Am I the Only One Uneasy About How “Battlefield 1” Portrays World War I?

Although it falls into a category of video games I play, I did not buy, nor plan to buy, Battlefield 1.  It is set during World War I.  For the young, I am sure WWI is ancient history, like the American Civil War was for me.  But from everything I have seen of Battlefield 1, it takes an over-the-top glamorous view of the war, and perhaps war in general.

I look at the image attached to this post and think what on Earth is going on here???  Is he a wizard?  A superhero?  An elite space marine from the future?  Whatever it is, I am pretty safe in believing it has nothing to do with World War I.

We have only recently lost the living memory of this era.  Still, for me as someone born six decades after The Great War, it still feels too soon to sensationalize.  It wasn’t “cool”.  It was Hell on Earth.  Worse (and at least the game’s promos got this right), WWI was the dawn of modern warfare.  The way wars have been fought, and continue to be fought, have their modern origins in WWI.

I am hardly against war games.  I am a fan of the Halo series and am currently playing Star Wars: Battlefront and Titanfall 2.  But those are all obviously fantasy, set in very distant worlds.  To skew the perception of a major world event still with very real implications to contemporary times distorts the ability to analyze history and current events, especially for the young.

The reality of World War I is captured in more seasoned outlets.  All Quiet on the Western Front should be a must-read for high schoolers (I am assuming it is not anymore).  Beyond WWI, other works are important reads for those of us who were never involved in war but must never forget its implications, like Elie Wiesel’s Night, which chronicled the author’s experiences in Nazi concentration camps.  These types of books capture true war, at least insomuch as it can be captured in words.

Princess Leia Won’t Return, Because She Never Left

Princess Leia lives in many genres, and will continue to do so for many years.

Clark Gable was not Rhett Butler.  Judy Garland was not Dorothy.  Charlton Heston definitely was not Moses, nor was Peter O’Toole a British military officer in the First World War.

Alec Guinness was not Obi-Wan Kenobi.  Peter Cushing was not Grand Moff Tarkin.  Mark Hamill is not Luke Skywalker, nor is Harrison Ford a smuggler from Corellia.  And Carrie Fisher was not Princess Leia.

Fictional characters are eternal in the minds of their creators and fans.  The actors who may perform those characters are finite, as are we all on this world.

I have never been one for idolizing actors, certainly not as role models.  You can appreciate their performances in certain roles.  Those looking to become actors themselves of course are at liberty to study successful careers in that profession.  But the rest of us, the customers of their works, should remain grounded in the understanding that the character is never synonymous with the actor.

Actors sometimes add their own unique contributions to particular roles that may be difficult to replicate.  Obviously, an actor playing a brand new character has the chance to define the character.  Can you imagine anyone other than Harrison Ford portraying Han Solo in the late 1970s?

Characters become iconic, which explains the connection a lot of fans have to the actors that play them.

Carrie Fisher’s recent passing brings up the question of the on-screen fate of her most famous portrayal.  Some may say it is too soon to discuss this, but the topic is difficult to avoid in the context of the latest Star Wars movie Rogue One.  Here we have an extremely contemporary example of what every Star Wars fan is secretly wondering about right now – not the resurrection of Princess Leia but the continuation of the character’s on-screen presence.  Will what was done for the role made famous by Peter Cushing now be done for Carrie Fisher’s?

This discussion would not have happened two decades ago, but is pertinent now due to advances in digital rendering.  If you saw Rogue One then you have seen the most recent and vivid example of returning a character to screen without its original performer.

Grand Moff Tarkin…not Peter Cushing

No millenials on social media are vigorously grieving over Peter Cushing, dead for over twenty years.  Perhaps this makes Tarkin’s return to a Star Wars movie more palatable.  What will be the reaction when Leia Organa returns?  We know from reports that Carrie Fisher finished her filming for Episode VIII, so the next Star Wars movie is a mute point.  But Leia will return post-2017, of this I have no doubt.  The character, after all, it still very much alive in the Star Wars universe.  Disney had to have thought of this possibility when they brought back the original cast, and at least had rough plans for contingency.

Episode IX is tentatively set for 2019, three years from now.  That’s a long time, and a lot of stuff will happen between now and then.  The world will have had moved on from its “grieving” over 2016’s celebrities.  There will be more curiosity than shock in how Leia Organa remains part of the film series.

Princess Leia exists not only in movies, but in books, comics, art, and video games.  One actress defined the role to fans, but so many more creative souls have contributed to the character’s evolution and growth.  Modern technology offers many avenues for sustaining Leia’s film presence, and I look forward to the continuation of the Star Wars story, wherever it may go.

All the Non-Spoiler Spoilers You’ll Ever Need for Star Wars Rogue One

• Prequel Mon Mothma finally gets some lines
• Inside Death Star location cameos from 1977’s Star Wars
• Darth Vadar cameo
• The Force uses blind martial artist to mow down stormtroopers
• Stormtroopers still can’t shoot strait
• AT-ATs fire slowly at Rebels
• New planet for Star Wars Battlefront expansion maps
• Forest Whitaker again, this time in Star Wars
• X-Wings vs. TIE Fighters, again
• Princess Leia’s Corellian Corvette cameo
• Bonus spoiler: R2-D2 cameo