Towards Just War-Film Theory: A Critical Analysis of Propagandistic Elements in US War Film

The point of departure for this investigation was the question can, and how do, war films contribute to peace? By the end of this analysis it should be evident the complexity of this question with regard to convoluted mechanisms with which war films constitute a public and promulgate moral evaluations through narrative apparatuses. Moreover, it should be fully apparent, that even by attempting to discern a framework through which one could produce a just war film (one that contributes to peace), we have, in part, begged the question: can a film that adequately addresses these concerns exist? Let alone entertain or achieve commercial success? Like wars evaluated by just war theory, pure and spotless historical examples are few and far between (if they exist at all). One would not be cynical to expect the same thing from "just war film theory." This points us toward two significant closing remarks.

First, in the same way that just war theory has offered us a framework for understanding the contributions that war may make to peace, the assumption that the existence of war is inevitable is still, in effect, precisely that—an assumption. Thus, the same concern that haunts the existence of war remains a specter in the case against the genre of war film—namely, that the burden of proof should still fall upon the necessity of its existence at all. There may be just wars, the same as there may be just war films, but since the war film is not possible with out the war, we must remind ourselves, that war's absence is unequivocally more desirable than its presence. In the case of utter death and destruction, burden of proof falls on those who would assert otherwise. The dubiousness of this assertion is not lost on us, but it does aid in properly orienting ourselves toward the prospect of peace, rather than reifying the inevitability of war through cynical realism.

Second, the seeming intractability of the application of "just war film theory" should lend itself as much to a critique of a given media product, as it does a critique of an industry which is incapable of contributing to peaceful depictions of war which do not exploit viewers by constituting a public uncritical of the engagement in military conflict. If the industry is by and large incapable of producing media products which do not contribute positively to peace in this way, than all the parts should be implicated in its criticism. This includes the both the producers, and the consumers. We as the viewers, remain culpable so long as the audience of these films and products are constituted by a public which is willing to engage uncritically in the consumption of media which disseminates overly simplistic and infantilizing moral evaluations of the most destructive reality of human existence. Neither war nor war films, are justifiable solely on economic grounds—this is exploitation of the public. The primary goal of this analysis is not to contribute to some abstruse academic theory for the moral criticism of a media genre, but rather, to propose an accessible framework which would enable the public to take a critical approach to the war film genre. It is certainly not wrong to be entertained, but it is to be entertained at the expense of others. So long as war films constitute publics that are prone to uncritical evaluations of war itself, the world remains unguarded against exploitation, be it economic, political, or otherwise.