This article will offer key pointers on how to write a war film.
Modern here refers to the date of the films’ production (the article will focus on war films released in the 21st century), not the era of warfare that they depict.
The greatest advantage of war films, perhaps over any other genre, is inherent drama.
There isn’t anything more dramatic in life than war.
A great war film will channel this drama but also include idiosyncratic elements.
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006), The Hurt Locker (2008), ’71 (2014), Dunkirk (2017), and 1917 (2019), are, in many ways, an eclectic bunch of movies.
On close inspection, however, it becomes clear that these films utilise many of the same tropes and devices, albeit in incredibly different ways.
This article will focus on openings, lead characters, moments of humanity and inhumanity, and set pieces, in these five films. In doing so, it will demonstrate the best ways to write a war film.
These five films start in very different ways. In doing so, they present a number of ‘ways in’ to a war film. The approaches are as follows:
The most immediate way into a war film is to launch us straight into military action.
The advantage of this kind of approach is the stakes—kill or be killed—of war are immediately spelt out. The viewer is immediately exposed to the horror and danger of warfare.
The opening scene of The Hurt Locker exploits the tension of war to devastating effect.
Straight away, we are alerted to the dangers of this job. In this world, life and death are terrifyingly close together.
The only disadvantage to this hard-hitting approach is it might mean your options are more limited later down the line. Generating tension early on is great, but it sets the bar high for what is to come.
Often, screenwriters will show soldiers training at the beginning of a war film. This can be a gripping way of starting a war film.
It is a technique that Gregory Burke chose for the opening of ’71.
This approach ensures that we, as viewers, grow with the soldiers. We have an affinity for them because we have shared in their development.
Further, showing a young soldier train and prepare often means that we will discover warfare with them. They, like us, are novices—unaware of the realities of war.
A disadvantage to this approach is that it has been used almost to the point of cliché. A compelling and modern war film must take this trope and make it new.
Occasionally, a war film will initially develop on character. The opening of 1917 focuses on introducing us to two characters—Private Blake and Private Schofield.
Schofield’s behaviour and speech are particularly revealing.
Immediately, we learn he is homesick—he has people and places back home he misses, making him a sympathetic character.
Dunkirk is an example of a war film that focuses on immediately establishing the narrative.
This is primarily because Christopher Nolan’s narrative is quite unusual—it is non-linear and is made up of three different perspectives that take place over different periods of time:
Nolan’s unique screenplay meant it was essential to quickly establish the different time zones in order to set up the narrative.
Unless the narrative is unusual, however, as with Dunkirk, screenwriters need not worry about establishing the setup too early on. It is more important to focus on snatching the audience’s attention.
Letters from Iwo Jima is a war film that depicts a battle between Japan and US forces during the Second World War.
The opening scene, however, takes place in the present day. An archaeological dig on a beach uncovers an old satchel.
Starting your war film in a different time setting, whether that be years before or after the war took place, can be a profoundly touching way of opening a war film.
While each of these films opens with a different focus, they serve a shared function. Each movie starts by focusing on a theme that it will pursue over the course of the film.
In an exciting war film, the opening should set up what is unique about the film that we are watching.
If the audience doesn’t care about the people involved in the war, then they’re not going to care about the story.
Again, these five films show the range of potential scope when constructing characters for war films.
What they all have in common, however, is characters that we are intrigued to spend time with over two or so hours.
An exhilarating war film will often include a character who is a newcomer to the world of war.
As previously mentioned, the protagonist in ’71, Private Gary Hook, is a new-comer to the war in Northern Ireland.
In one memorable scene, Hook leaves his army bunk, late at night, to smoke a cigarette outside. It is the night before his British troop will first patrol the Belfast streets.
We can sympathise with Hook’s inability to sleep. This one brief scene markedly develops Hook’s character.
The Hurt Locker’s protagonist is fascinating in a completely different way.
Whilst war movies often have characters who are less afraid, or are even crazy, Boal’s depiction of a soldier who feeds off the adrenaline rush of military conflict was a fresh concept.
One way of making a character interesting in a war film is by making them react in an unusual way. James is a great example of this.
He jogs towards bombs in the protective suit—apparently eager to get nearer them. Audiences might not like this character, but they are going to find his unusual behaviour captivating.
Human feelings and emotions are out-of-place in a war zone.
Many soldiers have to suppress their fears and affections in battle. Seeing friends die and killing others is entirely incompatible with ordinary human behaviour.
Modern war films have acknowledged how difficult this can be. Often, a war film will have a sentimental character who isn’t cut out for the horrors of war. This character’s humanity will expose the inhumanity of warfare.
In The Hurt Locker, Specialist Owen Eldridge fills this role.
Major characters in 1917, Schofield, and Letters from Iwo Jima, Saigo, are also sentimental.
Sentimental characters are easy for audiences to side with, because we, like them, are unused to the horrors of war.
Occasionally, a war film is led by an ensemble—meaning it has a number of main characters, rather than just one.
Dunkirk and Letters from Iwo Jima are both ensemble movies—with multiple key characters.
However, it is important to be tentative with this approach.
Dunkirk is successful because although there is no main character, many of the ensemble characters are interesting and well developed in their own right.
Nolan very quickly establishes character without using much dialogue. Although we barely know these characters, we have a sense of who they are, and so care about them.
Writing an ensemble piece is difficult because it is imperative that we care about a whole group of different characters. As a result, each character must be developed thoroughly and efficiently.
It is a difficult strategy, but it can be very rewarding, as in Dunkirk.
A gripping, realistic war film will showcase war’s lack of compassion. In warfare, human beings are crueller and more violent than at any other point in their existence.
Instead, the most poignant, graphic scenes are not so much in the act of violence itself, but in the significance of that act to the story or the characters involved.
As evidence of this, imagine watching a film where a random man’s arm is blown off.
Far less important than the act of violence itself is the character the violence has an effect on. The violence’s anonymity is lost and it becomes a lot more real and meaningful to the audience.
A good war film will personalise the violence. A great example is in Letters from Iwo Jima.
Far more frightening, however, than this anonymous chain of suicide, is the look on Saigo’s face as he watches his comrades explode.
An even more harrowing example is in The Hurt Locker.
We, like James, grow fond of this quick-talking, charismatic kid. So seeing, what we presume to be Beckham, dead, is hugely distressing.
Mark Boal’s writing is particularly memorable because we also see the impact of Beckham’s apparent death on James.
Boal writes (page 84 of the screenplay);
‘James tries to keep his feelings in check… but he can’t. The war has finally reached him… He closes the boy’s eyes. And slams his fists on the table.’
This is the first time in the film that James acts in an emotional way. We see the impact of violence not only on the child, who we cared about, but also on the seemingly unfeeling protagonist.
This is an important lesson to remember when writing a war film.
Write the inhumanity of war, but make sure this inhumanity happens to established, rounded characters.
This is the flipside of the previous section.
Screenwriters depict rare moments of compassion in warfare with poignant emphasis. Including occasional scenes of humanity, among the brutality and chaos, is essential to writing a convincing modern war film.
Moments of empathy humanise the action and so ensure a greater impact on audiences.
Mendes and Wilson-Cairns write a scene in 1917 that epitomises this war film technique.
The screenwriters are obviously trying to emphasise that war happens to human beings. War forces compassionate people to do horrible things.
They juxtapose an act of extreme violence with an act of notable kindness to stress this point.
A more convincing, powerful example is in ’71.
As an audience, we only glimpse the relationship between these two. We have to guess at the connection. What we can clearly see, however, is the affection Hook has for the younger boy.
It humanises Hook—he is not just a soldier. He cares about others.
In making the audience do more work, Burke writes a more realistic, less contrived, scene than Mendes and Wilson-Cairns in 1917.
In war films, more than any other genre, screenwriters have the opportunity to write gripping set pieces. A great war film always includes scenes of real tension.
The reason for this is simple.
Good war screenplays will make the most of the genre and include a set piece where audiences are on edge, fearing for the characters’ lives.
There is nothing more primal than running away from someone who wants to kill you. It is a trope often used in war films. Just watch this clip from 1917:
Schofield is on the run—sprinting away from armed German troops. He is quite literally running for his life.
Now watch how similar this clip is from ’71:
The action is almost entirely the same. The only difference is in setting and the way the action is shot.
The screenwriters have written formulaic scenes. And yet, in both films, these scenes are exciting.
Chase scenes are very visual and very easy to understand; run or die. For this reason, they are often reliably effective moments of tension.
In a good war film, screenwriters will often write an unseen enemy; the characters come under attack from a hidden threat.
Not being able to see the enemy is particularly frightening, because it is impossible to retaliate. The opposition can see, and kill our characters, but the characters cannot attack the opposition.
In The Hurt Locker, in what appears to be a lull in the action, the soldiers suddenly find themselves under the attack of enemy sniper fire.
In Dunkirk, the opposition forces are unseen for the entire film.
Hiding the enemy makes them more terrifying, and less human. Horror films also often use this technique. The moment where we see the monster is always less scary than the build-up.
In Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan also constructs a tense set piece that involves an unseen enemy.
Nolan writes the whole scene from inside the boat. The interior of the boat gets brighter and brighter as shafts of light shine through an increasing number of bullet holes.
Having characters paralysed under gunfire, trapped in a position like sitting ducks, is a great way of building up tension in a war film.
This is another device that war films share with horror movies. Writing a scene where characters are forced to be stealthy or silent is a great way of building tension in a war film.
Once more, the stakes are simple—if they fail to act with stealth, or end up making noise, they die.
A good example is in Letters from Iwo Jima.
‘We will make a run for the Motoyama mountains. There is no cover for two kilometres. It’s every man for himself. See you on the other side. If not on this earth, in the next world.’
Saigo crawls to the other side under heavy gunfire. If he makes too much noise, or moves too abruptly, he will be spotted and killed.
Scenes that require silence or stealth often have a significant impact on audiences. Viewers hold their breath, praying that the characters aren’t spotted.
Many exciting war films combine these different techniques. Dunkirk, for example, includes all three of these methods in set-pieces at various points during the film.
They are formulaic techniques that we have seen many times before, but they are effective at moving audiences.
The final tip for how to write a war film is to consider and elaborate on the basic stakes of your story.
But successful war films include stakes that go beyond the cost of personal human life.
In Dunkirk and Letters from Iwo Jima, troops fight to stay alive, not just for themselves, but for their entire nation.
In 1917 and ’71, Private Schofield and Private Hook face extraordinary odds to stay alive.
The Hurt Locker is about Sergeant James’ battle for survival as he disarms bombs, but it is also about the psychology of soldiers.
Erich Maria Remarque writes, in his novel All Quiet on the Western Front, that World War One destroyed a whole generation of men, including those that ‘escaped the shells’.
Finding out what your story is really about, beyond grenades and gunfire, is the most important step in how to write a war film.
This article was written by Charles Macpherson and edited by IS Staff.
Genre-blending is an exciting way to tell stories. It combines multiple genres to create something…
Dialogue is a cornerstone of storytelling. It brings characters to life. Every word spoken in…
Subtext is pivotal in elevating a story’s dialogue, taking it beyond the mere surface-level conversation.…
Crafting a gripping fight scene is no small feat. It demands action, emotion, and storytelling…
Writing a TV show script requires a strong balance of creativity and structure. A good…
Writing a script treatment is an essential step in the development process of any screenplay…
Download 10 x FREE eBooks
View Comments
A BIG THANK YOU.
Most welcome Vishal!
Absolutely fantastic article! Thank you! I have written the largest scripted TV series on The Third Reich, and will take every word of this into consideration on the rewrites.
Five years of advanced research, has led me to a political story showing the ten steps of genocide, and how they were legally legislated.
I find that producers who don't know history want to change so much that doesn't make sense. The truth is better than fiction, and tells the story that society needs to know to understand the warning signs of genocide, and human rights violations before we rise to the level of another event like the Holocaust.
My story THE EMPIRE: DAS REICH identifies the warning signs, which are prevalent today in so many places in the world. Half truth and "what if" history are very dangerous. (Recently, I have people ask me if Charles Lindberg was president, or if Jewish people became serial killers.) This has also been recently quoted in The Wall Street Journey and The New York Times.
I wish every person who produces or writes history would read this. Well done! Thank you for the time it took you to inform audiences of this genre.
Sincerely,
Corey May
Every war film should be an anti-war film.