In this essay I will address the question “Were the destructive impacts of World War II balanced by more positive effects in world history?”. This question poses some serious moral and ethical issues: is jet propulsion worth 50 million deaths(Hause and Maltby 2005, p.770)? Is it even right to ask such a question? The answers to these questions are dependent upon the context in which they are viewed. From a humanities standpoint, no, the developments were for the most part not worth such destruction. Those that were worth it, such as decolonisation and the end of empire, would have occurred anyway. However, when viewed from an engineering/scientific angle, war does serve a purpose. It gives people a real thing to work towards and it speeds up advancement, probably by a factor of 10. It is quite feasible to say that the technology of today would not have existed for perhaps another 50 years. This essay will take the humanities standpoint.

Let us start with a brief outline of the destructive impacts. The loss of life is the most obvious with various estimates ranging from 50 million to 75 million dead. The Australian War Memorial lists 56,307,334 although this figure is only comprised of Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. The bombings of cities like Dresden, Tokyo, London, Coventry and others led to tremendous loss of civilian life, as well as cultural value and did little, if anything, to military forces. These attacks were nothing more than attempts, often successful, at terrorising the civilian populace. The holocaust of course cannot go unmentioned: a hideous example of what mankind is capable of, an estimated 11 million killed, 6 million of whom were Jews, all in the name of racial purity (Hause and Maltby 2005, p.766).

Now a brief outline of the technological advancements made during or as a result of World War Two. These advancements were made by both the Axis powers and the Allies. Rocketry moved from a spectacle to a billion dollar industry and the back bone of the modern world. Computers stopped being mechanical adding machines with cogs and gears and became huge vacuum tube and capacitor filled rooms and then too, the microchip filled boxes of today. Jet propulsion was propelled from patents and proof of concept prototypes to the standard purveyor of flight. Nuclear fission has gone from pure theory to the basis of weapons of deterrence and an inefficient way to boil water. Radar evolved from massive ineffective detection systems to smaller, highly accurate detection systems that can pick up a plan from kilometres away.

The cultural plundering that went on during World War Two is sometimes overlooked. Artworks such as Caravaggio’s ‘Saint Matthew and the Angel’(Schmidt 1997 p.96), Peter Paul Rubens’ ‘The Death of Adonis’(Sailer 1997, p.90), Lorenzo di Credi’s ‘Madonna and Child with Angels’(Pruszyñski 1997 p.52) and others were stolen, “misplaced” or destroyed. Buildings of religion and learning were destroyed or mistreated, like the State Museum of History in Novgorod, Russia, which was used as a barracks after the German army captured the city (Shvidkoi 1997 p.70).

As was fleetingly mentioned in a previous paragraph, the holocaust is one of, if not the most, disturbing event in human history. It caused the deaths of an estimated 11 million people including, 1,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses, 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war(USHMM), 5,000 homosexuals, 200,000 gypsies and almost 6 million Jewish people, 1.5 million of whom were children(Hause and Maltby 2005, p.766). The death toll could have been higher if not for efforts by the likes of André Trocmé and Marie Benoît who saved 5,000 and 4,000 Jews, by hiding and helping them to escape respectively(Hause and Maltby 2005, p.767). The Allies refused to do so much as bomb the railroad tracks leading to Auschwitz, even though they bombed factories in the vicinity.

Technological advancements were not the only positives to come out of the hideousness of the Second World War; it brought an end to the depression and started the downfall of traditional empires. The United Nations was formed as a result of the League of Nations total inability to prevent World War Two. While the United Nations is largely powerless and ineffective, the programs it runs such as UNICEF(United Nations Children’s Fund) and WHO(World Health Organization) are beneficial and perform valuable tasks that help millions of people around the world.

When I started this essay, it was being written with an answer of ‘Yes the positives do outweigh the negatives’. However, as I went on researching the death toll and such, I found myself feeling ashamed at taking such an view. All the good things to come out of the war, such as ending the depression, the end of empire, the United Nations, and the technology, would have happened anyway. The League of Nations was failing, even before the war started and would have been replaced, if not by the United Nations, then by something similar. The economy would have strengthened, they tend to be go through cycles, and the seeds of independence had been sown and while it might have taken longer, colonial empires would have ended. The technology would have been invented, the war merely gave the scientists working on them something to strive for, and gave them field testing to see what was wrong. All these things would have happened without the Second World War, and they therefore, should not have cost such a hefty price.

BIBLIOGRAPY:

Secondary Sources:
Steven C. Hause and William S. Maltby, ‘Western Civilization: A history of European society’. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2005.

Australian War Memorial website
Homepage: http://www.awm.gov.au/index.asp
Statistics: http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/statistics/ww2.htm

Elizabeth Simpson, ‘The Spoils of War’. Harry N. Abrams inc, New York, 1997.
Contributors referenced:
Jan P. Pruszyñski, ‘Poland: The War Losses, Cultural Heritage, and Cultural Legitimacy p.49-52
Mikhail Shvidkoi, ‘Russian Cultural Losses During World War II’ p.67-71
Gerhard Sailer, ‘Austria’ p.88-91
Werner Schmidt, ‘The Loss of German Artistic Property as a Result of World War II’ p.95-98

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website
Homepage: http://www.ushmm.org/
Articles referenced:
Nazi Persecution of Soviet POWs

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007178

Jehovah’s Witnesses

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005394

I got bored and decided to post my Screen History and Research essay.

Mad Max and Hang ‘Em High: Two different flavours of revenge.

The two films I have chosen for comparison are, ‘Mad Max’ (1979) and ‘Hang ‘Em High’ (1968). ‘Mad Max’ is a film released in Australia in 1979 and internationally in 1980, directed by George Miller and staring Mel Gibson. The plot for ‘Mad Max’ is a nomadic motorcycle gang, as an act of revenge, kills the best friend and wife of hero police officer, pushing him over the edge and causing him to set out to avenge their deaths. ‘Hang ‘Em High’ is a film released in 1968, directed by Ted Post and staring Clint Eastwood. ‘Hang ‘Em High’s plot is a man is hung by nine men for a crime he did not commit; after surviving the hanging he becomes a Federal Marshal and sets out to bring the nine would-be killers to justice.

I will be comparing these two texts as Westerns, more specifically as Revenge Westerns; both films are about a man seeking revenge/justice against a group of people who cause grief or harm when they sought revenge/justice against him. The differences being that Jed Cooper finds himself forced back into law enforcement in order to seek his justice, while Max Rockatansky goes rogue leaving law enforcement and ends up viewing himself as no better than the criminals he kills.

‘Mad Max’ can be considered a Western because it is ‘action on the edge of civilisation and the frontier’(Study notes), although, unlike the traditional Western which is about civilisation replacing the frontier, Mad Max is about the frontier overtaking civilisation. The beginning of the film shows Max as a member of the Main Force Patrol, a police force with limited numbers, indeed only seven or eight officers are seen over the course the film, although we can assume there are more. Toecutter’s gang, on the other hand, has nineteen members that make an appearance during the film, a usual occurrence in Westerns, with the law being outnumbered by the unlawful.

The audience of Mad Max is also the same audience as a Western made in the late 70’s, being aimed at young men, who are able to identify with Max in what he does. The use of anamorphic lenses, a first in Australia, allowed Mad Max to truly capture the scope of the Australian landscape and gave the sense of it practically being a character itself.

While only one of the three indents of a Western, horses, hats and guns, are directly in Mad Max, this being guns, the use of motorcycles as the gangs mode of transport can be viewed as a parallel to horses. Hats are an issue, none of the major characters really wear them, beyond Goose wearing one in a single scene. I believe the motorcycle helmets worn by the gang could once again be an analogy for them, but in a break from style, most don’t wear black ones. Although from personal experience, black helmets can make for an uncomfortable ride.

The domestic setting of Max’s home has an entirely different stylistic feel to the rest of the film, with the music, costume, and issues being more laid back and family like. After the loss of his son and severe injuring of his wife, the mood of the home changes to one of sadness and only serves to remind Max of what he has lost, finally tipping him over the edge of reason and making him set out on revenge. Even after he has completed his revenge the home is not seen again; whether this is because it no longer holds meaning to Max or he feels he is no longer worthy of such a domestic setting is left unanswered. It is, in my opinion, that both reasons make sense, alone and together, because even though he may not have a reason to return, Max may feel unworthy.

There is of course, the non-storyline reason of leaving space open for a sequel, which ended up being ‘Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior’, unfortunately this was met with a sequel ‘Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome’ which was severely marred by its second half.

While the act of describing why ‘Hang ‘Em High ‘is a Western could be considered pointless, it is a requirement, so here it is. ‘Hang ‘Em High’ sees Jed Cooper set out to bring the nine men who lynched him for a crime he didn’t commit, to justice. As he does this, he is domesticated somewhat when he finds love.

The film is in 1.85:1 widescreen, which shows the characters in a stark relationship with the landscape. The mise en scene is what you expect from a Western, men riding horses around the outdoors, either alone or in a group, while wearing hats and shooting at other men wearing hats and riding horses. After riding around, they then return home to a domestic setting taken care of in their absence, by a woman.

Gender:
The character networks of Mad Max rotate around two characters, Max Rockatansky and Toecutter, with the good around Max and the bad around Toecutter. Max’s network consists of his wife Jessie, best friend Jim Goose, infant son Sprog, boss Fifi Macaffee and other minor characters. Toecutter’s network consists of his second in command Bubba Zanetti, Nightrider the gang member who dies at the start of the film, the incompetent Johnny the Boy and various other members of the gang. Now that the members of the networks have been briefly stated, lets start with the relationships.

The Nightrider was a member of Toecutter’s gang whom was killed by Max while in a car chase. During this chase, other members of MFP including Motorcycle Officer Jim Goose, fail to catch the Nightrider and request help from Max. This sets the relationship of Max to the MFP: he is their top pursuit man, and they thusly show him the respect of such a position. This relationship is mirrored later when the gang hold Toecutter in the same light, in their first appearance they only turn off their engines at Toecutter’s say so. The MFP even have to bribe Max with an expensive gift, the iconic V8 Pursuit Special, in order to get him to stay, and it is implied that this is not the first time he has tried to quit, only to be bribed to remain.

These attempts to leave are latter explained after “the Goose is cooked” when Max tells Macaffee that “Any longer out on that road and I’m one of them, you know? A terminal crazy.”. This fear of becoming like the gang, just another suicidal lowlife, is realised at the end of the film, when, instead of returning home Max decides to drive off into the desolate wastelands.

‘Hang ‘Em High’ has a simple character network because almost no time is spent with the lynch mob, so we don’t really see how they relate to each other, beyond Captain Wilson being in charge. This, of course, means that Marshal Jed Cooper is the centre point of ‘Hang ‘Em High’. Judge Fenton needs Jed to arrest criminals for him, so he can bring them to trial and execute them; Jed finds love with Rachel and she finds love and security in him. Captain Wilson wants him dead because of Jed ruining his lynching by being innocent. Miller, the murderer who Jed saves from a lynch party and then fights while trekking through the desert to take him to be hanged, shows how Jed wants justice above all else. He tries to save the two young men who didn’t kill the owner of the cattle they rustled and didn’t help Miller fight him from being hanged, which sadly fails. This does, however, serve to show that Judge Fenton views a hanging as the only true justice.

Thematically Hang ‘Em High is all about justice: how it’s wrong to punish people without a trial, how even with a trial justice is fickle, and most importantly how we must bring justice to the lawless uncivilised frontier. Jed and Rachel’s relationship that blossomed while she was helping him recover from severe gunshot wounds, caused Jed to want to quit being a Marshal and start a simple life with her. This plan is, however, stopped by the manipulative Judge Fenton who forces Jed to stay, in order to save the man who gave the names of the other members of the lynch mob, from a hanging.

Audience:
The difficulty in discussing audience in regards to both films is that while I am in the age and gender group the movies are aimed at, I am part of generation Y, one or two generations later and thusly have very different perspective and viewpoints from the original audience.

‘Mad Max’ featured ultra realistic violence based on the experiences of Writer/Director George Miller while completing his residency as a doctor in a Melbourne emergency room. This, combined with the universally recognizable figure of the lone man out for revenge, made the film highly successful upon international release. The target audience of young men saw Max chase down his enemies and recognized him as the lone figure prevalent in their culture. Americans saw him as a lone gunman of the old west; Japanese as a wandering ronin of feudal Japan; this in a setting with muscle cars, motorcycles and explosions made for a perfect personification of what the average young man wants in a film – violence, explosions, cars and motorcycles.

‘Hang ‘Em High’ seems to be aimed at a more mature youth audience with the plot being a less violent one that follows the formulaic course of a fist-fight, followed by a shootout. This is likely due to the last remnants of the PCA making pointless attempts to protect people from the reality of fiction. The minor storyline of Rachel and Jed is possibly aimed at women, in order to get them to go with their boyfriend to see ‘Hang ‘Em High’ instead of going to one of the surf films of the day.

Industry:
Being an independent Australian film ‘Mad Max’ was allowed quite a lot of leeway when it came to what could happen in terms of violence, while ‘Hang ‘Em High’ was made in Hollywood at the end of the era of the PCA and the start of the MPAA ratings system, which gave it the misfortune of being an old style Western, in a ratings world. The film received an approved rating from the PCA and later an M rating from the MPAA, possibly for the bedroom scenes with the prostitute Jennifer. I say this because traditionally the MPAA has rated sex much higher than violence.

‘Mad Max’ was rated R in Australia and the equivalent rating in other countries due to the violence. New Zealand went so far as to have it banned but it was re-rated as R18. The American distributor, American International Pictures (AIP) decided to dub all the characters with American accents, the only exception to this was the nightclub singer played by Robina Chaffey. The reason behind this could be that AIP felt the Australian accent would make it too difficult for American audiences to understand the Australian actors. I feel that to dub a film because of Australian slang and accents, devalues the idiosyncratic nature of Australianisms that are intrinsically ingrained in Australian culture.

As a pseudo conclusion to this essay, I want to state why I might come across as ‘bashing’ the PCA – it’s because I have been. The PCA and other regulatory codes like the Comic Code Authority are censorship of the worst kind, because they force creative minds into restraints on what they can create. This ends up making them go “Why he could… oh no the code will never let me do that”. While the ratings system has its own issues, it doesn’t start to censor until the product is completed, which, while bad because it’s censorship of art, is easier to work with than having creativity stifled.

I feel ‘Hang ‘Em High’ was hurt by the imposition of the PCA because even when compared to other Westerns made in the late 1960s it feels less violent when viewed 39 years later, and especially when viewed in comparison to ‘Mad Max’. This is one of the issues with my generation watching that era of film; we’ve been spoiled by the hyper violent thoroughfares of directors like Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and John Woo.

The differences of ‘Mad Max’ and ‘Hang ‘Em High’ are somewhat cultural and time based, but what had the biggest effect would be the experiences of the directors. Ted Post got into film making after directing theatre, while George Miller went to a film school in 1971 and met Byron Kennedy. The duo made a short film ‘Violence in the Cinema, part 1’ which won several awards. Ted Post’s film directorial debut was ‘The Peacemaker’ (1956), and he has spent most of his career directing TV shows. ‘Mad Max’ was George Millers first film as director. Kennedy Miller, the production company started by Byron Kennedy and George Miller, went on to produce several acclaimed mini-series and movies. The two worked together until the untimely death of Byron Kennedy in 1983, when a helicopter he was in crashed while location scouting.

A final comparative breakdown:

“““““““Mad Max“““|“““ Hang ‘Em High
Year:“““““`1979““““ |““““` 1968
Director:““George Miller““`|“““` Ted Post
Star:““““Mel Gibson“““|“““Clint Eastwood
Writer:““`George Miller““`|““Leonard Freeman
“““““Byron Kennedy““`|““`Mel Goldberg
““““James McCausland““|
Producer:“Byron Kennedy““|“`Leonard Freeman
“““““““Bill Miller“““|
Run Time:““95 minutes““`|“““114 minutes
Process:“““Todd-AO“““`|““`35 Spherical
Aspect:“““`2.35 : 1““““|“““`1.85 : 1
Budget:“`AU$350,000(est)“|“US$1,800,000(est)
US Gross:“US$8,750,000““|“`US$6,800,000
Int Gross:“US$91,000,000“|““`unknown

Bibliography:

Mad Max IMDB entry

http://imdb.com/title/tt0079501/

Hang ‘Em High IMDB entry

http://imdb.com/title/tt0061747/

Mad Mad budget and gross information

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1980/0MMX1.php

Hang ‘Em High budget and gross information

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1968/0HEMH.php

I hope you enjoyed this essay, and would appreciate comments