The War Game

The tricky thing, in regard to the pseudo-documentary, is the level of realism required to create palpability. In a film intended merely as comedy, realism is less of an issue. In the case of The War Game, however (and many films like it), there is clearly a statement being made. The War Game hopes to act as a not-so-friendly reminder of the devastation that nuclear warfare has caused in the past, and its potential for havoc in the future. Although the “would be” scenario (the narration including pieces such as “this is a possible part of nuclear war” and “this is what it would be like”) is an intentional and obvious statement against the film’s authenticity, there were other elements that I found more troubling.

One of the most perturbing and distracting moments in my particular viewing of the film involved the “man on the street” interviews conducted. When asked about their knowledge of radioactivity, the people responded, often times, with the same indifferent and emotionless “I don’t knows.” As an audience member expected to question the authenticity of these interviews, I felt as though I was being condescended. How could I possibly be expected to second-guess these interviews? The interviews were so implausible, in fact, that they were laughable at times. One particular instance that was intended to be moving but came off, instead, as ridiculous, was that with the children. A montage of interview snippets meant to display despair of the young children showed their responses to the question “What do you want to be when you grow up.” Instead of heart-wrenching, which was undisputedly the feeling that was hoped for, it was humorous. The class didn’t even try to suppress their laughter as the pouting children recited a chorus of “nothings” for the camera. While the blame for this lies primarily with the actors, it nevertheless detracts from the overall effectiveness of the film as a documentary.

Similarly distracting were some of the aesthetic elements of the film. There was one particular scene where the camera panned across “bodies” lined up indiscriminately on the ground. Covered in a layer of ash, the bodies there was something about their positions and appearance that seemed too “alive” to be accepted. Following the hypothetical attack, the citizens of Kent (and the surrounding areas) were either dead or completely unscathed (aside from a charcoal powder smeared across their faces, which seemed to calculatedly placed to be believed). The physical effects of radiation, which are sickeningly morbid, were alluded to, but the physical images (which simply consisted of darker and heavier layers of “ash”) were severely lacking in graphic nature (to the point of suspended belief in the narration).

While The War Game certainly left much to be desired in the authenticity department, there were also many points that deserve to be acknowledged in a positive light. Most noticeable were the shaky and hand-held camera movements, which are constantly observed in class. This instability in camera operating was strongly felt during the riot scenes. The camera, seemingly shooting from within the crowds of people, was “thrown about” with the herds of people. This gave a better perspective of the chaos that might be felt in a similar situation. In random places, the cameras followed close behind different “characters” (for example, the officer going door-to-door to inform citizens of their newfound duties to board refugees), giving over-the-shoulder shots of the unfolding action. Also very effective was the acknowledgment of the camera operators. The camera tries to get access to the area where the corpses are being deposited (and presumably burned or buried). The watchmen stop them, shouting “you can’t go in there” and “no photographers allowed.” Moments such as these, along with the tyrannical portrayal of authority figures (one man recounts a scene where soldiers were being shot by their higher-ups for not partaking in inhumane military practices against civilians), help reinforce Watkins’ original purpose for making this film, which is perhaps the most effective aspect of the movie. Many governments across the world, at that particular time (the 1960s), were attempting to quiet the protests and uproar of concerned citizens by offering a sense of false reassurance that, in the event of a nuclear strike, they would remain essentially unscathed. Watkins, along with many other citizens, saw this treatment as patronizing. The power of this film can be attributed mainly to the context during which it was released. The War Game, when viewed as a bold form of insubordination against the government, is what helps the film overcompensate for its weak points and come across as a striking statement against nuclear warfare and governmental indifference.