Why are WWI movies so rare?

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
18,597
Likes
516
Points
113
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
#1
Hollywood has never really had much interest in movies about WWI. There are lots of movies about WWII, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, Vietnam, but not WWI. Why do you think that is?
 

Sparky

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
228
Likes
143
Points
43
#2
two reasons jump to mind Doc.

1) moral ambiguitiy. The lack of a convincing baddie. A war we had zero reason to involve outselves with. Intellectualism? That is poison to Hollywood haha

2) why do you think we go apeshit over ASL and collectively moan about attempts to do WW1 ASL. It would be boring man. Dig that scenario about machine gunning down your opponent as defender, or seeing your well planned human wave attack get massacred. Again, poison to Hollywood without some badass Tiger replicas or sleek sexy fighters to CGI around.
 

Paul M. Weir

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,112
Likes
2,027
Points
163
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
#3
I don't think it's just Hollywood, there are fewer WW1 films from any country or any era.

I can only think of a few, the remake of "All Quiet On the Western Front" (surprisingly excellent for a remake), "Beneath Hill 60", "Flyboys", "The Blue Max", "Laurence Of Arabia", "The Lighthorsemen", "Gallipoli" and one on Belleau Wood.

Might want to follow the trail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_I_films_by_type.

A disproportionate number are aviation or Middle East themed. That implies that trench warfare is perceived as a box office killer. While the US involvement Vietnam has even less moral rectitude than the Entente in WW1, at least Vietnam had a greater effect on moral discussion and was more immediate. The post WW1 generation mainly saw WW1 as a great waste, birthing the later WW2 and there was less moral contrast between the sides than in WW2. The late arrival of the US in WW1 likely also had an effect on US filmmaking.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
18,597
Likes
516
Points
113
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
#6
Also, a lot of times war movies seem to be from veterans who were attempting to tell a piece of their own story. When Oliver Stone accepted the award for Platoon, he remarked that the film "said things that needed to be said." By the time the movie industry had matured, WWI was a memory and WWII was about to happen.

But beyond that, it seems many of the WWI films are aviation films. My guess is that Hollywood and the film industry see old-school air-to-air dogfights as being heroic, whereas they don't see a lot of heroism in the trenches. Instead, they see a senseless slaughter with no good guys or bad guys or interesting stories to be told. Now that may be unfair, as much of the Civil War was horrific and anything but glorious, and yet Hollywood has made an industry out of romancing the Civil War. Curious that that didn't happen with WWI.
 

Paul M. Weir

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,112
Likes
2,027
Points
163
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
#7
The ACW had very few survivors by the very first (silent) films, so few to claim a lack of realism. As well, prior to the '60s, everything was cleaned up, it wasn't until the likes of Peckinpah that the sanitisation of warfare started to die. Prior to that screen soldiers died of clean wounds or instant death, no screaming, holding his leg stump as the blood geysers out, no holding his entrails in with his hands. The revisionist Westerns also came out at that time like "The Wild Bunch", "Soldier Blue" and "Dirty Little Billy".

Come to think of it, there have been few films about the ACW or AWI in the last 50 odd years. Plenty of Westerns that skirt or reference the ACW, but few actually about it.

I suppose if you wanted, Tarantino might be a good pick for WW1 though he is more inclined to films about a few individuals or small unit actions, mass slaughter on both sides with big units not being quite his thing.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,344
Likes
1,213
Points
163
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Skype
vinnie296
#8
The narrative has changed as well. The lambs led to the slaughter by donkeys would not have played well to the survivors of WW1 as largely they hald their superiors with some admiration.
Since this"Oh What A Lovely war" version came out it has had such a strong hold on the public conciousness that making a film aboit WW1 with another narrative would be very difficult.
Ad to that the way "our superiors" are viewed nowadays it would be harder for the modern audience to accept.
Betweeen the wars, most audiences wanted to escape the realities in the cinema so there was no real push for such films. After WW2, the Great War receded into the background and mopst stories that people wanted to tell could be set in the closer, less morally ambiguous setting of WW2.
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
4,837
Likes
496
Points
83
Location
Toronto
#9
The waste and pointlessness of the First World War makes a bad subject for a popular movie. Moviegoers seem to like their war movies full of heroism and sacrifice leading to the ultimate victory for the Good Guys, but what do you do when the ultimate victory is a botched mess and millions of people have died horrible deaths for nothing except chaos? WWI seems to be much better portrayed in books and (dare I say it) poetry and music, where the audience is more willing to accept pointless tragedy and existential despair.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
18,597
Likes
516
Points
113
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
#10
The narrative has changed as well. The lambs led to the slaughter by donkeys would not have played well to the survivors of WW1 as largely they hald their superiors with some admiration.
That's an interesting point I never considered. How times have changed.

The waste and pointlessness of the First World War makes a bad subject for a popular movie. Moviegoers seem to like their war movies full of heroism and sacrifice leading to the ultimate victory for the Good Guys, but what do you do when the ultimate victory is a botched mess and millions of people have died horrible deaths for nothing except chaos? WWI seems to be much better portrayed in books and (dare I say it) poetry and music, where the audience is more willing to accept pointless tragedy and existential despair.
All true. But on the other hand, all that craziness and waste could make for a powerful story in the hands of the right director. But you're right, it would take a talented visionary and a quality screenplay in order to make it work. Sadly, these kind of movies don't come along very often.
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
4,837
Likes
496
Points
83
Location
Toronto
#11
All true. But on the other hand, all that craziness and waste could make for a powerful story in the hands of the right director. But you're right, it would take a talented visionary and a quality screenplay in order to make it work. Sadly, these kind of movies don't come along very often.
I think it might have worked with audiences in the 70's, when we had a run of really good movies taking a jaundiced view of the military post-Vietnam. I'm thinking MASH, Catch-22, The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now... A good WWI movie would have fit in with the spirit of the times quite well.