International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1932)

— 605 — That war films should have inspired phrases like the following : " He who dies young for his country has lived a long time " ; " All my will is bent towards aiding and comforting the fighters " demonstrates the existence of a high degree of nobility of thought and generosity of soul among the thousands of children of Italy who in various forms have subscribed to such sentiments. Doubtless they do not yet know all the value of the existence which they offer so serenely, nor the trouble which life casts upon us, perhaps to make us love it still more, but it is a splendid sign in this after-war period of exaggerated individualisms and craving for material enjoyments, to find a generation ready to die for the nobility of an ideal. No unrighteous thoughts should be sought for among these replies. The heroic sentiment stirring in the souls of thousands of young folks should not be condemned but for race, and language one's own country, where are the home and the family from which we have drawn our primordial sense of life. The war film has therefore lost or given up a great part of the objectives which it started out to achieve. The opinions of writers we have cited at the beginning of our inquiry, which receive another confirmation from Eva Elie, have shown that the ultra-pacifist attitude brought to a fanatical conclusion evokes no sympathy with the masses. The people understand the tragicalness of the phenomenon. They can also understand that the hundred per cent renouncement, even if it is worthy of the sanctity of Christ, is not human, lacking as it does the flesh and blood appeal of the human body. It is along these simple lines that We read the consensus of opinion of our contributor, an agreement which comes from the experiences of life lived, and not from abstract and unreal theories and dangerous philosophies. In connection with war films and incidentally apropos of the inquiry thereon made by the 1. 1. E. C, the authoritative agreement of Jules Destree with our conclusions in an article " Une illusion pacifiste ", published April 16 last may be noted. The article appeared in Le Soir of Brussels, and fits in perfectly with the conclusions of Eva Elie and our own. Jules Destree points out that if theory upheld the view that war films would inspire a horror for and awake in the human will an inflexible determination not to take part in other wars, experience has proved the contrary to be the case. " The public that goes to the cinema goes in search of amusement. There are therefore fixed limits of horror and a degree of the same which must not be passed, unless it is desired to inspire a feeling of disgust in the spectator. Wounds, mutilations and surgical operations are among the most horrible consequences of war. Can we bring a procession of mutilated men across the screen ? And how are we to give the full terrible impression of hunger, thirst, sleeplessness in the trenches, the moments of doubt and uncertainty, the disappointments, the mud, the rain, the frost, the suffocating heat . . . ? " In making a war film, one can produce a living document of actual sufferings, in which case, the mass of the public will desert the hall, leaving only a few spectators. Or otherwise, one has recourse to extraneous elements, to a plot of some kind, and one attenuates the nature of the tragedies, in which case the film does not fulfill the object its authors set out to accomplish. Jules Destree remarks that the 1. 1. E. C. inquiry has a singular character both on account of the number and the importance of the answers sent in as well as for the conclusions drawn which he calls decisive. He quotes the magnificent replies given by the children of from 10 to T2 years ", Better to live one day like a lion than a hundred years like a sheep " and adds :