Vesa Vares about the Finnish war films from the 80ies on

[Anne G,]

Vesa Vares writes about the Finnish war films on in his article "Talvi- ja jatkosota elokuvissa" ("Winter and Continuation Wars movies" in Kohtalon päivät, 2011 p. 235-239).

When The Unknown Soldier directed by Rauni Mollberg was filmed and presented it was mentioned, it was frequently said to be "against the war". Few had blamed Edvin Laine’s version of glorification of war. Speaking of Mollberg version as anti-war, it was underlined, however, that the predecessor had been too patriotic and too tied to the war generation. In the background was a powerful pan-European wave of pacifism in the early 80ies. Mollberg’s film sought to promote the general opposition to war, free from the role of the interpretation of the certain Finnish generations

Together with two other 80's war films Kainuu 39 and Pedon merkki, Mollberg’s film told the quality of the mind, which did not regard meaningful to reflect the war from the perspective of independence. It was a question of the spirit of the times. During the 70ies and 80ies, it was often emphasized, that the wars were the result of policy of Finland, and this development was changed by the Paasikivi-Kekkonen line. Emphasizing the independence perspective would not have had either a meaningful as the message was generally pacifism. Using the term “defensive victory” would have been politically incorrect.

The growing difficulties of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev's policy, and probably also dissatisfaction with the war image in the 1980s led to reaction. The Winter War (1989) appreciated the veterans, and foreign policy considerations did not need to take into account as before.

A new generation seemed bored to listen constantly to Paasikivi line and pacifism just like the previous generation had been tired to listen to the war stories, and home-religion- Fatherland-ideology. Grandchildren and grandparents found each other over the heads of chlldrens’ generation.

In the turn of 80ies and 90ies the new patriotic attitude was born that since then has been the general one. At the same time, communism collapsed. Government leaders began to interpret the wars again in a positive way. This made by three Social Democratic Presidents, Mauno Koivisto, Matti Ahtisaari and Tarja Halonen, and a Social Democratic Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen. Thus, new patriotism did not correlate only with right-wing.

The Winter War was the first film with new patriotic interpretation. While the horrors of war and the victims are described realistically, sometimes even in a naturalistic way, the viewer's general impression is not madness and futility of war, but the valuation of those who endured the hell and saved Finland. This is not said directly but it is obvious to the viewer: a superpower attacks with might and power against a small neighbor and its grassroots defenders. Priests and officers are no longer painted in a negative way, even if there is one "Lammio" because of realism.

In The Winter War and the subsequent films presented in the wars as the Finns have experienced them. Tthe cause and the target of the war is to defend the independence of the. Still, the soldiers are not chauvinists. Instead, they are motivated as they realize that they are guardians of independence.

Kun taivas putoaa (TV-serie), Pikku sisar ja Lupaus describe women who tended wounded soldiers and horses. They include a lot of suffering, because the men characters are wounded or fallen. Still, suffering has no control over movies. Broadly speaking, the hero of the fills is the nation.

Etulinjan edessä and Tali Ihantala 1944have the clearest independence message. It becomes clear to the viewer, how it would have to Finland if the fighting had ended differently. There is no ambiguity about the factual winner of the war - not to mention the moral one. Maintaining independence and remaining unoccupied are presented as decisive victories. The war objectives of Finland in 1941 are left unsaid.

To the he essence of victory belongs the nation's heroism. There are no weak links, and all aim for a common goal. This is proved by one “Lahtinen" who despite his Left-wing views does the same as all else.

The resilience of the Finns are explained by loyalty to one’s group or wider community. In Pikku sisar, the protagonist prevents his beloved to desert by warning of the consequences and by appealing to a sense obligation - not to patriotism or national task.

The proportion of women has increased (Kun taivas putoaa, Pikku sisar, Hylätyt talot, autiot pihat). In the films that describe men there is always one coward or too bossy because of realism. In the films describing women, they are strong and stand all (NB! the heroine’s friend is a weak woman in Kun taivas putoaa). In Kirje isältä, all men are weak and all women have “sisu”.

Russia is the enemy, but the enemy's evilness or “Asianess” is not emphasized. The enemy remains anonymous. Finland defends against the attack of a superpower, but the latter’s motives are not explored. The enemy is like a force of nature, which is not in itself good or bad.

According to Vares, the new Finnish war movies are located in the Eastern European rather than Western European tradition. Western European war films are mostly pacifist. They focus on the war and the folly of vanity. Those themes are well suited to the World War1.

The World WarII is described by the Germans from the anti-fascist attitude. They do not include the traditional heroism, not even saving comrades.

In the Eastern European tradition, the movies still have meaning in creating the national identity. The views are more traditional. Liberation from totalitarianism is still near. Movies do not glorify war. There is the evil totalitarian enemy and the battle is fought with the heavy sacrifices for the right cause. There are clearly good and bad people. These films clearly have a very different task in creating the national identity than their Western equivalents.

[Anne G,]

For some reasons, Vesa Vares has left out the best of the later war film, Rukajärven tie. It show what the war makes to people as the protagonist, believing that his bride, a Lotta, is killed by the Soviets, shoots a POW, a rare scene where a Red Army soldier is reagarded an individual. There is also a memorable scene where the soldiers are on the table like Jesus and his disciples, the protagonist between the "good" and the "bad" man.

Also, I wouldn't regard Hylätyt talot, autiot pihat (Abandoned houses, deserted coutyards) as "new patriotic", as there are a deserter and a rapist etc but no valiant soldiers. The film is based on the novel of Laila Hietamies whose Isthmus serie shows the sufferings of especially children.

[askropp]

In Rukajärven tie, it's not Lieutenant Perkola who shoots the Soviet prisoner but Corporal Lukkari, the character who I would consider to be the "bad" soldier of the platoon. I also looked up the "last supper" scene, and Perkola is sitting between Sergeant Saarinen (the "good" soldier and devout christian) and Private Hämäläinen, a minor character without any significant features.