MovieChat Forums > Sergeant York (1941) Discussion > Considered an Anti-War film, or a Pro-Wa...

Considered an Anti-War film, or a Pro-War film?

posted 15 years ago by Der_Erlkonig
14 replies | jump to latest

I know that this story can be argued from both sides of this fence, but I feel that the film Sergeant York was intended more as an Anti-War account than that of one that promotes war.

Initially, Alvin York himself is portrayed as a misguided man that spends his time making trouble and stirring up violence. Several accounts of aggressive action are noted in his bar fight on the Kentucky border, his attack on Zeb when competing for Gracie Williams' favor, and his rage inflicted reprisal to the landowner that sold good farming land to Zeb instead of Alvin despite a recent contract, and the fact that Alvin did come up with enough money.

But when his emotions smoldered at a local bar and he rode off in a storm to commit a violent act he likely would regret, his rifle was struck by lightning, himself and his mule left intact. He took this as a sign from God that he shouldn't do what he originally intended, and became convinced of a higher power because of the fact he was still alive despite being struck directly by lightning.

Since this point, he is shown making amends with the people he felt he wronged through his misguided action, and it is shown that his hard luck starts lifting as he starts actually getting what he aims for as well as ends up happier for his endeavors.

During the draft for World War I, his application for draft exemption and the following appeal were denied. In the military training camp, he was goaded and talked down to for being a conscientious objector to the war, I.E. someone who refuses to support a combatant organization because of conflicting personal views. But then despite this, he was talked to by the commanding officer of the training camp, and it was explained to him that they were not going to war to spill blood. They were going to stop someone who did not share their peaceful ideas, and to protect people who couldn't fight back (civilians and families). Although conflicted, he participated in the war willingly under the premise that it was to save lives by stopping those that were killing.

It was by this philosophy that he killed minimal Germans, instead taking as many of them prisoner as would surrender. He employed the help of the German trench commander to force surrender on more German troops. By this method, he avoided killing the hundreds of Germans he instead spared as prisoners. Additionally, York argues to his own superiors that in doing what he did, he saved hundreds of other soldiers from dying from the machine guns being used by the Germans.

Even during post war celebrations, when York was offered large sums of money to be part of advertising and showcased as a celebrity, his reply was that he didn't do what he did for fame, money or glory. He did what he did to save people's lives. People he went their with died doing the same thing, and he wouldn't be a part of selling the deaths of the war for money.

Consistently throughout the movie, especially during times of great conflict, the film Sergeant York portrays an anti-war belief even in the face of imminent killing. Instead, it focuses on the prospect of preserving as many lives as possible, even the German's, as was demonstrated by York in the war.

_________________________________________________________________________________

--"That Which Issues From The Heart Alone, Will Bend The Hearts Of Others To Your Own"

[–] simonaond 15 years ago

While it could definitiley be argued that the movie is both pro and anti-war, I also agree that it is anti-war. The movie basically shows two different types of violence; first, when York causes riots in the bars and his city, and the second in the form of the war. The reasons for both types of violence are different; one is out of irrationality, the other one is out of loyalty to America. I think this makes us see that even though the other type of violence is different, it still counts as violence, and that's the way York sees it. Violence is bad and so is war. We can also see that the officers at basic training are open-minded and they are not excited about killing either, which reveals that it is not in human nature to want to kill, thus we shouldn't be doing it at all. York's way of hastening the war so that the Germans will surrender so he doesn't have to kill them is also another point that does prove that war is not neccessary.

[–] scsmith1860 15 years ago

I do agree that York held strong beliefs against violence. However, I found the part where he killed the German soldier, who threw the grenade that killed his friend Pusher, to be surprising. I wondered how he would handle the situation. He walked over to the German soldier shot and killed him and then warned others the same would happen to them if they attempted that again.
His feelings for his friend and the loss he suffered warranted, in his mind, the belief a life for a life. He could have warned them not to try that again and not killed the German soldier. But, for that moment he wanted to restore order and protect his other men from the same fate. It was the one time since York’s life-changing experience he willingly chose to respond with violence.

[–] Patrick_Hepburn 15 years ago

What I find interesting when it comes to this movie being an Anti-War movie or a Pro-War movie is the use of Bible passages. When Sergeant York was making his argument on why he doesn't wish to kill, he uses Bible passages. Sergeant York did show great knowledge of the Bible, but lets look at a Bible Passage not spoken about in the movie.

1st Samuel 11:1 to 11:11 (Saul Rescues the City of Jabesh)
“Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.”

But Nahash the Ammonite replied, “I will make a treaty with you only on the condition that I gouge out the right eye of every one of you and so bring disgrace on all Israel.”

The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days so we can send messengers throughout Israel; if no one comes to rescue us, we will surrender to you.”

When the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul and reported these terms to the people, they all wept aloud. Just then Saul was returning from the fields, behind his oxen, and he asked, “What is wrong with the people? Why are they weeping?” Then they repeated to him what the men of Jabesh had said.

When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he burned with anger. He took a pair of oxen, cut them into pieces, and sent the pieces by messengers throughout Israel, proclaiming, “This is what will be done to the oxen of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel.” Then the terror of the Lord fell on the people, and they turned out as one man. When Saul mustered them at Bezek, the men of Israel numbered three hundred thousand and the men of Judah thirty thousand.

They told the messengers who had come, “Say to the men of Jabesh Gilead, ‘By the time the sun is hot tomorrow, you will be delivered.’” When the messengers went and reported this to the men of Jabesh, they were elated. They said to the Ammonites, “Tomorrow we will surrender to you, and you can do to us whatever seems good to you.”

The next day Saul separated his men into three divisions; during the last watch of the night they broke into the camp of the Ammonites and slaughtered them until the heat of the day. Those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together.”

And now lets look at the words said right after this event.
1st Samuel 11:12 to 11:13 (Saul Confirmed as King)
The people then said to Samuel, “Who was it that asked, ‘Shall Saul reign over us?’ Bring these men to us and we will put them to death.”

But Saul said, “No one shall be put to death today, for this day the Lord has rescued Israel.”

We see that the Spirit of God entered into Saul and gave him the power to wage war against the Ammonites and totally annihilate them (“Those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together.”). After the battle was over, people spoke to Samuel about having those who questioned the decision to make Saul king put to death. But Saul did not wish to bring them to death, instead he made a statement that I find has great significance to Sergeant York.
“for this day the Lord has rescued Israel.”

When it comes to War (Old Testament times), war should be wagged in times where it is to rid of those who are against God's people. In Sergeant York's case, he didn't want to fight, but he fought to rid of those who were against the Ally Powers.

In New Testament times, the war has changed to a War of Peace. With the death of Jesus, now it is a time to try and have people lay down their arms. Sometimes though, to have people lay down arms, you have to wage war. (Notice how Sergeant York had to kill a few Germans before the Germans would surrender?)

So is Sergeant York an Anti-War or Pro-War movie? I believe it is a combination of both. The belief that war shouldn't happen but when it comes to saving the lives of people, war should happen. Yes you are killing people, but at the same time you are saving those who would be killed by those who you are killing.

[–] fnj2002 15 years ago

Without intending offense, to even present the question whether someone or some work is "pro-war" or "anti-war" is both superficial, and a leading and charged question. No thinking person is "pro-war", and therefore no thinking person is going to produce a work that is intended to be "pro-war." Anyway, the dichotomy is so simplistic as to be meaningless.

Thinking persons do differ as to what justifies participating in conflict, and even exactly what constitutes participation. Does the man who earns his living selling provisions to the armed forces participate in conflict? Does the surgeon who works in the field hospital, healing the wounded while at the same time facilitating their return to battle?

Even more relentless, and demanding, is the question: is a man justified and moral in killing opponents in armed conflict, if he sees those opponents as serving a cause of lesser moral authority, and if in so doing he eases loss and suffering on his own side in the conflict?

I don't have the answers, but a part of the movie explores how one man of distinction arrived at his own answers. The movie touches on the question of under what circumstances armed conflict is justified, but that is far from its main point.

It deals with a man making mistakes in life, finding his faith and willing himself to mend his ways; then applying his faith to high moral questions, and to living his life. It deals with him discovering that the path to answering these questions is not smooth nor easy.

But most of all it deals with a man resolutely choosing his own moral path and living his life with zest, daring, and resolutely brave and selfless acts; while staying true to his faith and to the proper moral path as he saw it. A man who exhibits great bravery but whose sense of proportion is not affected by attention and adoration.

I celebrate Alvin York, this movie, and the wonderful performance by Gary Cooper and the other participants.

[–] CmdrCody 15 years ago

Guys: The movie was completed in 1941, prior to Pearl Harbor. America was neutral at that time. To understand the message of the movie, one must remember what was going on outside the US. The movie is clearly presented as a metaphor for the United States stance in World War II which had been going on since September 1939.

The picture shows York, (who was played by Gary Cooper at York's request), slow to anger about anything once he gets "religion." The movie is a masterpiece of rising emotion about the necessary sacrifice made by the doughboys of the last war and the necessity to rekindle the same fervor against Hitler and Tojo.

You have to remember that France, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia had fallen to the Nazi armies. Russia had been invaded. Greece and Yugoslavia rubbed out. Only little Britain stood against Germany and was suffering from U-Boat attacks and the Blitz.

In light of that, this movie was undertaken to stoke up the patriotic juices...to get the American audience to start thinking about "the big picture." Also...to undermine the myth of Wehrmacht invincibility in the current war, since Alvin York outfoxes them on the big screen.

Alvin York is slow to get behind the war effort against "the bad guys" in the movie...just like America in 1941...but once he gets "riled-up" against the Hun, when his buddies get gunned down before his eyes, when he realizes that only he can "save the day," then it's whoop-ass time against dem ol' Krauts by ol' Gary Cooper...as he "touches-off" dem turkeys...oops..I mean, those yellow bellied German troops.

Clearly, the picture is NOT anti-war. The movie portrays the sacrifice and heroic duty required by all Americans to stop fascism during a time when our entry into the Second World War was imminent.

CmdrCody

[–] shoot-to-miss 13 years ago

CmdrCody is spot on.

This is blatant pro-war propaganda and the historical context IS crucial. In addition to what he points out, let us recall that all Hollywood movies were subject to strict and picayune Breen office censorship. There's no way that Hollywood would have condoned an antiwar movie just when the sitting president was having so much trouble with America Firsters and other, more generalized, isolationist sentiment.

The reason Alvin York is slow to get behind the war effort, apropos CmdrCody's comments, is that the audience must be assured that York was no bloodthirsty warmonger. On the contrary, he had become a saintly Christian. Only the pure forces of logic and high-minded principle could compel him to shed blood.

This is propaganda at its most astute. Get the audience to identify with Alvin York, then win them over.

Also propaganda at its most crass, since the movie makes war sound like a better bet than a lottery ticket. Join the war effort and you too may end up with a devoted wife and a free farm/house of your dreams.

Which wasn't really all that far off the mark, when you think about the GI Bill.

In short, if you're not convinced, read CmdrCody's post again and reflect. This film has very little in common with typical WWI themes of alienated, despairing, cog-in-the-wheel-style industrial warfare and endless stalemate. It's a heroic, individualistic cowboy action flick calculated to diminish the German threat (as CmdrCody mentions) and to play up the prowess of manly, yet God-fearing American men.

[–] Arthur21743 12 years ago

CmdrCody seems to have a feel for the American psyche at the time. Those in the United States overwhelmingly felt that what was happening in Europe wasn't America's fight. It was a myopic and Chamberlainish psychotic-ostrich approach to evil, no question about it. Hitler wanted the whole world - as did the Japanese emperor - and it was only a matter of time before Germany - perhaps allied with Japan - captured Canada and then started a blitzkrieg against the rest of the American continents. Hitler already had spies and saboteurs in the U.S., and had no intention of leaving America out of his plans for world domination.

American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew this all too well - but also understood the American people's aversion to getting involved "over there" - and treaded lightly as he prepared for the inevitable, meanwhile talking peace and non-intervention in order to keep himself in office.

I used to resent how Pearl Harbor was a setup and allowed to happen. The U.S. had broken the Japanese's secret codes and knew about all their invasion plans all over the Pacific. Yet the base at Pearl Harbor wasn't allowed to have its own cipher machine and had to rely on the selective Intel they were fed from Washington.

Apparently FDR kept things very close to the vest, because when he ordered several key ships away from Pearl Harbor and into the Atlantic, one of his admirals was so incensed he came close to insubordination over the matter.

Once Pearl Harbor happened, the attitude of the American people did a 180 for the most part, and we started tooling up for war in earnest. Before this we were merely helping out our European friends <wink wink> and transforming our factories into military armaments manufacturing on the sly. I can see now in hindsight that had we not started gearing up when we did, it would have been much too late to start once Hitler had begun his invasion of the North American continent.

So, was our entrance into World War II a contrived event? Absolutely. But was it essential to the well being of the free world? No question about it. But just so I don't get a lot of flames over my position and get called a war monger, let me add that I also believe it was the last time we had a good reason to go to war.

From then on, it's all been phony wars waged in order to line the pockets of the already filthy rich.

So, is Sergeant York a propaganda film, as some believe? Depends on your definition of propaganda. Was it making a statement? Without doubt. But what decent American would resent it for that?

[–] CarolinianDude 14 years ago

No this movie was made deliberatly to get America in the mood to go to war against Germany again. That was the point. That was why it was made, to be pro-war. However, being pro-war is often also pro-peace, which I think this movie was, because it was about America entering a war to end Germany's carnage, in order to whip up support for America entering another war to end Germany's carnage. (I'm aware that's the propaganda angle of it, please don't start a debate on the merits of Germany's role in WW1)

[–] WyldeGoose 13 years ago

Sergeant York is a pro-Freedom film.

While we can all agree that the US had absolutely no business whatsoever getting into World War I, that's besides the point. Sergeant York is about the cold, hard reality that, as Colonel Nathan R. Jessup said in the film A Few Good Men that in order to have the freedoms we do we have to have men guarding the walls that protect it.

There comes a time when you have to defend your freedom with your life, and must be ready to kill when that time comes. We live in a savage world. The notion that somehow we're past all the barbarism and savagery because of our modern age is nonsense. And there are elements out there more than willing to kill us and subjugate what's ours simply because they can if they get the chance. Get away from ideologies or whatnot, in the end when we talk about Freedom what we're talking about is Personal Power, or no Personal Power if some people have their way.

Freedom, Personal Power, requires Responsibility; without it the power you possess can and will corrupt you. When Alvin was getting drunk and shooting up trees, he was being irresponsible with the Freedom he has. Had he decided to do something to the man that reneged on selling him that bottom land, he would likely be facing a death sentence. Sure, you can spend your Freedom drinking, whoring, gambling, and whatever else that suits you, but in the end what does that get you, and how does that make the world around you a better place?

Part of our problem in this day and age is that way too many people have abrogated their responsibilities to other people, notably to the government. And when you do that, you lose Freedom because you are no longer Responsible. You no longer have so much of a stake in your own success as you otherwise would because you're not worried if you fail. Someone else is going to take care of you. But, if you knew that nobody was going to take care of you, but yourself, and nobody's going to pick you up when you fail, you're more likely to take precautions of your own. You're also more likely to succeed, and succeed spectacularly.

After all, eventually when you do the high-wire act, you have to remove the safety net. Otherwise, what's the point? Anyone can walk a tightrope knowing there's something down there to catch them if they fall. It's quite another to do it without one, in front of a crowd eager to see you fall.

After Alvin found his Faith, he had a big decision to make. Should he fight to defend his country, with lethal force, knowing it would violate the tenets of his Christian Faith? Personally, I thought that the Render unto Caesar verse was not particularly appropriate in this dilemma, but it worked. In the end, we're Men, and we live in a savage, imperfect world. If our freedoms are to be enjoyed by the next generation of people, it often requires the ultimate sacrifice of one's life, limb, and peace of mind. Fighting, as he said, to save lives was preserving the ultimate Freedom of others. You can't have Freedom without Life.

[–] doug7347 12 years ago

"While we can all agree that the US had absolutely no business whatsoever getting into World War I"

Evidently you've never heard of the Zimmermann telegram, a casus belli if ever there was one. The crazy German government wanted war with the USA, and they got what they wanted.

[–] doug7347 12 years ago

One of the reasons York allowed the film to be made was that he thought that preparedness for war was once again needed.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movies789 8 years ago

"Anti-war" versus "pro-war"... What's the difference, exactly?

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

It was pro-war propaganda of course. Why do you think it came out in 1941? It was still a good movie, about a real hero.