Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004-3027
T 202/691-4000
Portraits of Mars
In Hollywood war movies of the 1940s, American soldiers fought for a sense of national purpose. In subsequent decades, they fought mainly for the sake of their buddies. Now, when the mayhem in war films is more realistic than ever, Hollywood seems unwilling to give the violence a larger context.
Honor, fear, and interest. Of the three motives Thucydides gave for war, honor came first. That was because, as an officer, he understood that fear and interest do not rank high among the reasons men march into battle. What soldiers know, artists know too. For millennia, poets, sculptors, storytellers, and painters have depicted war as driven less by fear (“weapons of mass destruction”) or interest (“blood for oil”) than by motives such as those the historian Donald Kagan, writing in the journal Commentary (1997), included in a definition of honor: “the search for fame and glory; the desire to escape shame, disgrace, and embarrassment; the wish to avenge a wrong and thereby to restore one’s reputation; the determination to behave in accordance with certain moral ideals.” For almost a century now, the movies, too, have been portraying those same motives for war.
To read the rest of this article, please consider becoming a WQ subscriber, which allows online access to the current WQ issue as well as archive content. Other access options are below.
Research, browse, and discover more than 35 years of articles, essays, and reviews by preeminent scholars and writers. Our searchable archive of back issues is free for WQ subscribers.
 |
 |
 |
Subscribe today
to the WQ Online
and receive immediate access
to the WQ archive for a full year.
Subscribe Now
-
Martha Bayles writes about culture and the arts and teaches in the Honors Program at Boston College. She is the author of Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music (1994).
more from this author >>
The Case that Made the Court
Two hundred years ago, amid a dramatic clash of great principles and great men in the early Republic, Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review. The case and its implications are still hotly debated today.Do Ideas Matter in America?
Americans like to think of themselves as a pragmatic people, with little use for professors and fancy ideas. Yet they also live and die for abstractions such as freedom and equality. That’s not just some inexplicable paradox but a key to understanding the American intellectual landscape.Cheap Eats
Cheap food, widely available, would seem to be the promise of new technologies, but it comes with a host of hidden dangers.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and in no way represent the views or opinions of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. This section is moderated by Wilson Quarterly staff.
Incredible article.
Thank you Ms. Bales for writing this insightful piece. I especially liked your criticisms of Black Hawk Down. I'd seen the film in the theaters and of my group, was the only one who violently disliked it, though I couldn't express why. Thanks.
Posted by: Jesse Riley | 10/17/03
"Extravagantly Flawed"
While Apocaplyse Now may have its limitations, I certainly did not find the "triumph of blood lust" to be one of them. The movie, like the literature it is based on, effectively describes the moral decay associated with man's sometime inability to control blood lust. Rather than laud this aspect, the underlying story vividly illustrates the calamity of plunging into this abyss.
Posted by: Scott Carlson | 10/29/03
Portrait of Mars by Martha Bayles
Ms. Bayles, thank you for your analysis of war films. I see such films falling into one of two categories: 1)the propaganda film such as The Green Berets and Black Hawk Down which aim to serve those who would perpetrate wars by promising a recognition of the true hero; 2) the philosophical films (which might include Breaker Morant and Galipoli) that discuss the futility of trying to make sense of war or more directly, the anti-war film. Your explanation of the sublime put some ideas about my own war experience in perspective. Also, war films that fail to place war in a larger context of nobility and sacrifice for the community dissolve into recruitment tools. Thanks again for your provocative ideas.
Posted by: Bob Malone | 11/27/03
An Obvious Error
While I enjoyed the article and agree with most of the criticism, I was put off by the mistaken belief that the Charlie Sheen character in "Platoon" is a "cherry lieutentant." Even a casual viewer would recognize that he is a private.
Posted by: Ron Smith | 12/12/03
relevance of race (or not)
in discussing "apocalypse now," the author writes about a "severe-looking young black man who is obviously the most ruthless killer in the place." smy question is: why does the race of the young man matter? is the author trying to make some subtle point about the class / educational demographics of the vietnam-era grunts? given that no other person in her essay is referred to or described with regard to race i wonder why this person was identified in this way.
Posted by: james | 1/2/04
Cultural politician
Martha Bayles is a cultural politician, not a critic. For her, the main function of cinema, American cinema in particular, is mass political education and mobilization -- "national uplift," if one will. Even where she gets things right, her interpretations are contemptuous of film insofar as it is experienced from the context of the filmmaker; "the message," in the end, is somehow what really counts. Thankfully, few in Hollywood or elsewhere have any use for her brand of conservative movement agitprop. Michael Medved, call your office.
Posted by: Seek | 7/15/12