This film addresses a very recent, relevant, and sensitive topic: our military involvement in the Middle East. And it seems to be all the more effective because it tells a personal story of trauma, loss, and healing. Instead of the immediate physical violence of war that we are used to seeing, we are led through the painful homecoming of Will, who returns from a tour of duty suffering from "poly-trauma." The extent of this poly-trauma accounts for much of the emotional suspense we undergo.
Because he is haunted by his experiences over there, his next assignment seems like a cosmic joke. Not only has he returned from war a damaged person, but he also has to deliver death announcements to the NOK (next of kin). He is, understandably, ill-prepared for this line of work, but he is up to the task because, as he seems to believe, he can handle anything. Ironically, he does end up capable of handling it, but not for the reasons he thought.
Ironically, Tony, who does seem cut out for this line of work, really has little clue about the personal devastation that war can cause. He follows procedure because he has no other model to follow. He is so detached from his audience (or wants to be) that he assumes the worst about them. When Will begins to treat the NOK like real human beings, Tony initially responds with extreme anger, but then begins to recognize and share his own pain.
Now here is your prompt: First, what do you think of this film's attempt to show us the inside story of bereavement and leave the pictures of actual battle and death to our imagination? Second, how does this film change how you view the "war film" genre? Are you pleased to see an alternative to the war films that generally paint a glorious picture of American patriotism? Be sure to review the rules for commenting and that you meet the length requirement.
I was actually impressed with the film’s ability to show bereavement without showing any sort of war scenes or actual deaths. It seems as though most war movies focus on the actual violence and “roughness” of war which in return make deaths seem inevitable. However, I liked that this film focused on the side of the war that we don’t see. Everyone hears about how emotional reunions are between soldiers and their families when they return home, but what about the families who get their loved ones back in a body bag? Are they not as important because they didn’t get the happy ending? There are several televisions shows that put on elaborate homecomings for soldiers that are reuniting with their families and children, but this makes me wonder – are things of equal magnitude being done for those that aren’t so fortunate? This film put it in perspective how intense the grief is for the families of those killed overseas and how, despite different life circumstances, all of the families are bonded by that pain.
ReplyDeleteI have never really given “war films” a chance because I am afraid they’re all laced with a dramatic love story to make people believe that war isn’t so bad after all. However, I am glad to see a different side of the war depicted. The film illustrated that some of the toughest battles the soldiers fight aren’t necessarily in warzones. I was also impacted by the ending when Will is telling Tony his combat story and says that he is not a hero and tells him of his brush with suicide. The movie allowed me to see that these soldiers that we use to symbolize the strength and patriotism of America have their moments of weakness too. Despite their courageous nature and physical endurance, there are certain things soldiers can never be immune to: emotions. I felt like by not trying to paint a picture of intense American patriotism, the film displayed it for what it really is.
I think the film’s attempt to show us the inside story of bereavement and leave the pictures of an actual battle and death to our imagination is very cleaver and creative of the director. The reaction and the heartache of the families who lost their loved one in battle were so realistic and surreal it leaves us as the audience wondering how the solider actually died. Seeing the reaction of the family and listening to the details of the death from Tony and Will creates a visual image in my head of the death. For the most part, I imaged the solider out on the field in battle with all the chaos around with explosives and firing of guns and machinery striving to stay alive. In the end, from what Tony and Will describe, most the sliders die a tragic death.
ReplyDeleteThe film changes how I view the “war film” genre because this film has a sense of being more peaceful compared to most others. Tony and Will work on base even though they use to be men of combat. Even though delivering death announcements to the Next Of Kin is less brutal, it seems more tragic to see the pain in the eyes of the family and loved ones of the soldiers. I am pleased to see an alternative to the war films that generally paint a glorious picture of American patriotism. It makes this film very unique and unpredictable. It also allows viewers to see a whole different perspective on the war in Iraq. Will shows the most American patriotism by the way he communicates and delivers messages to people by showing his up most respect and sympathy. On the other hand, Tony puts up a hard shell because he wants to look like a solider with no weaknesses. It is almost as if he acts like he is still out on the battle field rather than delivering tragic news to families.
I believe the film's attempt to show us the inside story of bereavement and leave the pictures of actual battle and death to our imagination was used very well in the film and kind of an obvious choice from the director. I say obvious because the director didn't want to show any scenes of war and the only way to deliver the terrible news to the family was just telling them and leaving the rest to our imagination. The scene where Will tells Tony about the time of war when he got hurt was very descriptive and Ben Foster did a terrific role not only playing a soldier who has poly-trauma from his time at war, but telling his story to Tony. When Will tells his story to Tony 1) I liked the way the director zoomed in on Tony and Will while Will his telling his story and 2) Tony starts to cry because he feels bad that he only wanted to get shot at when Will saw his friend blow up in his face. Will cannot cry due to his accident so that moment when Tony cries it's like he is crying for him.
ReplyDeleteThis film changes how we view the "war film" genre by letting the audience see other things having to deal with war, like delivering the message to the NOK. In my opinion I strongly dislike war films, but this one I enjoy well of course because it has no actual war scenes just detailed imagery and because it still shows American patriotism by having Tony and Will go to these families that they do not even know to tell them that their family member has been killed in an act of war. I am pleased that the director gives us an alternative on war films. The act of war is something the human mind is not supposed to see in my opinion and this film does a good job in telling a story about the other side of war that people do not pay attention to, the families involved in the war.
I personally applaud this film for showing us the inside story of pain and loss rather than the graphic images of war. The images from a battlefield will always cause some kind of emotional response from the viewer. It is an easy way to elicit a response, to bait the viewer into feeling pity or anger or sadness, and it is the most obvious way to show the horror of war. And done well, those images can have a profound and lasting effect on the viewer. This movie however, seems more true to life, in my opinion, because it deals with the real life issues soldiers face when they come home from war. It places us, the audience, in the unique position of the real life family and friends of a soldier, where nothing is known about what happened “over there”, and all the horror must be imagined. As a person who has had some very close friends return home from the military, I can personally attest to this; this movie hit very close to home for me because of that fact. The whole “baptism by fire” phrase really is true. You watched someone you loved dearly go off to war as one person, and come back a completely different person, with a whole different way of viewing and interacting with the world. You have no idea what they are feeling, what they saw, why they are so different now, what happened to the person you once knew. War leaves you with a lot of questions and no answers, and I respect this film for having respect not only for its subject, but for its viewers, for the loved ones left behind who have no spoon fed images to be moved by.
ReplyDeleteI think this film does change how I view the war film genre, and I hope it will do the same for others as well. We’re so used to watching films that show us all the guts and glory that we forget to ask what happens when the battle is over and the soldier is sent home. We are rarely ever shown the PTSD, the night terrors, the flashbacks, the sleeping on the floor because it’s more comfortable, the wincing driving down the road for fear of bombs, the crippled hands and limp walks that will remain forever. I think this film is one of the first to address those issues without first giving us images of the dreadfulness of battle. Without all of the hype and emotional buildup of the soldier returning home, we are forced to look at the stark reality of war, not just the glorified bloodshed and brotherhood. This film begs us to question what the real price of war is, the one paid after the battle is over. It begs us to look past dog tags and death before dishonor and see the real life human beings who will forever be traumatized by these events. I also like that the film doesn’t ever try and make us feel one way or another about the war. It has no political agenda to pursue; it does its best to tell a story about human beings, real life people who happen to be soldiers. I appreciate the film’s drive to dig past the layers of defense everyone has, and get to the essence of who these people are and the things they have lived through. That’s why I connected to these characters. It wasn’t that we had any common life experiences, but rather that I understood what it was like to confused and hurt by life. I too have stood at the edge of death. I too have sat through that dark night and wondered if I had what it takes to live above ground. And like Will, I too have waited for the sun to come up and have found a reason to keep living.
I think that the film did a really good job at making the audience have to imagine what war was like for the men and women that died. By showing how these families were crushed and how they reacted when they heard the news about their loved ones, it gave us as the viewer a different perspective on war and a sense of just how hard it was for these men to have to tell these families the bad news. At times I caught myself wanting to grieve with these families because I felt their pain. Showing the other side of war does not mean that it didn’t happen or that it may not be as bad as it seems. It shows that it can be just as bad when the war is over. In my opinion getting the news that someone that you loved ha die during battle is a war within itself, its just different.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone always suggests that we watch a war film I automatically think of it being an action movie. My mind goes directly to guns and bombs and camouflage suits because that is what most was movies contain. This movie changes how I view the world of war. You never think of the people who have to tell families that the ones that they love the most died. You never think that the toll that it takes on those people and how much they have to mentally prepare for such a small task. Telling someone that there brother, son, daughter, or husband died is not easy and it is never talked about. When you think of was you think of one thing, which is war. This movie does a really good job at making you think outside of the “war” box. It makes you think of all the things that come with the territory of war.
I believe that leaving out the violent scenes of war was a good choice because this movie is so sensitive on its own with Will and Tony’s job. Showing the violent scenes would just make the audience more uncertain of the movie and won’t understand the message behind this movie. This film did a very good job of getting the feel of ‘war’ in this film without actually showing scenes, not a lot of films can do that. This also gives the viewer to let imagination run free as to what did actually to Will and what these men go through. Without showing all the violence, it gives the viewer the other side of war, death and what the soldiers do after someone has died. I was really interested in the topic of this film. I believe that this film is a very well edited and much crafted in order to display the other side of war and how difficult a job is even though it seems easy
ReplyDeleteI was really please to watch this movie because it gave me a different insight on war. Before I believed that there was only one main job in war, killing and getting shot at. But after watching this film I realized that there is so much more to it. People lose their lives in order to protect us because we have scared people back at home who don’t want to risk their own life. It also made me learn that not every job in the Army is a small job, every job is a big job. From fixing the tanks that need to be fixed because you dint want it to fail your soldiers and letting them getting seen by the enemy from Will and Tony’s job of delivering the news that a soldier was killed and that they have to report it to the soldiers loved ones. It just made gave me a broader sense of life than I had before.
I was pleasantly surprised that The Messenger didn’t show all of the gore and violence of actual war scenes. The story was then more directed around the characters; developing them into people we can feel something towards. We sympathize with Will, because he is a damaged war hero, but also because as he says, he always seems to have bad timing. The girl he is in love with in the beginning is to marry another man, and the woman he falls for is at the time totally emotionally unavailable. A comradeship evolves with Tony, as they deliver horrible news. But Tony has never seen the horrors of war, none of the other characters in the film have, so Will lives in his own trap, hiding in his room listening to loud metal music. At the end of the movie, we have hope for him, as he tells his story to Tony and as he receives acceptance from the woman he fell for.
ReplyDeleteI’ve seen enough war films to know pretty much exactly what could have been shown in the Messenger. It’s definitely a different way to show the traumas of war as we only see Will in the present, struggling with the issues the war has left him with. The Messenger shows that a war film doesn’t necessarily have to show war scenes. It is just as effective for Will to relate the story to Tony in detail. I feel like many war films are in some ways too glorious. In my opinion there is nothing glorious about war. Men and women are dying, that should not be for our entertainment. This film shows the reality of war; people losing the ones they love. I was particularly pleased that the film didn’t shove those gruesome scenes in front of us, because as it was, it was difficult enough to watch.
This film did an amazing job at showing the audience the story of bereavement as well as allowing the audience’s imagination take over the part of dealing with battle and death. After each encounter Will and Tony have with the NOK, the audience’s mind is left wondering how their son or daughter was killed, allowing for a completely new range of possibilities one can conjure within their imagination, which could then lead to different emotions one will react with, most being sadness. These images that the individual comes up with in his or her head will most likely stay with them for the rest of the movie as well, they may even remain with that individual and have some sort of impact on them when the movie is over. Towards the end of the film, Will tells Tony the story of how he became a hero in war. Using only words, Will is able to cause Tony to start bawling once Will leaves the room. He also causes the audience to picture everything he says in their heads. Through Will’s words, Tony’s reaction, and the audience’s imagination, this movie causes multiple people, actors and non-actors, to feel a range of emotions.
ReplyDeleteI usually don't mind most war films, but this unique film shows a completely different side to war. From everything that I have watched, there is no other film like this one. The film also adds a brand new aspect to the genre for me. I have never seen a “war film” that shows absolutely no scenes of battle, death, and violence. Not one person is even shown being punched throughout this film. I would also like to add that I have never seen a film that depends almost solely on the viewer’s imagination to create the images of battle. It is great to see a “war film” steer away from the usual guns and explosions theme, and I have high hopes that there are and will be more films that take a similar path to this one.
I think this film benefits from abstaining from visual violence. Although there is obviously emotional repercussions of war have taken a toll on the characters, but their emotional pain is much more identifiable than a battle scene. Therefore, I believe that the absence of violence and the presence of psychological aftermath is more touching and engages the audience more. I admire this film for this portrayal of war. I believe that in seeing a battle scene in film gives the audience a unified vision of what is happening because they are all seeing the same image. The recollection of war told by Will gives the audience an chance to engage their imagination and have different views and visions of what actually occurred. I think this is very special in film. Because of this, I feel I have more of a personal connection with the war than I would with traditional war films.
ReplyDeleteI was really impressed by the unique approach to the war film genre. I am not sure that this film even classifies in the war genre films that I am familiar with because of the lack of violence. This film has made me question the war film genre more than anything else. After seeing “The Messenger”, I feel like other war films do not accurately portray war. The heroism and patriotism shown in films that fall easily into the war film genre seem to ignore the psychological repercussions of war. This is disconcerting to me because I know that the majority of the war fought by soldiers is found in returning home and dealing with emotional and mental issues. I was very happy to see this film challenge the traditional war film and to more accurately portray ALL the sacrifices our troops make for their country, not just physical wounds.
I think that this film does an excellent job of showing us the inside story of bereavement without showing the bloody gory parts. Most war films focus on the actual battles held within, and rarely are we shown the story behind the hard times soldiers face delivering death announcements. This movie really tugs at your heart strings, and without showing the battles and death within war it still connects us to the hardships and every battles our soldiers go through. This shows one of the hardest parts of the outcome of war, which is families and friends losing their loved ones. Most of us will never have to endure that pain, which has opened up my eyes in a whole new way. I now have a greater understanding and sympathy for those who fight for our country, and also the families who have to struggle the whole way through as well.
ReplyDeleteTypically, I would never pick up a war film movie. That sort of genre does not typically interest me because I do not like the whole battle scene. On the contrary, I loved this movie. It is an excellent alternative to the typical war films filled with blood, gore, and fighting. This helps to explain the hardships of the war in a more sympathetic and internal way. Though I may never lose someone to the war, we can all at one point in our lives relate to losing someone in general, so this movie helped to connect to me in that way. It also helped for me to learn to appreciate all of the soldiers who fight so hard for our freedom, because some of us may not think about that on a daily basis. This movie, at times, was very hard for me to watch because it was so emotional. In the end though, I think it was a wonderful movie and more my kind of war film style.
I think that showing us the inside story of Will after his tour of duty was brilliant because we get to see the real, day to day problems that he is dealing with, or rather not dealing with, as opposed to telling the story through typical battle infused scenes that are usually highly unrelatable. The lack of physical battle scenes helped to make the film feel more real because we are forced to hang on to the characters’ every words in order to get some kind of background information. This is like the real world because in reality we don’t get to rely on reenactments; we have only the person’s description to pull from. I think it’s also an effective story telling strategy in this case because we must tap into our imaginations and conjure up our own mental scenes. The scene that plays out in our minds as we hear Will telling his story is probably more graphic and shocking than any flashback battle scene could have been.
ReplyDeleteThis film has totally changed my view on the war film genre. I have to admit that I fully underestimated this one. Everything about it was unexpectedly truthful. I loved that there were no flashback battle scenes, because they weren’t needed. I loved that each person had their own issues that unfolded slowly and became more clear progressively. Everyone in this picture was messed up in some form or fashion and I appreciate that there was no perfect ending or “fixing” of each problem. There were no packages tied up with string which is a much better representation of real life than what you typically see, especially in war films. I was very surprised by this film and clearly pleased with the different approach used to tell the same story - one that we might not be able to get from any other quintessential war film.
I think this films attempt to show us the inside story of bereavement and leave the pictures of actual battle and death to our imagination a very creative and proactive way of directing. Being that we are left without the actual battle scenes and only given a brief description of a soldiers death and the reaction of that soldiers family, made me think about the situation that soldier was in and wonder if he was scared or was the death quick. This film made me think about a good friend of mine that I grew up racing with and did everything together. We both talked about joining but never gave it much thought. He enlisted because he knew he wasn’t going anywhere in racing and I stayed because I was doing really well. During his second tour he passed way and I had his family was notified and then they told me and said what happened and would let me know more when they did. I wasn’t there when his family was notified nor did I ask how they were but this movie hit close to home and brought back some good memories even though it wasn’t a very happy film but made me think about him and the good times.
ReplyDeleteI was pleased to see an alternative war film that wasn’t bombs and guts. I think that this film shows the viewer the side of war that is often over looked. The viewer can get a glimpse of what a soldier goes through when coming home from active duty and in this case a soldier that is considered a war hero but doesn’t see himself as a hero. I’m used to watching war films that are slam packed with all the bells and whistles but this movie was a nice change of pace from what I normally watch. I wouldn’t mind watching more movies like this one in the future because it made it personal and I think that the side of war that is not given much notice is important for viewers to see.
I have seen this movie before and every time I view it I feel that the director did a fantastic job showing bereavement in the film without actually showing us scenes from down range or the scenes of how the soldier died. Most films that are about war show the brutal and unforgiving side of combat that most of us think about when we hear or think of war. I have several friends in the military and I talk to them on a daily basis and get to hear about what they go through every day and the things they face over seas, and how demanding it is on them and how hard it is for them to do what they do and see the things they see. I like that this film focuses on the families that don’t get to see their loved one come off a bus, train, plane or boat. This film really showed it’s viewers on how intense the grief is, and how emotionally straining it is to lose someone close to you. I lost a great friend and a brother, overseas to an IED last year and watched the toll it took on not only his family, but the people that he touched in his life. This film did a great job on showing it’s viewers on the reality of war and how it’s not about elaborate homecomings all the time.
ReplyDeleteI think that this film changes how it’s audience perceives the war film genre by allowing them to see what most families don’t get to see. I love war films personally, and have more then I can count in my DVD collection at home. I enjoyed this film because it shows the courage that Tony and Will have to have to go to these fallen soldiers houses and break the news to their loved ones that their hero will not be returning to them. It shows us how patriotism runs deeper then having a gun and being on the front lines. I love the fact that this is a military film that pulls at the heart strings of your soul and lets you experience something that most never get to. Personally this film did a fantastic job in showing the reactions of family members. I watched a mother, father, and three sisters bury their brother and son 6 feet in the ground. I watched them fall apart and come together in the midst of a tragedy. This film did an excellent job in portraying what most Americans fail to see and realize in time of war.
I greatly respected the way that the film showed us largely the same things that a typical war movie would show, but from a completely different point of view: instead of seeing the things that happen to a soldier on the battlefield, we are shown the post-combat ramifications that the soldier must face when he is thrown back into the civilian world while still carrying the wounds (physical as well as emotional) from the front line. The battles are described, but the actual violence and gore are left to our imagination--which, in a movie that's more about mental anguish than physical trauma, is a smart move, and we fill in the missing pieces ourselves without even missing them in the first place. The fact that the violence is not depicted is not an oversight, but in fact fits the theme perfectly.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think of "The Messenger" as a war movie, because it is a genre replete with celebration of violence and machismo. There are certainly exceptions to that descriptor ("Casualties of War" springs to mind), but this film managed to have a lot of the same elements as typical war movies without being overtly preachy. There are certainly elements that one could construe as being biased one way or another (the soldier celebrating his homecoming in the bar, specifically, seems like the anti-Will when we hear him give his speech), but it largely just portrays a reality that many military families face, but few films actually depict: what happens after the combat has ceased, but some of the soldiers have left something behind--either their lives, or their mental stability. As Will goes around delivering the news to newly-shrunken families, he is communicating the experience of one, while embodying the other.
This film doesn’t merely leave out the war scenes so that the audience can use their imagination of the events, but because seeing the actual battles and elements of war aren’t the important part of the story. If we were to be in the midst of battle with Will then it would take away from the real purpose of the movie—to show Will performing his duties of informing the NOK of their relatives death, his crumbling relationship with Kelly, and his blossoming relationships with Tony and Olivia. This particular war film is like a behind the scenes to other war films. We see the involvements of the service back in America, the trauma of the NOKs upon finding out about their loved ones death, and that the battlefield isn’t the only living hell.
ReplyDeleteThis take on a war genre film was unique and creative. You see the dark sides of soldiers and the unfortunately common demise of a soldier once they return home. It was mention the film that you can’t “unsee” the events that took place in The Middle East. It changes you and turns you into a different person. Most war films paint this glorified image of war heroes when in fact most “war heroes” are probably more like Will than they are a man being praised and given medals, all the time with a smile on his face. Most “war heroes” probably don’t feel like heroes at all because of friends lost in combat and emotional, psychological, and, more than likely, physical damage. This film didn’t push limits or try to upset people, it just told the truth. It displayed the harsh realities of soldiers off the battle field and I respect the film for doing just that.
i think the fact that they left graphic images and examples out of the film made it that much more powerful. instead we see the aftermath of what it did to them and how burdened/damaged they were. before we get the details of what happened to will we have already been shown enough to know that it was brutal, traumatising. leaving it to our imaginations is almost worse because we can formulate our own specific scenario and it requires us to feel things we normally wouldn't simply watching it happen to someone else. it's much more involved this way.
ReplyDeleteit was a breath of fresh air to see a war movie that wasn't on the battle field. i thoroughly enjoyed how they portrayed stone and will's relationship with each other as well as the woman will talks to and it's so relevant that they're human. they are as we are and they cry and try to deal with their past experiences as best as they can. it was a nice take on more than the bullets and glory; it zoomed in on the raw emotional side of it all.
This is a movie that hit extremely close to home for me. Coming from a family with multiple members who are serving or have served, like myself, I think I saw this movie from a completely different angle. There have been many movies that have touched on notifying the next of kin and how they were informed. I think this movie humanized the process and showed the other side of the coin. It is never easy to give someone bad news, let alone informing them their loved one has died. However, I was angry with the family members for not expecting it. The “That’s not going to happen to my child/spouse/sibling” mentality drives me crazy. It is a job albeit a dangerous one but pretending it won’t or can’t happen does no one any good. We have enough of realism thrust at us from Hollywood and the news outlets so it was refreshing to get the emotional outcome and not have images you try to forget but can’t.
ReplyDelete“The Messenger” will not and has not changed the genre. It is a refreshing change from the stereotypical Hollywood movie. Not to mention the artistic liberty they take just to make a buck. This will always be the case with war movies. War is ugly. It is messy and loud and a soldier must do whatever it takes to get the job done. Will and Tony are still doing whatever it takes to get the job done just on a quieter and calmer level. There are plenty of war films that do not “paint a glorious picture of American patriotism”. Just about any movie based on the Vietnam conflict “paints” the American soldier as a villain. That being said, more war movies that are personalized versus generalized would be a nice change.
I think the film “The Messenger” was meant to leave the audience to put the pieces together themselves and imagine what soldiers go through as well as how they cope when they are not at war. In the case of Will Montgomery not only was he isolated from his family when he left from war but when he came back his family still out of the picture the girl in which he has had some history with tells him on the day of his return that she is getting married. Montgomery is now alone in a romantic sense as well. Then when Will is retelling about the bomb that killed his friend overseas, he explains it as if it were make believe- there is a slight disconnection from it almost, like he has dwelled on it so much that he is sometimes desensitized by it. While he tells the story of the bombing the audience receives no flash-back, not even dubbed sound of screaming or gun shots, it is just these two men and Will’s memory. To me this was more powerful than if the director would have actually used a flashback, because we are forced to look at Will’s face and hear his tone of a slight disgust he has with himself.
ReplyDeleteI am very pleased to see an alternative “war film”. As much as I love action, it was nice to see a raw and emotional side to war movies. This film proved that not all war movies must include images of people being shot at or blown to pieces to be considered authentic or realistic or powerful. The Messenger did all of those things, it just went about it in a different manner and I commend this movie for doing so.
I believe the film’s attempt to show bereavement was well done. Stories mean more to us when we can imagine ourselves into a situation. By not putting in any war scenes the film, I believe, allowed for the audience members to connect more. When I heard Will tell of his story of why he was sent back home and his brush with suicide, I imagined myself in his shoes. I saw through his eyes and tried to feel what he was feeling during the story. It helped me see where the character through his prospective and it hit closer to home. I don’t think I would have been able to have the came connection if they showed the war scenes. Yes, we would have been on the battlefield with Will but we would be like a fly on the wall only watching from afar. Allowing the viewers to imagine what happened to Will instead of seeing what happened allows the audience to connect with the story and it’s characters.
ReplyDeleteI think the film has opened my eyes to the reality of war. Most war films try to show intense action with soldiers fighting to stay alive. The genre has put almost a “gloss” over peoples’ eyes about death and war. What I mean by that is people see death and recognize the hardships that soldiers go through but they have become immune to the violence and killing. They don’t think of the reality of the situations and brush it off. I think the film has been able to show me the pain and suffering soldiers have to go through after war not just physically, but mentally and emotionally. Because despite the fact that they have be physically and emotionally trained to be able to handle what war throws at them, they aren’t trained on how to handle life. And that’s the real battle.
The Messenger differs greatly from the typical war film. All Americans are affected by war whether it is directly or indirectly. Typical war films easily stir up emotion because most viewers respond directly to the violence. We see the loss of a life protecting our own and it’s upsetting. In The Messenger all the violence is left up to our imaginations. The film was successful in showing a different side of bereavement because as viewers it is easier for us to relate to characters and actions and even settings that occur on American soil. We know people like each of the characters in this film even if we do not know soldiers in combat as we speak. This aspect of familiarity helps to develop the theme of death and coping with death. The Messenger was able to stir up emotion and get people talking about war, the loss of life, the loss of a loved one, and the issues surrounding post traumatic stress disorder without showing scenes of actual combat and this is what makes it successful despite the lack of violence.
ReplyDeleteWhen making a film about real life situations I feel it is important to show each aspect of that scenario. Typical war films glorify soldiers and as an Army Brat I appreciate that. Coming from a Military family I didn’t see this film as eye opening but I respect that it probably did that for most of the viewers. Any film that stirs up patriotism in those who do not feel that way each and every day is a film I believe is important. I was pleased to see a different side of the American soldier and I appreciated that this film as so different than all the other War films I have seen. I do not agree that this film does not paint a glorious view of American Patriotism. To me being a Patriot is loving this country through the good and the bad. I feel as though Captain Stone was Patriotic. The US Army was the only family he had and he acknowledged throughout the film that he had always been taken care of. I feel a movie is patriotic if it makes someone proud of his or her country. After this film I was proud that people like Sergeant Montgomery and Captain Stone serving our Country.
The main thing that struck me with The Messenger was it’s ability to no longer feel like a movie. I had to remind myself that I was sitting in a classroom watching a movie like everyone else and that what I saw on the screen wasn’t actually happening. That’s what made this movie so impressionable to me. Not seeing them comforted at all on the screen by Will and Tony hurt me a bit. I’m just like any human being seeing suffering like that just isn’t something sits easy with me. On another level though Bereavement is something that is healthy. In Will’s case you can see that he’s going through a crisis in his life. He can’t sleep at night and he doesn’t have any friends or life outside of work. You just get the sense that he isn’t letting something out and that bothers me a bit. He can only help others relieve their grief. And in a sense seeing that is much more impacting than any blood or bullets we could have seen on the screen to convey why he is this way. And it’s even better that its left up to the imagination to think of what might have happened with him.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always been a fan of war films no matter what era they covered. Nothing truly makes you feel a certain way like the images of war and movies only help to bring that a step further into reality. I’ve never been on a battlefield but seeing how men behave on one makes you feel something. I can’t pinpoint exactly what. Up until I saw The Messenger a few years back there actually wasn’t a movie that I had seen that dealt so much with the after effects of war. How everyone is just supposed to assimilate into society and the families that lose their loved ones are supposed to function with a critical piece missing. The Messenger just helped me realize what war really meant. It helped me understand the rest of the war movies that I had seen on another level. Suddenly I couldn’t stop thinking about how these characters would be able to live on while watching other war movies. So I took a break from them for a while. I like that the characters became realer but I didn’t like how gloomy I felt afterwards about it.