1917 - Probably no spoilers
Today, we took my father-in-law to the movies to see 1917, the period piece directed by Sam Mendes that tells a simple story set in what are complex circumstances. The one-take style of the cinematography created a flow that drew one into the story and for me, provided an FPS feel in some respects, even though it wasn't from a point of view perspective. This was added to by the path the journey took by way of orders and directions. Do this, do this, do this. I think to appreciate it fully, I would have to see it again.
What I think comes across in the movie is the humanness of soldiers against the backdrop of the futility of war, the effort put into an exercise that gains little. And while from some respects actions could be considered heroic from an observer, from those who lived it the story was quite different.
Unlike the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan which was 45 minutes of violence and horror, the war itself is not the focal point, but there is enough interjected scenes that depict the destruction. I think that even these scenes were not added to shock, it was more to pinpoint the wastage of life that war becomes, and the countless names lost to the meaningless and only remembered by those waiting at home, friends and family.
I was thinking about this the other day where we have created legends around terrible events that may give us meaning in what we do and justify an escalation in violence, but those who actually lost their lives are blurred into the whole, insignificant in some way. I wonder how many people can recall a name that was lost in the Twin Towers attack on 9.11, or any of the mass shootings that have taken place in recent years. I am sure their families remember.
Considering how connected we are as a global population, there is still quite a disconnection when it comes to the acts of war, or perhaps we have been desensitized by the many realistic movies that somehow glorify war itself. We create heroes from pawns sent onto the field of battle by those who have no care for the potential of life lost - as long as they get what they are after. And what they are after is control of resources, including the people involved.
While I can understand the defense against violence, is there ever a valid reason to start a war? Perhaps there is, but I can't think of one - it worries me.
Many wars are started when times are economically difficult and they play on the tensions of those struggling to make ends meet, and are driven by organizations that benefit from the conflict and the economy it creates. If the current state of the world is on the brink of war while times are relatively economically good, what is going to happen once that collapse arrives, what happens when we are highly connected and all have a platform, but all are suffering, all in pain and looking for something to blame?
All that is needed is a target, a faceless mass that can be attacked without emotion, without the sense that there is humanity behind the facade. The disconnection through screens and the ability to disseminate information that activates groups, is the perfect mechanism to spark a flame and then fan them until it all burns bright. With the global reliance on each other, no matter where we live, we are all part of this, all affected.
We have had two World Wars so far, but I think that if there is a third, it will truly be a global event that engulfs us all. I find it incredible how many people are pro-conflict thinking it is a solution, when no matter how many wars we have had that have been lost and won, at the very best they have only bought some time until the next installation.
I am lucky. I have never seen war first hand. That should be the global experience for everyone going forward - but I am not that naive.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
I have seen a lot of movies covering the second World War, but not many of the first one. I do like the fact that you say the movie doesn’t focus so much on the actual fights, but more on the characters I prefer this, because this way you can imagine the war through these characters and understand how horrible it must have been. History repeats itself, but let’s hope that when it comes to a world war that won’t be the case, but like you say it would be a bit naive to think otherwise.
The fighting scenes tend to add atmosphere, kind of like it is happening around the main characters, not to them. The turmoil of the world is just starting, I believe and hopefully we can douse the flames early enough.
Although - like you say but using my own words - war doesn't bring anything. We not only see many happening around the world, as we see many of them portrait in movies. I hope the movie side of things will support the mass to not wanting war and going against it. Not sure of that is indeed the case though; The world is getting more and more in a state of aggression. The current economic growth will not last forever. We will see a setback. I actually think our current financial system as at its end as well and relatively soon - may take another few decades - it will collaps. The likely result of this collaps will be chaos; More chaos then we can imagine; Especially when the dollar or euro is not trusted anymore, when we get something like hyper inflation. Chaos may leed to another large scale war, but since we are better informed than 100 to 70 years ago (when 1st and 2nd WW happened) I tend to believe we will not follow a few leaders in whatever they do, but we will follow many (smaller) leaders trying to come out best from the chaos. We may see many wars on smaller scale. When all of this happens, I actually hope the result will be we will not have the traditional division of the world in about 200 countries, but we will see thousands to more small-ish local communities, forming something similar to the old city states. Lets hope all of this stays in the cinema while we remain to believe the mass and their leaders will just talk about war instead of starting new ones.
It was designed for a different economy and the tools available are increasingly becoming useless to deal with the rapid changes.
It is going to be an incredibly violent process if it happens, and I think the horrors of the past are going to pale in comparison in many locations. While perhaps it is the only likely way to create the mass of change required, I also don't want to experience it personally and would rather a different solution be found.
The current system is based on inflation and growth for a relatively small group of people. Now we reached the end of possible growth since more and more poeple want to take the benefits of growth which in essence means those who've done well in the past, will have to take less in order for those who didn't take from the economy can take a bit more. People tend not to want to give away some of their wealth, hence the inevitable end of the system. Not sure how many years you think you'll be living on earth, but when this is a few decades, I'm afraid you'll experience whatever will happen after bankruptcy of the system. I know I will see this, but am not becoming afraid of it. Still need to take actions towards my survival when all of this happens. Having a piece of land at some remote location is something I'm thinking of.
I think one of the other issues is that when the current system was created it was deigned for countries to manage themselves and at that time, there were no amazons, facebooks and googles that can generate trillions and not pay very much tax anywhere. The economic systems of states can only manage what they can get their hands on, and that has changed significantly. THe system is increasingly irrelevant.
I have little doubt I am going to miss out on seeing all of this, unless ill-health spares me.
In WWII there was a clear 'enemy' that the Allied powers faced. In Europe, a very oppressive regime led by Hitler bent on world domination by force, and in Asia, a very oppressive Japanese force that had been operating for over thirty years before it was finally countered. As harsh as it was for those involved, the evil opposed was worse than the cost of opposing it.
However, I feel that in WWI, that was not the case. The loss of life was tremendous even though there was no clear 'evil' being opposed. It was solely for political reasons the war was started. I think the introduction of modern weapons that were significantly more advanced than the tactics used against them caught everyone off guard creating a level of carnage that no one expected. The price of war then was greatly under estimated. And if that blunder wasn't bad enough, the post-war actions of the 'victors' set up the conditions that allowed the likes of Hitler to rise to power.
As we see in the world today, there are still those who choose to force their will on others by force of arms and some of those will only be opposed by force. There are other 'battles' being waged on other 'battlegrounds' that are not so violent, yet may also effect the well being of many, just not as overtly. There are other injustices being committed on major population groups that because they remain 'localized' are not opposed by the major powers. These things have been with us throughout history and seem to be destined to remain with us until the end. Perhaps we will learn to understand and control our modern modern tech before it again gets away from us like it did in WWI and final bring a true peace to the world....
I heard that the accuracy and range of weaponry ripped apart the tactics of the time.
I fear that there is far too much polarization and disinformation spreads much more rapidly than the truth or reason. The global communication network itself has been weaponized as a way to propel whatever agenda those with the means want to push. I think we have got so accustomed to consuming without nuance, our thinking processes only see black and white. Not great for avoiding conflict.
!ENGAGE 30
I definitely agree with your comments on modern communications! The old saying that the 'Pen is mightier than the sword' is more true today than ever before...
that is an astute reference. I like it lot. :)
@jdkennedy you have received
30 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
It is no co-incidence that the largest economies of the world took their currencies off the gold standard in 1914. After that, they were free to wipe out the value of all private savings and use it to fund the wars. Arms manufacturers got fabulously rich.
I didn't know that was in 1914. Thanks. No surprise though.
These days with the polarized groups and global delivery systems, the arms manufacturers can get rich without war, just the suggestion of it. The planes are flying around from Pirkkala as we speak.
When technology becomes more powerful, it allows for he construction of increasingly powerful weapons.
The last two world wars were the real tragedy, in my opinion. Tens of millions of people had to die.
Technology is a double-edged sword.
!ENGAGE 20
@markkujantunen you have received
20 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
re-Tweet to the trenches!
https://twitter.com/tarazkp1/status/1221107447672246272
By my own principles I will say no, there's no ethically justifiable reason to initiate a war. The reason being that if you do justify it, the rationale behind is to reach a (hypothetical) greater good with a sacrifice of lives. This is a dangerous way of thinking because it trivializes suffering and makes it only a means to an end. That is what happened in Soviet Union: tens of millions of their own people killed under the totalitarian system, only in the name of the communist utopia that never came.
This is what happens in all cases of instigated war, those with an agenda don't mind inflicting suffering on others.
@laputis and I have seen this movie the weekend it came out and were very moved by it. Long scenes suck you in and you fear for the main character' mission so much that you forget to breathe. More movies about WWI needed because we remember almost nothing about it...
While the war theme is not necessarily my area, there is also some kind of "honesty" in the older wars as it was more about people than machines.
As far as the film, it had atmosphere, there was never a doubt about that, more than I wanted to see with the rats and horses. Gruesome and shocking, but, I will be the first to admit, great camerawork.
Less back and forth the further in we got, but, there were no words needed. As you say, it was more about the people than the goings-on around, no stories to go back on, just what is in front of you.
I like your take and analogy of the movie/life as a whole. I cannot even begin to convey to you just how much I dislike the senselessness of war, lives lost and money spent to fuel it. World War I was a catastrophic mistake on our part and we should have kept out of it. It strengthened suppressive regimes and helped touch off another world war, and the cold war.
When I was young, the television would bring it right into my living room, my house, my sanctuary. I can remember being terrorized by it, waiting for the day when my own country would be bombed. But, wait. What about the country they were showing? That upset me even more. Knowing I was hoping it wouldn't touch me, yet knowing it was affecting another's life.
War is ugly.
As far as knowing people in the Twin Towers. I knew a few. I still have running scenarios in my head about that day. it was awful. I worked in the city as I lived close enough to get a great job there. I dated one of the guys in the fire company that perished. That day changed my entire life. Without getting dramatic about it, life here has never been the same carefree way that it once was. And for that, it makes me sad.
Well, now I have totally gotten off topic... Great review.
tip