![]() The latter was based on personal accounts written by veterans of the campaign in the Pacific the former on Stephen Ambrose’s book. Dye also served as the technical military adviser for HBO’s twin series on World War II, Band of Brothers and The Pacific. ![]() In sharp contrast, Steven Spielberg’s ‘creative aides and consultants’ on Saving Private Ryan include the historian Stephen Ambrose and Dale Dye, a retired Marine Corps captain. Nair notes, ‘Indian war films have not had much input or influence from veterans that have resulted in significant script, narrative or tone changes.’ Neither have the directors of the Indian war movie actively consulted, and worked in cooperation with, military historians. Instead, the cooperation the armed forces rendered the filmmakers – one acknowledged in the opening frames of each of the movies under consideration – appears a matter of access to bases, military equipment, and help in staging war scenes military technical advisers have not directed, nor vetted, the military accuracy of the screen depictions of combat.Īs K.S. The makers of Indian war movies might have found a similar investment in technical apparatus and specialized directorial assistance for combat scenes profitable at the box office. For his Sholay, one of Indian cinema’s biggest hits of all time, Ramesh Sippy employed specialized stunt directors and crew to render its action sequences involving fights on trains, horseback stunts, and pitched gun battles. The makers of the Indian war movie were not lacking for an example to emulate in their depiction of combat. But these are of scant comfort in a domain touched all too often by cinematic clumsiness. Occasionally, the Indian war movie gets it right: Aakraman shows the correct uniforms for the Pakistani and Indian Army Hindustan Ki Kasam, Border, and Vijeta exploit spectacular visuals of fighter jets taking off, landing, and flying Vijeta incorporates excellent technical detail on flying training and the handling of flight emergencies LOC: Kargil shows the legendary Bofors guns in action and is filled to the brim with military iconography The Ghazi Attack offers a technically detailed and plausible depiction of submarine warfare. In earlier movies, like Aakraman and Hindustan Ki Kasam, there is no attempt to stage a war scene the filmmakers merely record Indian Army exercises and take-offs, landings and formation flights by the IAF. This results in superficial and awkward battle sequences those of Border, Lakshya and LOC: Kargil pale in comparison to those of modern ‘mainstream’ productions like Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. The military content generated by the armed forces for Indian war movies consists of perfunctory war games or firepower demonstrations doubling as ostensible battle scenes. Military history aficionados will complain of the lack of realism and the poor level of military detail in the Indian war movie: Guns and weapons not in use in the relevant historical period are shown, uniforms, stripes, and insignia are wrong, conversations about military tactics are elementary and superficial, battle scenes are clumsily staged and directed. The Indian film industry has a distinct understanding of what transpires on a battlefield and it only bears a passing relationship to the realities of warfare or the conduct of military operations in any theatre of war. The Indian war movie’s most prominent weaknesses are where the cinematic rubber meets the road, in its depiction of military combat.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |