[Saturday, 29 April 2006]
I'm not a military guy. I've never picked up a gun or disassembled a rifle.
But I've read a bit of military history. And I have common sense.
I also see movies. And I often watch movies (set in the past, present, or future) with
battle scenes.
With only a bit of understanding of tactics gleaned from history, and a bit
of common sense, it isn't too hard to see that many movies get battle scenes hopelessly,
horribly wrong.
I can imagine the main response to this essay: "Why are you critiquing the
tactics used in these movies? These are fantasy (or sci-fi) movies, so
what's the point of tactics? Aren't you just nitpicking something completely
irrelevant?"
Maybe. But presumably we're watching these movies because they are somehow
relevant to how we live our lives now. The situations and creatures may be
fantastic, but the story that draws us usually focuses on human nature.
Somehow, the crazy things that happen on the screen are supposed to impact us
personally, and that can only happen if there are enough elements that strike
home to reality.
So I don't ask for perfectly thought-through tactics in fantasy movies. Even
I have better things to do with my time.
But there are times when the tactics employed are so obviously poor that it jeopardizes the plot.
The inanity causes me to suspend disbelief to the point where any message the director was trying to
convey is lost.
A week or so ago, I watched the first film in the to-be-ridiculously-lucrative
Narnia series
.
The film wasn't rated highly by critics (at least, not the critics I trust) when it was released,
so I waited until it was available as a rental.
This isn't a review of the movie. Suffice it to say that I mostly agreed with the critics, but
as a childhood fan of CS Lewis' books, I enjoyed most of it nonetheless.
However, if you've read the book or seen the movie you know there is a battle
scene towards the end. And in the movie, the tactics used on either side were
terrible. So bad that I was inspired to write this essay.
The execution of the battle scene, from a film-making point of view, was okay.
There were lots of kinetic shots of fantastic creatures flying and dodging and
falling at high speeds. From a purely visual perspective, it is clear that
the makers of the film owed a lot to Peter Jackson (see below), since some of
the shots (eagles dropping boulders, charging horseman under fire) were almost
exact copies of scenes in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
But unlike Peter Jackson's films, the tactics here were terrible. First of
all, the plot put King Peter (an adolescent) in charge of Free Narnia's only
army. The other, more experienced general (centaur) was apparently fine with this, did not assist in any
of the planning, did not lead any troops himself, and died in a one-on-fifty
assault.
King Peter had a host of archers, including his sister Queen Susan who was
unable to miss with her bow. (Of course, in another brilliant tactical move,
Queen Susan didn't bother to show up for the battle anyway). Where did he place his archers? Way, way back
of the lines, where they couldn't actually hit the enemy until they engaged
their own troops. Stuck in this useless position, his archers sat out
the battle, watching from the top of a cliff.
King Peter had plenty of heavy and light cavalry (various fantastic beasts
such as centaurs and jaguars) as
well as skirmishers (smaller fantastic beasts like aggressive talking beavers). How did he deploy his
battalions? He lined everyone up randomly, waited until the enemy was approaching (but
still far enough away that his own troops had an exhaustingly long way to
run), then charged all at once.
The enemy, led by the evil White Witch, pretty much did the same. The only
difference is that her army was much larger.
[Random aside: are polar bears really evil? They are in Narnia.]
Chaos ensued, with more Peter Jackson-inspired computer-animated creatures
duking it out in mortal combat.
Once half of his army had been slaughtered, King Peter made the only
intelligent tactical decision of the entire film: he decided to retreat.
He led his army back through a small defile in the cliffs. Suddenly, the evil
Witch's army could not use their overpowering numerical advantage.
King Peter led the Witch's troops deep into the canyon, where they were
vulnerable to flank attacks from higher ground.
"Brilliant!" I thought. "Now King Peter will use the archers he has been
hiding in the cliffs, to decimate the enemy army. He has cleverly staged his
retreat to where he *really* wanted to fight the battle: in a narrow defile
where he has the advantage!"
But no. Instead, King Peter's archers had apparently run away, or were still more
interested in watching than shooting. There were no decimating flank attacks.
Random tactics were again the order of
the day. There were more computer-generated monsters fighting brave duels,
random running back and forth, and King Peter again found that the numerical
superiority of the evil Witch was wearing his side down to defeat.
From that point on, the Witch's army should have won.
Instead, King Peter was saved by random chance (or hopeless plot device):
Aslan showed up with more troops. Now King Peter had the numerical advantage,
as well as a very angry Lion who was also the Son of God. So, after more
random battle scenes, King Peter won the battle, and the war.
Starship Troopers was another movie with amazingly bad tactics.
Like Narnia, this film was based on a book that I enjoyed reading as a
teenager. If you've read
Heinlein's excellent book , you know the premise. The protagonist is
a soldier in the far future. He wears a Power Suit, a combination space
suit/tank/cyborg. In the book, these soldiers are strategic weapons. They
are highly mobile (leaping hundreds of yards or more), highly armored, and
armed to the teeth. When bombing from orbit won't work because of collateral
damage concerns, these troops could be dropped in (from orbit!) to perform deadly and fast
surgical strikes. They were capable of street-to-street fighting, but could
also take out strategic objectives such as bridges, fortresses, and (most
helpfully) underground tunnel complexes inhabited by malicious large bugs.
Unfortunately, Paul Verhoeven's film didn't include Power Suits. [Aside: Paul
Verhoeven delivered "Robocop", one of the top sci-fi/action films of the 80's and
90's. All of his movies since then have sucked. Why is that?]
Instead, Paul Verhoeven's troopers were basically infantrymen from today.
They had very light armor, and slightly better weapons, but nothing
approaching Power Suits.
Okay, so for whatever reason, he couldn't include Power Suits. But he could
have included tactics. If you don't have Power Suits, you need to adjust your
tactics accordingly. But Paul Verhoeven's troopers of the future lacked pretty much
everything, including most weaponry we already have today.
For instance, soldiers in the future apparently won't have tanks, or
artillery, or air support, or air surveillance, or proper ground coordination,
or even common sense.
Typically, battles in the Starship Troopers film consisted of a bunch of
lightly armed and armored troopers running forward randomly, getting the s***
kicked out of them by evil bugs, then running randomly back (still getting the
s*** kicked out of them by evil bugs), and finally dying in large numbers so a
few could escape to shower together.
Ultimately, humanity's collective bacon was saved by men who could read the
minds of bugs. So we have that going for us.
Fortunately, there are several films that get tactics right.
I won't count any movies based on history. There are uncountably
many movies staged in recent or past wars, the vast majority of which (regardless of their
merits as films) portray tactics correctly. Those films are expected to get
it right, since after all, they are following actual battles fought by real
armies of the time who knew how to fight.
But even in the realms of fantasy or science fiction, there are films that get
tactics mostly right. Even though we don't have fantastic creatures, or
weapons of the future, we can ask ourselves: "if we did have creatures/weapons
with those capabilities, how would they be used?"
Peter Jackson's
Lord of the Rings trilogy is one example. From hand-to-hand
combat (like the fight scene in Moria) to large-scale assaults (Helm's Deep),
Peter Jackson somehow managed to stay faithful to basic tactics while still
filming a fantasy epic. The battle for Minas Tirith got a little silly at
points, but mostly because of some of the ridiculously powerful creatures
involved
(fortress elephants or invincible elves) rather than the use of the
creatures in battle.
In sci-fi, I'd point to
Aliens as the gold standard for depiction of future
tactics. [Random aside: fans of the xbox game
Halo will recognize many Aliens-inspired weapons, vehicles, and cut scenes.]
In James Cameron's future, soldiers had weapons similar to today but more
powerful (for instance, no crazy energy beam weapons, just better projectile
weapons). They had excellent communications and sensors. They coordinated
their use of different weapons to maximum effect. They used orbital weapons
or air support as needed, and used troops on the ground only when needed.
Again, James Cameron was telling a sci-fi story, not giving a tactics lesson,
so he had to cut some corners to keep the plot moving. But he managed to keep
it as believable as he could. [Random aside: James Cameron has had many
successful movies since Aliens, including the top-grossing film of all time.
Is proper portrayal of tactics in films a good barometer of a director's
abilities?]
Sure, this is a silly essay. These movies are supposed to be pure fantasy,
why should anyone care if the tactics make sense or not?
But presumably people are making movies because they think we can relate to
them, even though we live in the real world. Especially in sci-fi or fantasy movies,
the directors and screenwriters go through a lot of trouble to immerse the
audience in their characters and story. We are supposed to empathize with
the protagonists, even if they are fantastic.
Poor tactics ruin this immersion. They can be as jarring as
if one of the characters had looked out the screen and said "hey, this is
just a movie, don't take it seriously."
If you as a director or screenwriter want the audience to empathize with one
of your characters, don't have them act like a complete moron! That's as true
of battle scenes as it is of anything else.
