Sam Mendes, director of 1917, says war movies are popular because of the human condition. Mendes has long since reached the acclaimed status of Oscar-winning filmmaker, and his latest effort has been consistently garnering high praise and collecting awards. As things currently stand, 1917 is ranked high among the list of favorites to take best picture at the upcoming Oscars. Mendes is also heavily favored to come away with the best director Oscar. Of course, all of this remains to be seen, but what does remain certain is that with 1917, Mendes has managed to capture the public’s attention in a big way.
Few genres of film seem to have the visceral power that war films have and audiences as well as critics have proven their devotion to them time and time again. Films such as Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Saving Private Ryan have all managed to achieve considerable acclaim over the years, despite dealing with entirely different wars and takes on those battles. For its part, Mendes’ 1917 deals with the First World War and the trench warfare that defined it. Few hit war films have focussed on the First World War, despite it having been one of the most horrific wars in contemporary human history.
In a recent interview with German YouTube channel Kino Plus, Mendes spoke at length about 1917 as well as its audience appeal. The Oscar-winning Skyfall director has built a reputation over the years for taking his films to the next level, in terms of the stylistic vision he employs and the immersive nature of the work. But when asked what the difference between a war film and an anti-war film was, Mendes took the time to not only point out his belief that all war films are anti-war films, but there is something intrinsically human about them that draws us in. You can check out the entire interview below, but regarding the continuous popularity of war films with audiences, Mendes had the following to say:
The reason, I suppose, that you make a war movie or you go and see a war movie is because it’s one of the few situations where human beings are pushed to the absolute extreme of what they are capable of doing. You’re looking to try to find a way to define the human condition. And this is human beings at their most naked, their most stripped away. Not only that, but millions of men in this war had the same experience.
Mendes makes a good point about the general appeal of war films, but it’s also worth noting that human beings are often fans of vicarious experiences when it comes to horrific incidents. It’s for this reason real-life “caught on film” footage of tragedies such as natural or manmade disasters is always popular. It’s also the reason war films like Saving Private Ryan or 1917 employed techniques that gave audiences as much of a first person perspective as possible. Any film that allows audiences to come closer to not only a historical battle, but to the act of war (something that most people will never have to experience first hand), will automatically hold a certain degree of appeal for many. In addition, our collective empathy for the fallen ties us emotionally to any well-made war film.
Overall, the points that Mendes makes regarding the appeal behind war films are solid, with much truth to them. It’s arguable, however, that all war films are anti-war films. Many movie have been made over the years that were intended to rally public opinion around the idea of waging war, particularly during the Word War II era. Yet despite the questionable nature of these films, today they remain an important part of the genre. Even a pro-war stance is capable of defining the human condition – an exception that continues to build intrigue behind war films and their unique insight into humankind.
