By Cian Conroy.
MAJOR SPOILERS FOR 1917 AND JOJO RABBIT AHEAD
World War One and Two have been popular and intriguing conflicts for cinema to explore. Their overall tones have been earmarked to convey certain themes, creating a unique overall look on the two conflicts. World War Two in the past has been treated as a rightly sombre affair with Schindlers List and Das Boot defining its stance. Modern film makers such as Taika Waititi have broken this mould with Jojo Rabbit, which breathed new life into the cinematic history of the conflict to give it a more absurdist flavour. This has not however taken advantage of the inhumane nature of the conflict, but has instead exemplified its existence using unique means. World War One on the other hand has maintained its sombre nature in modern cinema but has attempted to pursue more nihilistic and dystopian themes, to which 1917 by Sam Mendes has achieved successfully and beautifully (ironically). So, with the consistent addition to the filmography of the World Wars, filmmakers have given them more ways to interpret them, so that the sheer brevity and power that these wars have over the human condition do not become stale.
Taika Waititi’s Jojo Rabbit is based upon the book Caging Skies by Christine Leunens but does not strictly follow her narrative. Written as an experience on the home front rather than the front lines of war like 1917, Leunens’ tells the story of a young man named Johannes growing up in Nazi occupied Austria who had become indoctrinated. Whilst serving in the Hitler youth, he becomes physically deformed and house bound and it is here that he discovers a young Jewish girl hiding in his house, Elsa. This is where the film and book separate in likeness; for example, Leunens’ novel continues after the war has ended- where Waititi concludes his film after the war finishes. In addition, Elsa and Johannes in the book are also older than their film counterparts, which Waititi arguably wanted as it better portrayed naivety and innocence. By doing so, Waititi could better implement his well known absurdist nature into the film, which is centralised into Johannes’ imaginary version of Adolf Hitler (portrayed by Waititi himself). Hitler, at the beginning of the film is goofy and immature but as time goes on he becomes increasingly less friendly to Johannes when he starts developing a closer bond to Elsa. In the end, Waititi’s Hitler fails to keep Johannes on side, despite saying that he should not hang around with that ‘thing’ (Elsa). Given that he is also the construction of the imagination of a child, Waititi can be seen to use absurdism to present Nazism’s lack of humanity and reality. One other example of this absurdism is the line; “Our only friends left are the Japanese, but between you and me Jojo, they don’t look very Aryan”. Despite being quite humorous, it does labour the point that Nazism is an illogical and backward concept to have present in modern times.
Furthermore, Sam Rockwell’s character, Captain Klenzendorf is portrayed as a disillusioned (and possibly homosexual) Nazi. This is shown by his actions in saving both Elsa and Johannes from death which also shows the façade of Nazism being dismantled by the actions of the selfless and humane. The human condition is wrecked by war but Waititi tries to salvage this with satire. Jojo Rabbit holds a mirror up to our society and asks us why we continue to act selfishly and intolerably towards people of different cultures, religions and backgrounds? And this is where Jojo Rabbit brilliantly succeeds; that despite the circumstances, we are all human and should realise this. In a way, the Second World War in cinematic history has become a medium in projecting the worst in humanity; films such as Inglourious Basterds produced characters such as the evil and opportunistic Colonel Hans Landa to make the audience realise what we are and can definitely strive to be better.
The First World War has also gained another title on the silver screen recently with Sam Mendes’ 1917. For context, the film takes place at a crucial part of the war. As a plan to relieve an exhausted army after the brutalities of the Somme and Verdun, the German army retreated to the Hindenburg line, which was a defensive position that they hoped would lure the British into destruction. In the world of the film, Lance Corporal’s Blake (Dean Charles-Chapman) and Schofield (George McKay) are tasked to deliver a message to Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) to stop a 1,600 man advance on the German defensive line, in which the commanding officer mistakenly believed to be a sign that the ‘Boche were finally on the run’. What is interesting however about this look into the war is that it does not deal with the harsh and appalling state of the trenches and nerve racking feeling of going over the top (which Saul Dibb’s Jounrey’s End does brilliantly), but instead focuses on the overall human experience and how that is completely devastated by war and conflict.
Experiences such as success, failure, bravery, betrayal, happiness and loss are all shown and felt within the two hour screen time. It is as if Mendes wrote the main characters of Blake and Schofield to be performing a Samuel Beckett Tragi-comedy such as Waiting for Godot in a theatrical setting. This is displayed by the single camera, dystopian and repetitive features of the film which makes sure that the audience understands the state of inhumane hell the soldiers were in. Subsequently, Mendes succeeds in making us feel physically repulsed by the state of their current situation.
Furthermore, Mendes uses false hope to further his point that there is neither any humanity nor good from war. One way in which this is achieved is via the characterisation of Colonel Mackenzie. The Colonel seems disheartened when he is told that the attack must be called off and says “I hoped today was going to be a good day”. At first glance, Mackenzie seems irritated that his honour and desire for eternal glory has been cancelled, but this is quickly reverted by Mendes who performs a masterstroke. Mackenzie goes on to say that army HQ will probably give different orders next week, such as; “tomorrow at dawn”. Mackenzie’s eye scar also suggests that he has suffered tremendously and wants an end to the bloodshed. With this, Mendes separates Mackenzie from historical figures such as Field Marshall Haig, the butcher of the Somme, and gives greater depth to Cumberbatch’s character by making him fearful of the fate that awaits him and his men when they are eventually going to be told to try and penetrate a heavily manned and armed defensive line. His optimism that the war could nearly be over is shattered.
Another way in which Mendes delivers false hope is by his inclusion of the song, Wayfaring Soldier. Used as a hymn or gospel song, the lyrics seem to suggest someone who is not afraid to die and see their maker as life on Earth has nothing to offer them anymore but turmoil and misery. These lyrics fit perfectly into the situation that Schofield is put in. On one hand, Schofield wants to live as he has a wife and children waiting for him back at home. However, Schofield lost a good friend in Blake and was physically exhausted by the time he delivered the message to the Colonel, so much so that he probably wanted to die and leave the turmoil and never ending war behind him. It can be argued that his suicidal run across the battlefield was his way of giving himself up to the elements if they would mercifully take him. This is his dilemma; he cannot die because he needs to return to his family, but he cannot live anymore because he seems to be on the edge of physical and mental deterioration which the war has caused. The song and the suicidal charge to Mackenzie to call off the attack gave him false hope of peace.
Mendes’ script may not be as greatly mastered as other screenplays that have been nominated by the Academy in 2020. Stories such as Marriage Story and Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood deliver stunning looks into the lives of people who are struggling to find themselves in an ever-changing world around them, and in turn reveals the horrible side of human nature. On the surface, these stories by Tarantino and Baumbach seem to have far greater depth than the story created by Mendes and Wilson-Cairns. But what 1917 does so majestically is that it blends the screenplay with the cinematography, set, production and character design of the film to produce the overwhelming nihilistic features of war. This amalgamation makes the story of 1917 complete and rich with detail, in turn making it an extremely important war film. In that war fuels nihilism.
To review, Jojo Rabbit and 1917 have provided unique takes on two of the most consequential events in modern history and by doing so, have given the audience new lens’ to understand them in. Mendes and Waititi both give extremely humane stories about how the human experience can be altered by conflict and how, if we become more tolerant and hopeful, we can thrive as a species once again.
Comments