It also presents a realistic frame of reference for all the talk of war. It makes the viewer think twice before calling objectors cowards or fantasizing about the glories of war. The real scenes also make the interviews more current. The color film and better sound quality immediately convey a sense of modernity.
The generational issues are quite important for watching the movie in our contemporary context. I think the filmmakers portray the objectors as bold and somehow noble by sticking to their convictions. During World War II, this would not have been the case. These men were considered weak and fearful by many people, especially those who fought. However, in today’s context, we do not idolize war. We rather despise it, and the culture regularly objects to it. A recent example is the war in Iraq, which after initial support now has fallen into disfavor among Americans.
Thus, the film, by being produced in the current American context, sends a message that fits with the current climate. The majority of viewers will sympathize and even honor the objectors from World War II. Furthermore, I think this also changes the perspective that many have towards former wars. The nobility of fighting still lingers for earlier battles, but the PBS film challenges this and encourages the current anti-war mood.
This movie is great for morality discussions. The narrative is predicated upon the moral viewpoints of the objectors who refuse to fight because of their conscience. It broaches questions of what conscience is, how it differs from feelings, and what authority it should have in determining moral issues. The movie also incorporates a historical perspective. Thus, it does not rely simply on current thoughts and contexts and introduces alternative times and views into the discussion. It would benefit from more interviews of the opposing side, that is, the men who fought in the war and their opinions about the objectors. While we get a sense of the collective distaste among the pro-war crowd, the video would benefit from more personal and even extreme views against the anti-war group.
