MovieChat Forums > The Blue Max (1966) Discussion > Old war movies were heavily sanitized

Old war movies were heavily sanitized

posted 11 years ago by jeffyoung1
7 replies | jump to latest

Old war movies were heavily sanitized, little to no blood and guts. It was necessary for passing strict censorship standards in the U.S. Plus, at the time the American public really didn't care to see SAW or HOSTEL type gore. Over the decades, movie directors felt such sanitization gave a false impression of war and that war needed to shown more accurately for what it is, a thorough human tragedy to be avoided. The Europeans were the first to do so with the iconic, THE BRIDGE. I remember a terrific, underrated WWII eastern front movie filmed by somewhat eccentric, gritty hardcore director Sam Peckinpah's THE IRON CROSS, filmed in the former Yugoslavia back in 1977. Americans truly didn't catch on until 1998's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN which showed war in its more realistic emotional trauma but still relatively traumatized.

[–] nickm2 11 years ago

Generally I'd agree with you but I would like to recommend a couple of old B/W War Movies:

"Attack!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_%28film%29; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048966/) Starring Jack Palance & Eddie Albert (who played a despicably incompetent & cowardly officer during the Ardennes offensive, who was so gutless he ended getting 'fragged'); directed by Robert Aldrich.

"Hell Is For Heroes", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Is_for_Heroes_%28film%29;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056062/) starring Steve McQueen, Harry Guardino, James Coburn, Nick Adams, Bob Newhart (?!), Fess Parker and Bobby Darin. It was shockingly violent for it's day--and I might also add that 'HifH' was the inspiration for the DS9 Episode: The Siege of AR-558.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] sampafelipe 9 years ago

excellent choices, nick!

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

Thanks; the only thing I ever found wrong with 'Attack' was (as always) the use of US Armor to 'fill in' for Panzers-but what can you do?

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] rmh_228 11 years ago

Director Sam Fuller (a former WWII infantryman) was quoted as saying "There's no way you can portray war realistically, not in a movie or a book." In order to convey "the idea of real combat" to movie audiences, he said, "you'd have to shoot at them every so often from either side of the screen. The casualties in the theater would be bad for business. Such reaching for reality in the name of art is against the law."

[–] jd-276 11 years ago

I've never thought that it was necessary to be absolutely authentic when it comes to showing killing. It fires up the weirdos and gun nuts and the plot gets lost in the crossfire.

I have never needed to be shown someone's head being blown off to realise the character has been killed. You can get just as much impact simply by implication or inference. The Blue Max is a reasonably good story, well acted with a decent level of authenticity and maybe even a plausible plot. Trying to turn it into Saving Private Ryan with wings would be pointless.

But then, if you think Saving Private Ryan is about respecting the dead or you were brought up playing Call of Duty you probably have an emotional need for more gore.

[–] Torni3945 9 years ago

Different time and generation. I think a lot of the actors and directors back in those days were veterans of the Great War and World War II compare to now. People didn't pay to see violence and gore in their movies back then. They didn't have CGI and life-like props like they do now.

[–] stevekaczynski 9 years ago

Depended on the country. Rome Open City, an Italian neo-realist film, was strong stuff by US standards of 1945.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."