PTSD: A Look Through Film (1945–1989)
PTSD: A Look Through Film (1945–1989)
PTSD: A Look Through Film (1945–1989)
David Buie
World War II has, until relatively recently, been remembered as a “good war.” This perception was largely shaped by motion pictures, newsreels, and documentaries produced during and immediately after the conflict. Central to these films are their protagonists, who carry the action and serve as the primary point of connection for audiences. These characters also function as the chief instruments through which filmmakers convey meaning. By examining how filmmakers portray central protagonists, one can discern broader cultural motivations and attitudes toward World War II and war in general. An analysis of protagonists in eight films spanning four key historical periods reveals how changes in character development reflect evolving national attitudes toward war.
The first period covers the wartime years from 1942 to 1945. Two films from this era, Bataan (1943) and The Fighting Seabees (1944), serve as representative examples. In Bataan, the central protagonist is Sergeant Dane. Dane and twelve other servicemen, separated from their original units, are tasked with holding a bridge to allow American forces time to regroup. Although Dane is not the highest-ranking soldier present, he assumes leadership after the unit’s officers are killed. He holds the group together until he becomes the last surviving defender. Rather than abandon his post, Dane fights to the end, buying time through his sacrifice.
Beyond bravery, Dane demonstrates leadership through his ability to command a diverse group of soldiers. Of the thirteen men, four are minorities: Private Felix Ramirez, a Mexican American; Private Wesley Epps, an African American; Corporal Juan Katibak, and Private “Yankee” Salazar, both Filipino. Dane also manages tensions with Corporal Todd, a bully whom Dane suspects of being involved in murder, and Private Matthew Hardy, a conscientious objector. Despite these challenges, Dane consistently embodies tolerance and cohesion. Released in June 1943, less than two years after Pearl Harbor and near the midpoint of the war, Bataan received critical acclaim and was named one of the year’s top ten films.
The fact that Bataan premiered during the height of World War II is significant. Although the federal government never formally drafted Hollywood, it worked closely with the industry through the Office of War Information and its Bureau of Motion Pictures. The Bureau advised studios on film content and monitored productions. In 1942, it issued a manual asking filmmakers a central question: “Will this picture help win the war?” As a result, films such as Bataan reflected official guidance. By the time of its release, the Bureau had issued more than forty thematic suggestions, including encouraging portrayals of racial unity and avoiding depictions of the enemy as intellectually inferior. Bataan follows these guidelines by emphasizing cooperation among soldiers of different backgrounds and by portraying the Japanese as formidable opponents rather than incompetent foes.
In Sergeant Dane’s final scene, he fires his weapon while standing at the edge of his self-dug grave. Although the film does not show his death directly, the implication is unmistakable. Dane represents the quintessential wartime soldier, one who fulfills his duty regardless of personal cost. A similar dedication appears in Wedge Donovan, portrayed by John Wayne in The Fighting Seabees, though Donovan differs significantly from Dane.
Unlike Dane, a career soldier, Donovan begins the war as a civilian construction company owner, angered by the deaths of his employees at Japanese hands. Lieutenant Commander Robert Yarrow introduces him to the idea of armed construction battalions. Although Donovan likes the concept, he resents the lengthy training process and storms out of a meeting with Navy leadership. He initially chooses to arm his men independently. When the Navy later hires his company to build a base, Donovan accompanies them and reunites with Yarrow, now assigned as a liaison officer.
When the Japanese invade the island, Donovan receives orders to remain in a bomb shelter. Ignoring these orders, he leads his men into combat, disrupting a carefully planned crossfire. His recklessness results in unnecessary casualties, including severe injuries to war correspondent Constance Chesley. This moment marks a turning point for Donovan, who finally commits to the Navy’s construction battalion program and completes formal training. Commissioned as a lieutenant commander, he leads the newly formed Seabees on another Pacific assignment.
During the film’s climax, Donovan attaches a thermite charge to a bulldozer and drives it into a Japanese oil storage tank, creating a river of fire that defeats the enemy. He is shot before he can escape and dies in the resulting explosion. Donovan embodies a distinctly American archetype: individualistic, impatient with authority, and confident in his own judgment. The film ultimately argues that such traits must be tempered by discipline and structure during wartime. Even after embracing the Navy’s methods, Donovan retains his independence, as seen when he organizes patrols to hunt a sniper despite being ordered to prioritize construction.
This transformation makes Donovan an effective tool of wartime propaganda. He answers questions that many recruits and conscripts likely asked themselves, questions a drill instructor could not easily address. Released in January 1944, as the tide of war began to turn but the outcome remained uncertain, The Fighting Seabees emphasizes the necessity of subordinating individual freedom to collective purpose during wartime.
Despite their differences, Dane and Donovan share key traits. Both sacrifice their lives to save others, and both accept cooperation across racial and class lines, a notable stance for films made in the 1940s. At the same time, both films portray the Japanese as less than human, reinforcing a moral dichotomy in which Americans and their allies represent humanity while the enemy appears as dangerous animals.
Following the war, the United States emerged victorious and economically strengthened. Millions of service members returned home, and wartime rationing ended. Almost immediately, however, tensions with the Soviet Union escalated. The Berlin Blockade of 1948 and the onset of the Cold War reshaped global politics. In this new context, a fresh cycle of World War II films appeared, including Sands of Iwo Jima (1949).
The film’s protagonist, Sergeant John Stryker, became for many the embodiment of the Marine Corps. Sands of Iwo Jima follows a group of Marines from training through the battle itself. Stryker, a career Marine, appears deeply flawed. He is divorced, estranged from his young son, prone to heavy drinking, and quick to use physical punishment. Yet he also cares deeply for his men, treating them as surrogate children. His toughness stems from concern rather than cruelty. Stryker dies protecting his company, and afterward his men discover a letter to his son filled with regret. This level of introspection marks a departure from earlier protagonists, revealing internal conflict alongside battlefield competence.
A similar evolution appears in To Hell and Back, the story of Audie Murphy, one of the most decorated soldiers of the war. Murphy, who plays himself, begins his military career after being rejected by multiple branches of service. He eventually joins the Army infantry and fights in North Africa, Italy, France, and Germany. Rising steadily through the ranks, Murphy ends the film receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Murphy contrasts sharply with Stryker. He is young rather than middle-aged, a volunteer rather than a career soldier, and deeply tied to family responsibilities. Despite these differences, both men care profoundly for their comrades and express regret over losses they could not prevent. Together, they represent early Cold War ideals of American heroism that combine toughness with emotional depth.
As the 1960s gave way to the 1970s, the United States found itself mired in Vietnam. Unlike World War II, Vietnam was not widely viewed as a just war. This shift gave rise to a new type of World War II film, exemplified by Lee Marvin’s portrayal of Major Reisman in The Dirty Dozen. Reisman displays cynicism toward authority, regularly challenges superiors, and openly questions military planning. Despite this, he successfully trains a group of convicted criminals for what appears to be a suicide mission, demonstrating American military effectiveness while simultaneously criticizing command structures.
By 1970, the nation was deeply divided. The Vietnam War had lasted longer than World War II, and public dissent reached unprecedented levels. In this environment, Patton emerged as both a critical and commercial success. The film grossed over $61 million domestically and won seven Academy Awards. Its portrayal of General George Patton highlighted both his brilliance and his eccentricities. This ambiguity allowed audiences to interpret the film in different ways, a quality historian Robert Toplin likened to a Rorschach test.
Both Major Reisman and General Patton maintain strong connections to enlisted soldiers while openly criticizing higher command. Their portrayals reflect a society increasingly skeptical of authority and institutions.
Later films such as Saving Private Ryan and Fury extend this trend even further. Captain John Miller and Sergeant Don “Wardaddy” Collier begin as ordinary men shaped into instruments of violence by prolonged exposure to war. Miller, a former teacher, feels increasingly alienated from civilian life with each kill. Collier, though less fully developed, suggests a similar transformation. In both films, war inflicts profound psychological damage. Although the protagonists complete their missions, their deaths lack glory. The filmmakers emphasize that war, even when necessary, exacts a terrible human cost.
Across these films, the evolution of protagonists mirrors changing societal attitudes. As time passes, filmmakers gain greater distance from World War II, allowing for more nuanced portrayals. Film functions not only as entertainment but also as a reflection of the society that produces it. By examining how protagonists perceive and endure war, one can trace broader shifts in American cultural memory and attitudes toward conflict.
Comments
Post a Comment