War Books vs. War Films

War. It has been portrayed in art, poetry, film, novel, theatre and music form. War is the most influential event in the history of mankind, it destroys lives and lifestyles, creates panic and terror. Now I will compare the two most used vessels of portraying the war scene, film vs. book.

I believe that war books have a definitive advantage over films when it comes to authenticity. Old war books like 'Battle Of Britain', 'Bomber Command' and 'From Here To Eternity' have got a lot more originality in them and feel as though they have been thought about and researched. Whereas war films are just the same ideas over and over again with a different mask put over them. Countless "Spaghetti Western" films have been produced with exactly the same plot but with slightly different offshoots that make them supposedly 'original' films. This seems to be the way of all films today not just war films, with many basic Plagiarisms of hit movies being released as new and original.

Though this may seem trivial to many people, I believe that books have an extremely more flexible time span in which they can be written. In a book so many things can happen over a long period of time and the writer doesn't have to worry about the length, only the quality. However in a film the director/producer is limited to a certain time span, sure you can do a whole heap of "5 years later" screens but after the fifteenth time I think that the people watching the movie would find it hard to follow. I know I would. In books sequels can be made and will not cost 2 million dollars like some movies in the US. Plus the amount of sequels in a book has no limit whereas in the film industry people want to see fresh ideas, not sequel number 10 movies.

One thing that can be said about the movie scene is that they are extremely real. Books do have a certain amount of realness in them but that depends on your ability to imagine. Most of the time in novels you are trying to follow the storyline and don't really develop a personality for some of the characters, this may lead to you not enjoying the story as much as you would like to. Films however have the character's personality ready made for you so you can enjoy the whole thing without needing to think many things through.
This is the same for the physical, gory section of war. Films can definitely portray blood, 'guts' and death much more vividly than books can. This may be untrue for people that have seen this type of thing in real life but how many people have really seen death in our society? Hardly any.

Film also has the added bonus of special effects. The things that producers around the globe can pull off using advanced pyrotechnics, bombs and lighting is amazing. Whereas in the old days the films made about war had puny little puffs of smoke coming from the guns they were shooting, today we can see huge explosions, crosses of light coming from the muzzles of M-16 rifles, the cries of men as they get mowed down by artillery fire and tanks. Though this all might sound a bit disgusting to many people, but fans of the genre do appreciate the added atmosphere.

Overall I think that books have laid the stepping-stones for films to keep going. Books are enjoyable to read and I do think they do have a place on our shelves, but films have the advantage of having both visual and audio aid at its side. Films are easier to just going out and seeing instead of being (like many people think) a chore, I guess its just a matter of taste. I like reading books but the man on the street might not, readers will keep on reading, watchers will keep on watching.