How I Won the War

An Exploration of Satire, Surrealism, and Anti-War Critique in Richard Lester's Iconoclastic War Film

Released in 1967, How I Won the War is a unique and polarising entry in the annals of war cinema. Directed by Richard Lester, the film stars Michael Crawford as the hapless British officer Lieutenant Earnest Goodbody and John Lennon in a notable supporting role as Gripweed. Based on the novel of the same name by Patrick Ryan, How I Won the War eschews traditional war films' conventions, offering a biting satirical take on the absurdities of war, military bureaucracy, and the myths of heroism perpetuated by wartime propaganda.

Unlike conventional war films that often glorify combat or portray it through a lens of honour and sacrifice, How I Won the War employs absurdist humour, surrealist imagery, and fragmented narrative techniques to deconstruct the romanticised narratives of war.

Historical Context and Background

The 1960s and Anti-War Sentiment

To fully grasp the significance of How I Won the War, one must consider the historical context of its release. The 1960s were a period marked by social upheaval, countercultural movements, and growing scepticism towards authority and traditional institutions. In particular, the Vietnam War sparked widespread anti-war sentiment across the Western world, with many questioning the morality and purpose of military intervention. This cultural climate provided fertile ground for a film like How I Won the War, which used satire to challenge prevailing notions about war and the military.

The film’s release in 1967 coincided with a peak in public opposition to the Vietnam War. Protest movements, particularly among the youth, were gaining momentum, and a general disillusionment with established political and military institutions was taking hold. In this environment, How I Won the War was more than just a comedy; it was a cultural commentary, tapping into the era's zeitgeist and providing a cinematic expression of the growing discontent.

Richard Lester's Filmography and Stylistic Approach

Richard Lester is known for his work on A Hard Day's Night (1964) and Help! (1965), established himself as a director with a distinct visual style and a penchant for humour that often bordered on the absurd. His background in television and comedy provided him with the tools to subvert traditional cinematic norms, which is evident in his approach to How I Won the War.

Lester's style is characterised by rapid editing, surrealist imagery, and a non-linear narrative structure, all of which are employed in How I Won the War to disrupt the conventions of the war film genre. The film's fragmented narrative and use of irony deconstruct the traditional hero's journey and instead present war as a chaotic, meaningless endeavour devoid of glory or honour.

Thematic Exploration

The Absurdity of War

At the heart of How I Won the War is a critique of the absurdity of war. Through its comedic and surrealist lens, the film portrays the futility and chaos of military conflict, highlighting war's often arbitrary and senseless nature. The character of Lieutenant Goodbody embodies this theme; he is a bumbling and incompetent officer whose actions are driven more by a blind adherence to military protocol than by any genuine sense of strategy or purpose.

The film employs various comedic techniques to underscore the absurdity of war. Visual gags, slapstick humor, and absurd dialogue highlight the disconnect between the reality of war and the sanitized, heroic narratives often propagated by military propaganda. For instance, the film features scenes in which soldiers engage in ludicrous tasks, such as constructing cricket pitches in the middle of battle or choreographed dances on the front lines. These absurdist elements serve to undermine the traditional glorification of war and expose its inherent contradictions.

Satire of Military Bureaucracy and Leadership

Another prominent theme in How I Won the War is its satire of military bureaucracy and leadership. The film portrays military leaders as out-of-touch and incompetent, more concerned with maintaining appearances and adhering to bureaucratic procedures than effectively leading their troops. Lieutenant Goodbody, for example, is depicted as a clueless and ineffectual leader whose misguided decisions often lead to disastrous consequences for his men.

Through its portrayal of Goodbody and other military leaders, the film critiques the hierarchical nature of military organisations and the often arbitrary and capricious nature of authority. The film suggests that military leaders are not necessarily chosen for their competence or ability but rather for their willingness to conform to the established order and their ability to navigate the labyrinthine bureaucracy of the military hierarchy.

This critique is further emphasised through the film's portrayal of military orders and procedures as nonsensical and counterproductive. In one memorable scene, Goodbody orders his men to build a bridge over a river, only for the bridge to be destroyed by the enemy moments later. The scene is played for laughs, but it also serves as a commentary on the futility of military endeavours and the disconnect between the orders given by those in command and the reality on the ground.

Deconstructing the Myth of Heroism

How I Won the War also deconstructs the myth of heroism often associated with war films. Unlike traditional war films that celebrate the bravery and heroism of soldiers, How I Won the War portrays its characters as flawed, self-serving, and often cowardly. The film’s protagonists are not heroic figures but ordinary men caught in extraordinary circumstances, often more concerned with their survival and personal gain than with any higher ideals or sense of duty.

The film's narrative structure further reinforces this deconstruction of heroism. Rather than following a traditional narrative arc with a clear beginning, middle, and end, How I Won the War employs a fragmented and episodic structure, reflecting the war's chaotic and disjointed nature. The film's lack of a clear resolution or moral message further undermines the notion of war as a noble or heroic endeavour.

Additionally, the film employs metatextual elements to critique the conventions of the war film genre. For instance, the film often breaks the fourth wall, with characters directly addressing the camera and commenting on the absurdity of their situation. This self-referential humour distances the audience from the narrative and encourages them to question the traditional narratives of heroism and glory associated with war films.

Narrative Structure and Character Development

Non-linear and Episodic Narrative

How I Won the War is characterised by its non-linear and episodic narrative structure, which eschews the traditional three-act structure in favour of loosely connected vignettes. This fragmented narrative reflects war's chaotic and disorienting nature, where events often unfold unpredictably and without a clear sense of progression or purpose.

The film begins with a prologue set in the present, with a now-elderly Lieutenant Goodbody recounting his experiences in the war. The narrative then shifts back and forth between the past and the present, with each vignette presenting a different episode from Goodbody's time in the war. This non-linear structure allows the film to explore different facets of its themes, from the absurdity of military orders to the futility of combat, without being constrained by a traditional narrative arc.

The film's episodic nature also underscores war's randomness and unpredictability. Rather than presenting a cohesive narrative with a clear beginning, middle, and end, How I Won the War offers a series of disjointed and often surreal episodes, reflecting war's fragmented and chaotic nature. This structure allows the film to explore a wide range of themes and ideas, from the absurdity of military bureaucracy to the dehumanising effects of combat, without being limited by the constraints of a traditional narrative.

Character Development and Archetypes

The characters in How I Won the War are deliberately broad and archetypal, reflecting the film's satirical approach to the war genre. Lieutenant Goodbody, played by Michael Crawford, is the film's central figure and embodies the incompetent and clueless officer archetype. Goodbody is portrayed as well-meaning but hopelessly naïve, more concerned with following orders and maintaining appearances than effectively leading his men.

Goodbody's character critiques the military establishment and its emphasis on conformity and obedience over competence and critical thinking. Throughout the film, Goodbody's misguided decisions and blind adherence to military protocol often lead to disastrous consequences, highlighting the absurdity of military bureaucracy and the dangers of placing authority in the hands of those who lack the necessary skills and experience.

The film's supporting characters are similarly broad and archetypal, representing different facets of the military experience. For example, John Lennon's character, Gripweed, embodies the archetype of the disillusioned soldier, cynical and world-weary after years of fighting. Gripweed's character serves as a counterpoint to Goodbody's naïveté, providing a more grounded perspective on the realities of war.

Other characters, such as the grizzled veteran Sergeant Transom (played by Lee Montague) and the gung-ho Private Clapper (played by Roy Kinnear), represent different aspects of the soldier archetype, from the battle-hardened veteran to the eager but inexperienced recruit. These characters highlight the diverse range of experiences and perspectives within the military and the inherent contradictions and absurdities of war.

The Role of John Lennon and Countercultural Influence

John Lennon’s role as Gripweed is one of the film's most notable elements, not only because of his fame as a member of The Beatles but also because of the countercultural significance he brought to the film. Lennon’s involvement in How I Won the War came when he became increasingly politically outspoken, and his presence in the film added an extra layer of cultural commentary.

Gripweed is depicted as a cynical, working-class soldier, a stark contrast to the more idealistic and naive Goodbody. Lennon's performance is imbued with a sardonic wit and a sense of disillusionment that reflects the broader anti-establishment sentiments of the 1960s. Through Gripweed, the film channels the countercultural critique of war and authority, presenting a character who is both a product of the military system and a vocal critic of its absurdities.

Lennon's casting also brought a sense of immediacy and relevance to the film, connecting it to the broader cultural movements of the 1960s. His performance, marked by a blend of humour and cynicism, embodies the spirit of the counterculture and serves as a critique of the establishment and its values. By casting Lennon in the role of Gripweed, Lester was able to tap into the zeitgeist of the era and infuse the film with a sense of urgency and relevance.

Cinematic Techniques and Visual Style

Use of Surrealism and Absurdist Imagery

How I Won the War is marked by its use of surrealism and absurdist imagery to convey the chaos and absurdity of war. Lester employs a variety of visual techniques, including jump cuts, non-sequitur imagery, and disorienting camera angles, to create a sense of unease and disorientation. These techniques undermine the traditional realism of war films and present a more fragmented and surreal vision of war.

One of the most striking examples of the film's use of surrealism is its depiction of combat scenes. Rather than presenting realistic portrayals of battle, the film employs a more stylised and abstract approach, using rapid editing, slow-motion sequences, and absurd visual gags to convey the chaos and confusion of combat. These scenes are often accompanied by incongruous music or sound effects, further emphasising the disjunction between the reality of war and the sanitised, heroic narratives often depicted in traditional war films.

The film also employs a variety of visual metaphors and symbols to critique the military establishment and the absurdity of war. For example, the repeated motif of soldiers marching in circles or engaging in pointless tasks serves as a visual metaphor for the futility and absurdity of military endeavours. Similarly, the use of bright, garish colours and exaggerated costumes serves to highlight the artificiality and performative nature of war, suggesting that it is more of a theatrical spectacle than a noble or heroic endeavour.

Breaking the Fourth Wall and Metatextual Commentary

Another key element of How I Won the War's visual style is its frequent breaking of the fourth wall and use of metatextual commentary. Throughout the film, characters often address the camera directly, commenting on the action or reflecting on the absurdity of their situation. This self-referential humour serves to distance the audience from the narrative and encourages them to question the traditional narratives of heroism and glory associated with war films.

By breaking the fourth wall, Lester disrupts the audience's suspension of disbelief and forces them to engage with the film more critically and reflectively. This technique also highlights the film's constructed nature and narrative, reminding the audience that they are watching a work of fiction and encouraging them to question the conventions and assumptions of the war film genre.

The film's use of metatextual commentary is further emphasized through its editing and visual style. Lester employs various techniques, such as freeze-frames, jump cuts, and split screens, to create a sense of fragmentation and disorientation. These techniques undermine the traditional continuity and realism of war films and instead present a more fragmented and disjointed vision of war.

Satirical Use of Music and Sound

Music and sound play a crucial role in the film’s satirical approach. Unlike traditional war films that use orchestral scores to evoke a sense of heroism or drama, **How I Won the War** employs a more eclectic and ironic use of music. The film features a mix of period songs, military marches, and incongruous musical cues that undercut the seriousness of the action on screen and highlight the situation's absurdity.

For example, the film often uses upbeat or jaunty music to accompany scenes of violence or destruction, creating a jarring contrast between the audio and visual elements. This ironic use of music serves to highlight the absurdity of war and the disconnect between the reality of combat and the sanitised narratives often presented in traditional war films. It also reflects the film's broader critique of the romanticisation of war and the ways in which music and other cultural forms are used to manipulate public perception and sentiment.

The film’s sound design also plays a significant role in its satirical approach. The use of exaggerated sound effects, such as comically loud explosions or over-the-top gunfire, serves to highlight the artificiality of war and the performative nature of military conflict. These exaggerated sound effects, combined with the film's use of surrealist imagery and visual gags, create a sense of dissonance and absurdity that underscores the film's critique of the military establishment and the glorification of war.

Reception and Legacy

Contemporary Reception

Upon its release, How I Won the War received mixed reviews from critics and audiences. While some praised the film's bold and unconventional approach to the war genre, others were less enthusiastic, finding its fragmented narrative and absurdist humour off-putting or confusing. The film's satirical tone and experimental style divided audiences, with some appreciating its critique of war and militarism, while others found it lacking in coherence or emotional depth.

Critics were similarly divided in their responses to the film. Some praised Lester's direction and the film's innovative visual style, while others criticised its lack of a clear narrative or character development. The film's use of surrealism and absurdist humour was also a point of contention, with some critics finding it effective in conveying the absurdity of war. In contrast, others felt it detracted from the film's impact.

Despite these mixed reviews, the film found an audience among those who were sympathetic to its anti-war message and its critique of the military establishment. The film's release during the height of the Vietnam War and the countercultural movement resonated with many viewers who were sceptical of authority and disillusioned with the prevailing narratives of heroism and patriotism associated with war.

Legacy and Influence

In the years since its release, How I Won the War has become a cult classic and an important entry in the canon of anti-war cinema. While it may not have achieved the same level of mainstream success or critical acclaim as some of Lester's other works, it has gained a reputation as a bold and innovative film that pushed the boundaries of the war genre and challenged conventional narratives about war and militarism.

The film's influence can be seen in the work of later filmmakers who have explored similar themes of war and absurdity, such as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H (1970) and Mike Nichols's Catch-22 (1970). Both films employ a similar blend of satire, surrealism, and dark humour to critique the military establishment and the absurdity of war, and both were likely influenced by the unconventional style and thematic approach of How I Won the War.

The film also remains relevant in contemporary discussions about war and militarism, particularly in light of ongoing conflicts and the continued use of military force by governments around the world. Its critique of the dehumanising effects of war and the absurdity of military bureaucracy and leadership continues to resonate with audiences. It serves as a reminder of the importance of questioning authority and challenging established narratives about war and heroism.

Final Thoughts

How I Won the War is a bold and unconventional film that uses satire, surrealism, and absurdist humour to critique the military establishment and the romanticised war narratives. Through its fragmented narrative structure, broad archetypal characters, and innovative use of cinematic techniques, the film deconstructs the myths of heroism and glory often associated with war and instead presents a more chaotic, disjointed, and ultimately absurd vision of military conflict.

While the film's unconventional style and satirical tone may have divided audiences and critics upon its release, it has since come to be regarded as an important entry in the canon of anti-war cinema and a significant cultural artefact reflecting the countercultural movements and anti-war sentiment of the 1960s. Its legacy as a bold and innovative film that challenged conventional narratives about war and militarism continues to resonate with contemporary audiences. It serves as a reminder of the importance of questioning authority and challenging established norms.