Truth too is a word whose use has often led to it being fairly meaningless in discussions.

Was Sergeant York propaganda for not showing more of the ugly nature of war and the psychological damage it could cause?

Why would psychological damage and the ugly nature of war become so important to portray as "truth" as a core theme in the Korean War period but not particularly bothersome in so many of the WWII films???

Did WWII or the start of the Korean War teach us more about the hell of war than WWI did? The best war poetry you can read (in English) is from the British soldiers who fought in WWI. It is hard to even find WWII poetry on the Internet much less of the caliber of WWI poems (I tried for my middle school English class).

Why didn't that view of "war is hell" so strongly felt after the horrors of WWI not stick? Why was it not a primary focus in most WWII films?

I suggest the "righteousness" of WWII for the intellectual community, as well as common folk, is one partial reason (though not all the intellectual community was on board that bandwagon — Robert Lowell (one of my favorite poets) was not).

And I'd suggest (suggest) the reason Korean War films didn't come out fast and furious – and when they did come out – focused on non-gung-hoism could stem from not so "righteous" interpretations about not just the US effort in Korea but in the US in general during the first days of the full blown Cold War….

(I have absolutely zero doubt the primary reasons we have not seen a plenthora of 9/11 movies and anti-terrorism movies and patriotic war movies in the last 6-7 years is that — Hollywood does not believe in the mission or the government or the US as a superpower in the world in general…)

As for "it allows the freedom" — who hinted about not having the freedom to make any kind of movie Hollywood wanted????

I'm talking about choices in what to make – and especially what not to make – and how we might sift for clues as to why such choices were made….

Truth not propaganda is the proper goal of art.

The Soviet Union and North Korea were masters of the propaganda film.

The US is a great country because it allows the freedom to express the truth for all. Indeed, that was precisely what we claimed to be fighting for during the Korean War, was it not?

I believe the ambivalence of America's involvement in Korea is well reflected in most Korean War movies made by Hollywood.

As I'm getting at with the question of Sergeant York, it isn't about strictly "pro-commie" movies or overt or even covert propaganda. It is more about the influence of an environment.

Like in the American media — when the vast majority of the people on staff at a newspaper or TV news org are registered Democrats and lean toward the liberal side, they don't have to work hard/actively at distorting the news, it comes naturally.

And it comes in forms like what stories they chose not to tell as well as how they tell those they do.

Like Korean War movies seeming to focus on the psychological trauma of war or socio-political items from American society instead of gung-ho, patriotism stoking films.

I can think of a number of reasons why Korean War movies don't stand out like those of WWII. I do believe (so far) that at least one of the significant reasons is the lack of support the war had on the left (even before it began, I'd think…)

I came across a Wikipedia category item that lists all the films for each year – at least films that have Wiki entries:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1953_films

I only found 2 Korean War-related movies. I chose 1953 to start, because it was still during the war but also enough time since the war began for them to crank out some big budget films – but that is being a little generous too – because Steel Helmet came out in 1951…and WWII movies came out fast and furious early in the war.

Battle Circus was the only big movie of the two I located for 1953.

I'll have to watch the movie, and Wiki doesn't give much length to the review, but this line stuck out: "set in a story showing the tragedy of war"

It is about a MASH unit.

As noted, Steel Helmet isn't a gung-ho film either. An important part of the film is the moments where it briefly hits on socio-political items in America — like the internment of Japanese citizens in WWII and the on-going racism against blacks.

Keep in mind – however – that in both cases, the wronged individuals – wronged because of their ethnicity – support the US military and war effort….

But, that (and Battle Circus) is not exactly Corregidor (1943), is it?

www(dot)wwii-movies.com/index.php?content=moviedetails&movieid=421

Now, you can easily get carried away reading politics into literary items -I know, I was an English Lit major and half-way to an MA until I got sick to death of it —- but there is some validity to putting items in their context.

Today, as I was thinking about this and what movies to Netflix, I thought of Sergeant York

en(dot)wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_York

A great movie, but then if you think about how it came out in 1941, and in the context of my post – it becomes fairly interesting.

The far left in Hollywood was against getting involved in WWII — after the Soviets and Germany signed the non-aggression pact. (Which broke many progressives from the communist movement — which had gained a good number of supporters because it was strongly against Hitler and Germany – before Stalin decided to cut a treaty)

But, of course, when Hitler invaded Russia, pacifism and isolationism went out the door with the far left in Hollywood and intellectualism.

Then comes along — surprise surprise (????) — Sergeant York — A movie about America's greatest WWI hero — who just happened to be a pacifist – who has a big moment in the movie – near the end – explaining why he decided he just had to kill his fellow man even though he had held out so long with his dedication to what he felt the Christian faith taught about that subject……….

I am doing some digging into the movie, and I found that one of the writers on it " was Howard Koch: (Quote from Red Star Over Hollywood)

"This was two falsehoods in one sentence. In fact, Howard Koch was probably a Party member for some time in the 1930s, and if not, he was clearly a fellow traveler of the Communists and the Soviet Union. Many of his correspondents addressed him as “Comrade Koch,” and his rhetorical jargon—labeling opponents of FDR as “fascist,” for instance—was standard for Party members and fellow travelers."

John Huston was also a writer on the movie. In the book quoted above, it says Huston was a progressive who distanced himself from the dedicated communists in Hollywood the more it became clear how tied their were to Russia and the most clear it became Russia was no democracy.

That was not the case, however, in 1941, not for a lot of people in the progressive movement (and certainly not the communist wing of it).

This is interesting to ponder…..

There is, however, a subgenre of movies which focus on POWs and the issue of collaboration, which was a huge issue in the US during and in the immediate aftermath of the war. Prisoner of War was a rather cheesy look at the issue, but there were other more serious ones, such as "Time Limit" starring Richard Widmark.

It's hard to say that these films were pro-Commie or pro-collaboration. I think they honestly examined the issue from all sides.

Bogart, Brando, Mitchum — all the Hollywood heavies made Korean War movies.

I'm too busy to go into this in detail now, but trust me, there are many, many Hollywood movies about the Korean War. I have a book called "Korean War Filmography" that is nearly 500 pages long.

When I have more time I can offer further thoughts on this… Good luck!