This 2014 Brad Pitt film highlights an aspect of war rarely depicted on the big screen

Fury It opened in 2014, a decade and a half after the World War II renaissance of the late 1990s Saving Private Ryan is saved and HBO’s Band of Brothers – which themselves came long after the heyday of World War II films in the 1960s. That American films were released during the same period American sniper (the highest-grossing film of the year), Zero Dark Thirty And Lone survivorthat dealt with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed even more old-fashioned.

But the film, directed by David Ayer and starring Brad Pitt as a US tank commander fighting in Germany, was a critical and commercial success. That’s undoubtedly because it’s a well-made and worthy addition to the genre. But its success may also have been due to the fact that Ayer had broken into new story territory by chronicling the combat effectiveness of U.S. tank crews, who were significantly underarmored compared to their German counterparts. Ironically, 10 years later, Fury Maybe it doesn’t feel like it’s aged at all Because The traditional take on the genre makes it feel timeless.

The brutality of tank warfare

The film was partly inspired by the book Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War IIin which the author argues that Sherman tanks were at a distinct disadvantage compared to those of their superior German enemies and that US tank crews would have suffered far fewer casualties if they had used Pershing tanks instead.

The argument is controversial, but what is undisputed is that the Americans lost many tanks and crews in the invasion of Europe and that the fighting was brutal and dangerous. Ayer stages a pitched battle between four Shermans and a huge German Tiger tank, showing how overwhelmed the US tanks were. Only one of the US tanks survives, and only thanks to the experience and talent of the American soldiers on board. But after each encounter, the film makes it clear how wonderful their continued survival is.

In addition to the realistic depiction of tank battles, Fury captures the everyday life of the crews in detail. The inside of the tanks that these men essentially live in is dirty, spattered with blood and oil, cramped, hot and – one would assume – foul-smelling. In fact, the crews are inside Fury It looks like they haven’t showered in three years, a testament to the credibility Ayer consistently achieves.

An excellent example of its genre

The film follows a traditional narrative approach. It introduces a squad of experienced soldiers from diverse backgrounds who have a history of having each other’s backs, and then along comes a newcomer, Norman (Logan Lerman), whose lack of combat experience and initial lack of combat readiness results in them all being killed.

The crew is led by Sergeant Don “Wardaddy” Collier, played by Pitt as a less sardonic version of his “Nazee” fighter from Quentin Tarantino’s more comedic war film Disreputable bastards. The others are played by Michael Peña, Shia LaBeouf and Jon Bernthal, and Ayer was smart to cast strong, well-known actors to add depth to the shallow characterizations typical of the genre.

In fact, it is primarily the performances of the five main actors that are responsible for this Fury is just as emotionally impactful as it is. Collier begins by telling Norman not to approach anyone, but of course these men form a deep bond through their shared trauma. The film convincingly dramatizes the truism that soldiers fight not for king, country or ideas, but for the men at their side.

The Horrors of Modern War (Movies)

In his review of Oliver Stone’s TrainRoger Ebert quoted French New Wave director François Truffaut, who famously said that it was impossible to make an anti-war film because war films always made war seem exciting and entertaining. Ebert said Truffaut might have found it Train – with its graphic fight scenes – seems to be an exception.

It seems likely. Truffaut, who died in 1984, missed many of the advances in makeup, prosthetics, pyrotechnics and CGI that made modern war films so important Fury so much more realistic and frightening than the relatively bloodless examples from previous decades. The end of the Production Code in 1967 and the subsequent creation of the MPAA ratings system also ushered in a new era of realistic violence by finally allowing American films to use graphic material.

Largely because of this blood-and-guts realism, war in modern films is what it is not usually look like the fun adventure of so many 1960s World War II films The Dirty Dozen, The Great Escape, The Weapons of NavaroneAnd From Ryan’s Express. These films often glossed over the reality of war and emphasized thrilling action scenes and the charisma of legendary icons such as Lee Marvin, Steven McQueen, Gregory Peck and Frank Sinatra.

Fury has its own contemporary icon in Brad Pitt, and he gets some movie star moments, including a shirtless shot that shows off his famous torso. But his handsomeness is buried behind scar makeup and his character is at times overly brutal, reminding us that he was never afraid to tarnish his image in films like… California And Kill them gently.

The value of the realistic war film

If Saving Private Ryan is saved set the standard for the modern representation of war death, Fury has more than a few moments that rival it in terms of utter revulsion. If a filmmaker is determined not to be exploitative, there are few reasons to portray this unshakeable reality. One is to show the sheer terrible human cost of war. Another is to expose the insanity of the entire company. A third is to condemn those in power who hide in bunkers while they order the destruction of civilization.

Fury shows above all the human cost and madness. There’s a brilliant early moment when Collier, having just returned from a grueling mission, disappears from sight to deal with a moment of trauma, unbeknownst to his men as he loses his temper, only to realize that German prisoners of war are witnessing of his near collapse. The implication is clear: there is nowhere to escape war. If you let your guard down even for a moment, you become frighteningly vulnerable.

Kill or be killed

He’ll never make that mistake again. As if to reinforce himself, he brutalizes Norman until the boy becomes a suitable killer. In one of the film’s most disturbing scenes, he forces Norman to kill a German prisoner by literally putting the gun in his hand and making him pull the trigger. Numerous GIs stand nearby and watch the scene appreciatively. They firmly believe that savagery and ruthlessness are the only way to survive.

This attitude is taken to the extreme in an extended sequence in which Collier tries to behave civilly while eating in the squat of two frightened German women. When the rest of the crew shows up, they are outraged by his attempts to maintain some semblance of civilization. It’s not without reason that they ask him how he can play at home, after everything they had to see and do. The entire sequence is characterized by razor-sharp tension that erupts in a moment of terrible irony.

In our current moment, there is a brutal war raging in Eastern Europe (which is also the setting for one of the most harrowing war films of all time: Elim Klimov’s). Come and see), as well as wars in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere. Madmen and dictators continue to treat soldiers and civilians like human garbage, just like Hitler did.

Because of these realities, we don’t have to question why war films are worth watching, even if they disturb us so much, as long as they are respectful and well-made. When some people fight and die – often against their will – it is the moral responsibility of the rest of us to understand their experiences. Ten years later, Fury continues to offer this option instinctively.

Fury is streaming on Netflix.