Screenwriting : War — Good or Evil? by Aleksandr Rozhnov

Basically a movie like lord of war, where the benefits of war are basically the same:

Who has weapons, sells them for the best buyer... [and so on]

Ethically, it's always possible to write s tory where a war is potrayed as "good", but I guess that the question is always what about war has been untold yet :)

Lord of war an example for you to see

In Lord of War, war itself is not really shown — what we see is more of what leads up to it. That’s the first point. And secondly, in Lord of War there is the brother, who actually raises the issue that people are being killed because of what they do. Thanks for your attention!

It is a very compelling question. As someone who has never experienced war first hand my heart goes out to you and the ones you love who have been directly impacted - it is heartbreaking to hear the stories.

While this doesn't address the scenario you describe exactly I have been developing an idea called Godcha where it is revealed that a specific perspective was correct all along BUT God has a slight change of heart and gives the opposing perspective one chance to stop the impending war that will summon forth the Rapture. While it is an absurd comedy on most levels there will be some incredibly tender and heartbreaking moments included that demonstrate much of what you are saying. I am currently traveling the world (on month 12) and my perspective has certainly been enhanced and broadened as I think about war, the purposes of war and why it exists.

No, what I mean is this: would you personally be able to write a screenplay that portrays war as something good—something that solves problems—despite all the horrors it brings?

I’m asking whether you would have, let’s say, the courage, or perhaps the ability to set aside all the suffering, pain, and devastation that war causes, and instead describe it from a positive perspective.

Could you write that kind of story?

Here’s my point of view. I personally have sat in bomb shelters. I didn’t die, but many of my acquaintances did in the war. Also… in my youth, I was somewhat connected to the local criminal world. And what I liked about them was that they always talked, they always found common ground and understanding.

So even if I started writing a story about war from the perspective of some leader, trying to show that war is good and solves problems, I would still come to the conclusion that war is ultimately bad. Because it destroys human resources first and foremost, which are essential for a country’s development.

Above all, people need to sit at the table and talk. I believe that it’s always possible to find compromises and live in peace.

Aleksandr Rozhnov As someone who lived through the Syrian war until 2015 and was shot at by snipers twice while returning from the school where I teach my country’s children so they might have a better future, who watched children killed before my eyes and was humiliated by the former Syrian regime, and whose home was on an upper floor with a small opening that looked out at the sky — an opening I crawled out to every night for fear that my head would appear above the wall and I would see rockets and bullets being fired from both sides — I beg you: do not consider helping the generals of war find anything good in war, because there is nothing.

Helping other generals and highlighting someone’s thinking are very different things. I’m not going to help anyone. But, perhaps, to shed light on how a person thinks and why they act that way — that’s probably the task of a screenwriter.

War has no justification other than greed, the lust for victory, and megalomania. There is no place for humanity in it. Believe me, I have lived it to the fullest. I had to carry my little daughter on my neck, clinging to my head, while carrying two bags, as I crossed the Turkish border with my feet submerged in mud up to mid-shin, under heavy rain pouring like waterfalls over our heads — while I watched my wife do the same with our second child.

There is no humanity in this. Nothing justifies them, nothing praises them, and nothing shows that they were right in any way. They are killers, nothing more, nothing less — killers, killers, killers.

Tell me, are you reading my posts? I’m not approaching war from the perspective of ordinary people who suffer from it. I understand that you have suffered. I am specifically speaking from the perspective of leaders. For them, your life means nothing. They are solving their own issues.

I’m curious to hear what issues they are actually addressing. We can only guess from the media. But it seems to me that the behind-the-scenes game is much bigger than what is shown to us. I would like to understand why they do it, without tying it to ordinary people.

I’m asking screenwriters: could you justify such actions? Would you have the courage—or the hypocrisy—to portray these actions as justified, or not?

The value of a screenwriter lies in the ability to highlight themes and perspectives that others cannot. That’s when a screenwriter becomes worth their weight in gold.

Do you know why I’m asking this as well? To write a good screenplay, you have to love both your protagonist and your antagonist. If you don’t love someone, you’ll make them flat, giving them only extreme good or bad traits.

So, if you’re going to write a film about war from the perspective of a leader, you’ll have to love the character who started the war, who caused countless deaths, destruction, and suffering. And as a screenwriter, you will need to find a way to love them.

ALEK:

Peace is an abnormal condition, sad to say. "Peace is a time for gathering one's forces."

RE: ART OF WAR.

Leaders do it because they see themselves as demigods.

RE: CHE

“What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims.”

“A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!”

And many people wear Che T shirts and worship him.

Chimps are close to us, genetically. One scientist says:

Chimps are patriarchal, forming all-male coalitions that patrol their territory; they react violently when they happen upon an outsider or neighboring clan. “Chimpanzee intergroup encounters are not possible,” Mouginot explains. “They will kill each other.”

Leaders exploit the fear of "the other" to manipulate their followers.

You’re right about the chimps — their violence is driven by instinct: defending territory, food, mates. Humans have intellect. Because of that intellect we choose to start wars.

But that’s not the point I’m asking. The real question is this:

Could you, as a screenwriter, love — and even justify on screen — a tyrant who united people through fear, force, and propaganda, then sent them off to war?

Could you portray him as believing he acts for a higher purpose, or convinced he’s solving some vital problem, and still write him with empathy and complexity rather than making him a one-dimensional monster?

In other words: would you be able to find the humanity (or the conviction) in a leader who causes so much death and suffering — love him enough to make him a believable, three-dimensional character — without endorsing the destruction he causes?

Charlie Wilson's War (2007) has an interesting take on war and politics. In 1980, Congressman Charlie Wilson, an East Texas Democrat, is more interested in partying than legislating, frequently throwing huge galas and staffing his congressional office with attractive young women..

I might be able to write a screenplay that portrays war as something good—something that solves problems—despite all the horrors it brings if it's like a Sci-Fi Action movie where people fight aliens or monsters to save the planet or something, Aleksandr Rozhnov.

Stalin:

He doted on his daughter. He called her his secretary, and he allowed her to order him around, signed his letters to her ‘little Papa’ and smothered her with kisses.

You could humanize such a leader.

Or in DUNE. The anger and love of Paul.

I wouldn’t focus on family relationships—specifically, I wouldn’t take relationships within the family. You know, Putin also has sons, and they are surrounded by such care, privileges, and opportunities that we can’t even imagine. I mean, outside the family.

THE GODFATHER. Alek. There you go.

The Godfather agrees with this to some extent. Of course, it’s not war, but yes, the criminal figure is shown from a human perspective. And, in fact, Puzo intended to show criminal America from a different angle—and he did it very well. I agree: the criminal father, in a way, reflects exactly what I was asking about.

Ok. Sorry it took me so long to get something half right.

You've read the books that were the foundation of the movies? It's based on real people. We all know who the singer is in real life.

I agree with you, and through The Sopranos one can study characters very well, because they are truly multifaceted. But there’s also a point here. You see, Puzo—and if we take the film, then together with Coppola—made the mafia appear more human precisely through family. We are shown the Sopranos’ family.

But if we leave family aside, is it possible to portray a tyrant as human—without relying on family ties?

An example could be the film Gladiator, specifically the character of Marcus Aurelius. He was a conqueror, meaning he waged wars, but his attitude toward Maximus and his army brings us closer to him and makes him appear as a rather just and heartfelt emperor of the Roman Empire, even though he expanded its borders. This shows how even those who wage wars can be portrayed in a deeply human way.

For some, war = profits. For others, like Putin, it is a chance to bring back the old Soviet Union. To him, the glory of that is worth more than the cost of lives lost. I would argue that WW2 was as close as you can get to a good war. It had to be fought to save the west.

I don’t think at all that Putin wants to bring back the Soviet Union, because if he really wanted to do that, I believe he would have started with Russia itself—abolishing private property, introducing a planned economy, and so on. What he actually wants is to strengthen his spheres of influence. And that is exactly what he is doing.

Jay Gladwell 100% true

Why can’t we discuss these alternatives here? On the contrary — I believe screenwriters should be discussing them.

We can imagine and write films that explore non‑violent solutions: diplomatic architectures, grassroots truth‑and‑reconciliation processes, creative economic and political compromises, or even speculative tech and cultural interventions that defuse conflicts before they explode. Make it a drama, a thriller, or even science fiction — the genre doesn’t matter. What matters is seeding the idea that war isn’t the only or inevitable option.

Yes, one film won’t stop every war. But cinema has moved minds and hearts before; films can introduce concepts, normalize alternatives, and inspire people to ask different questions. So we should be writing and making films that propose and dramatize alternatives to war — not as naïve wish‑fulfillment, but as plausible, hard‑earned strategies that might save millions of lives.

Subtitle editor: A. Semkin

Perhaps, my friend, because I’ve lived through war in its ugliest form, I’m biased toward never mentioning its warlords — not as humans, nor even as living beings. To me, they are like stones, devoid of emotion; tyrants, talking statues; robots programmed to kill or to make decisions that lead to killing.

That’s why I prefer to write about a child with cancer whose doctor tries to draw a smile on his face before telling him that he’s going to die.

If you're a combatant then "bad" or "good" are not considerations. The only thing that matters is your personal survival. And there's nothing...absolutely nothing....you won't do to achieve that. The amount of death and damage you're willing to inflict has no limits. You are not killing human beings, you're killing those "things" that will kill your first, given the opportunity.

I personally couldn’t, mainly because I can’t relate. Mind you, I never saw war myself (my parents say I was born at the tail end of the Iran-Iraq war, when there was a smaller battle in my hometown), so that also insulates me. I can understand that war is always gonna be a part of human history and even human nature since we didn’t get this far by being nice to everything and world peace is probably never gonna happen until we’re all gone. That being said I still couldn’t put myself in the shoes of a world leader pushing for war because it would necessitate a lot of mental gymnastics on my end just like I imagine it would in a real politician’s to justify it.

Aleksandr Rozhnov History is told by those whom have won battles. It doesn't make them right. For me it's hard to see any positive from war. There will ALWAYS be loss. There will always be a suppression of humanity and values. It's the aggressive nature of our species.

One could do a story from a "top-down" perspective from those who start wars and reap the benefits from them, but it would be a distant, cold, and psychotic story if told bluntly. People used as pawns, looked on a chart as nothing but increasing and decreasing stats, for one's own political gain; it's not something we've seen a lot of and, I think, for a reason. No that there isn't something meritorious in the material, the show "Succession" deals in a similar trade, but the trick is how to make it palatable. I think of something like "Death of Stalin" where it dealt with that subject around the borders of the idea but had to be comical to make it palatable. The idea interests me, but how does a story about war told from those at the top, and disregarding the lives underneath, reach the audience? The only benefit I would explore with such a script is to make it incendiary as possible: a story that could rouse the public from its dispassion and start a revolution in the streets to depose people depicted in the story. I don't believe there is a way to make such a topic "empathetic," I think the only purpose of a story like this is to instill a call to action.

For a purely intellectual examination from all theoretical points of view, the sci-fi genre

has been a traditional arena to use, moving the conflict away from humans/today and helping to

clarify the various points of view.

However, in terms of the everyman caught up im war, either as civilian or military, the point of entry is usually humanistic and therefore presenting violence as a problem rather than a solution,

other than to greed.

JAY GLADWELL....I didn't invent war. I didn't create the ground rules and I didn't create your so-called "dangerous thinking". It was in existence when my boots hit the ground, The NVA were clever and ruthless. They killed thousands of civilians in Hue, buried them in mass graves. What should have been my proper response in the face of such an enemy when they came for me and my comrades? You don't know because you weren't there. It's like Lincoln said....better to be silent and let everyone speculate on whether or not you're a fool and not open your mouth and erase all doubt.

Yes, Aleksandr Rozhnov interesting question. My project, Arubix, actually takes this angle, creating a place for war fought on an artificial island with its own regulations and rules, instead of traditional war on people’s home soil.

Most WWII films carry the subtext that war is noble and brings out the best in its fighters. Most Vietnam War films carry the subtext that war kills only civilians and no bad guy was ever killed in a war, ever.

Friends, thank you all so much for your comments. They are truly very interesting, and your opinions are really valuable. It’s fascinating to see how screenwriters think about this subject.

As for me, I think I could write such a story from the perspective of a leader. But, first of all, I would still come to the conclusion that if there is any possibility to avoid war, I would choose to avoid it. Dialogue is necessary. And secondly, to evoke empathy, perhaps it could even be done in the style of The Mechanic or other Jason Statham films, where the leader is portrayed as a professional who knows how to wage war — even using Chinese art of war strategies and other tricks. People would simply find it engaging to watch how such a character manages to get out of the most difficult situations.

Thank you again for your comments. They were genuinely very interesting.

And, friends, I wish all of you to live in peace, prosperity, and understanding, and never know what war truly is.

A movie that praises war? 1997's Starship Troopers that's a satire on the novel that with a straightface praises militarism from an American 1950s perspective.

The game Helldivers is similar.

The movie Alexander from 2004 also shows war as a heroic adventure in large part. It would be harder to make a biopic like that about other mass conquering leaders but...

As far as humanizing infamous leaders goes, read RHS Stolfi's book Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny" that doesn't look at him as political leader with wild ambitions, as most books on him have done, but as "hero of his own story" as most leaders -- even tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot and others -- saw themselves as. They were committed to their cause and would explain everything done away as something akin to "Manifest Destiny."

And I'd say, war is bad, yes, but it's allure remains that it's high risk, high reward. Humans are like those chimps mentioned here, but a lot more ambitious and can think broad strategy. Most use that for business and economics, but there are still those who'd line up the troops and go for a march across a nearby border.