Anti-war films typically argue that war is futile, unjust, a loss for all involved, only serves to benefit few in society (usually an
elite or
ruling class, or the
state), makes people do or support things they normally would not (such as
homicide or
discrimination), is extremely costly both in money and lives, or is otherwise undesirable for those fighting it, the target audience, or everyone in general. To illustrate their point, anti-war films often present the
effects of war—such as destruction, suffering,
war trauma,
casualties,
war crimes, war's impact
on the environment or
on children, or the excesses of war—in a negative manner. Though many anti-war films make this negative depiction explicit and clear for the audience to understand, some are more subtle in delivering their anti-war messaging (such as making the ostensibly good side as brutal as their enemies), or may use
parody and
black comedy to
satirize wars and conflicts. While most anti-war films use real historical or then-ongoing conflicts—commonly
modern wars in recent memory that the intended audience is familiar with or understands, such as
World War I,
World War II, the
Vietnam War, or the
war on terror—as their settings to criticize those wars, their
casus belli, or their effects, others use hypothetical conflicts (e.g.
World War III), fictional wars involving
fictional countries, or even a conflict in a
fictional universe, an
alternate history, or the
far future. Some anti-war films may not depict
front line or
battlefield conflict at all, and instead present anti-war messaging through depictions of the
rear,
military hierarchy,
military operations other than war, military misconduct or corruption, the
military–industrial complex,
refugees and survivors, or the aftermath of wars, ranging from the immediate post-war recovery to the
post-apocalypse. Within this category of anti-war films that choose to de-emphasize the actual battlefield conflicts of war, some films specifically focus on communicating pacifist ideologies by emphasizing war's devastating effects on innocent civilians and the lands in which war is waged. This niche of anti-war films often utilizes visceral imagery that confronts viewers with the tragic realities of war's presence in beloved main characters' lives, such as by depicting main characters' homes being decimated by war bombs, main characters being forced to contend with the uncomfortable, off-putting presence of soldiers in their city, and characters dealing with the emotional toll of witnessing war's violence in their own life or the lives of their loved ones. According to film researcher Lindsay Smith, by forcing viewers to see war through the lens of its devastation on beloved fictional characters, these anti-war films make it accessible for audiences--regardless of their knowledge or experience with war's effects in the real world--to empathize with war's victims since emphasizing the human costs of war can make its violence feel more real and personal. These accusations can be somewhat attributed to the fact that there are definitive examples of modern anti-war films that are specifically motivated by criticisms of American militarism in particular rather than the violence of war as a whole. Miyazaki declared that he expected and intended for ''Howl's Moving Castle'' to fail with American audiences due to its direct critique of America's military actions in Iraq, thus framing the film as seemingly un-American in its anti-war commentary. == Criticism ==