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 ]