This ingeniously weaved story follows Matthew Harris (Paul McGann) , a hospital orderly who knows considerably more medical knowledge than some of the new interns. Matthew admires one doctor in particular, the young and successful Simon Hennessey. One night after a trip to the swimming baths Matthew comes out to discover a terrible crash, as he rushes out to aid the passengers of this car accident he realises that the driver of the car was the object of his admiration Simon Hennessey, and for him time has just run out. As an orderly Matthew is charged with clearing out Simon's room, the doctor opting to reside on hospital property. While cleaning out his things, Matthew discovers a letter offering Simon an interview for a position in a distant hospital, foolishly Matthew responds to the letter saying that he will turn up for the interview, and then posing as the deceased doctor. Much to Matthew's amazement he interviews well and secures the post, maybe his intention was just to test his knowledge, but bored with his own life it seems that the opportunity to fill the shoes of Simon Hennessey is too much of a temptation to pass Matthew by. A little common sense in the medical world is one thing, but with minimum real practical knowledge, a unqualified person is surely a dangerous thing to have around?

Paper Mask works really well because it's a very British thriller, rather than being straight up on the tense aspects of a thriller it blends a combination of chills and humour seamlessly together, the humour is not overstated its just subtle. What the movie does do is raise a really worrying question? And that is could someone really get away with this even temporarily. To be honest, the results are rather frightening, you see Matthew discarding everything that would identify him to his true identity, then assuming the role of Simon Hennessey, its delivery is fairly detailed and you realise that this is something that really could happen.

In full cover as Hennessey you see Matthew go on shift for the first time, literally learning how to be a doctor on the spot. Packed with his charm, and his proven ability to act as a chameleon however he is not on his own for long, making a friend and eventual lover of Nurse Christine Taylor (Amanda Donohoe) who also believes Matthew is Hennessey assuming his weaknesses and lapses in knowledge are simply down to being fresh into the job and a little wet behind the ears.

Of course the movie goes out to prove that despite ease of assuming a false identity it's not such an easy job to keep up such a task, and soon a mistake on dosage finds that the new Hennessey has caused the death of his first patient. It's at this point that things get far more serious, not only does Matthew have to keep up his cover, but preserve his identity too, hospitals under the NHS are all closely linked and it's not long before people from the past begin to turn up.

Paper Mask tells a great deal of story in its 100 minute running time, there are several transformations in the plot, and enough small issues to keep Matthew on his toes, as well as the viewer wondering as to what is going to happen next. There are times near the end that the movie goes darker than you ever expected from looking at the movie from its offset.

There are some sterling performances from the cast, while both McGann and Donohoe act to the best of their abilities; Tom Wilkinson (who has since carved a career in Hollywood) adds some extra spice to the mix as the rather augmentative and rightfully distrusting Dr. Thorn. Familiar 60's actress Barbara Leigh Hunt best known as one of the victims in Hitchcock's Frenzy plays the delightful wife of Dr. Mumford played by Frederick Treves, an actor best known for his dithering elderly roles, who delivers a similar performance here.

Paper Mask has a really earthy realistic feel, the performances in the movie are all very natural particularly by both Donohoe and Mcgann, Donohoe I often find to be a little hit and miss in her performances just shines here.

The sad fact of Paper Mask, is that despite being one of Channel Four's best movies, it's one of the most forgotten, while 99% of the movies by Film Four (the brand name given to Channel Fours movies) are all available to buy, Paper Mask has been unavailable since 1991 on any format, as a result is seldom seen on television and usually old found in the form of old videotapes on the likes of Ebay. Also worth a mention is that of all Film Four's movies, Paper Mask does seem the most dated, for a movie made just 18 years ago (at the time of writing), the movie looks like a product of the earlier 80's, its colours washed out, its fashions dated. But this only strengthens the wonder of this little seen movie, and if you get the chance to see it, it's something I'd suggest you looked at.

A simple fact which is shown over and over is that when it comes to Hollywood only the good guys win and, since we; the audience buy into most of what we see showing on screen, those good guys end up being Americans. People within the industry almost never let the facts of history get in the way of a box-office blockbuster. They really do not discuss this simply because it is not what the majority of filmmakers do. We all see the movies and look at the American soldiers doing what is ‘moral’ and ‘right’ even when they do evil, they always end up doing something that creates absolution. Not to say that many films do not address the fairy tale ideas in the films, but such films are almost never readily accepted with the viewers. They still look for their heroes and our villains. And the Hollywood studios continue to win everything alone. Remember Steven Spielberg's D-Day spectacular Saving Private Ryan? Someone; namely the screenwriters simply forgot that 72,000 British and Canadian troops were also involved in that victory.

What the films show are stories that attract the viewers and show them some of the things that happen, but end up with a story with a lovely fairy tale ending. Audiences never see war as something as acceptable facts such as; accepting the fact that people are going to send their sons and daughters to die. No way, the majority of filmmakers never let the absurdities of history get in the way of a box-office blockbuster.

In the majority of major motion pictures, the heroes that are seen are more than other times, larger than life characters and follow a fixed formula most times. Tom Pollard spoke of this formula in his piece “The Hollywood War Machine,” where he describes the heroes as:

1. A group of professionals with a life and death mission.
2. Comprised of different personality types essential to success.
3. Are cool, stoic and yet exhibit courage and a sense of morality.

With the likes of a formula such as this, there is no such thing as a true war story.

As O’Brien said in his article, How to tell a true war story, he mentions the facts, “In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical. It is a question of credibility. Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn’t, because the normal stuff isn’t necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness. In other cases you can’t even tell a true war story. Sometimes it’s just beyond telling.”

With O’Brien showing you that the truth is something which is not depicted and Pollard giving a formula, one can easily see that there is not such thing as a true war story, there is only the story that a scriptwriter and a filmmaker decides to show us.

In O’Brien’s article “The Things They Carried” he mentions about war. “War is hell, but that’s not the half of it, because war is also mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead.” That is a summation of what war is and what it can be based on binary oppositions. Of the many people who try to create a true war story, none ever got it right. Many came close just not right.

One of the closest depictions of the human element in a true war film would happen to be ‘The Thin Red Line.’ This film does not possess a clear beginning, middle or end and the progression is a fairly loose one. The story revolves on the characters and their voice over showing what is happening to each one as the story goes. We only see some soldiers in conversation about the brutality of war and while others stroll aimlessly trying to sort out their emotions. Quite contrary to most of the war films made and in specific about WW2, The Thin red Line doesn’t hold back to show human suffering and death from what it really is. The direct combat with the enemy combined with obstacles and moments of success have always been the indispensable elements of a combat film. Moreover, it is also very common to see American soldiers burning down villages, collecting ‘war souvenirs’, like the teeth of the Japanese soldiers or carrying photos of their wives or loved ones and even playing cards in their free time.

The Thin Red Line is about the Guadalcanal battle in the Pacific Ocean during the Second World War, but there is absolutely no attempt to create neither a historical account of this war nor a precise and accurate depiction of the past events. The film is concerned with War or just war as a universal phenomenon. As a result, there is no reference to the historical context or to the historical interests at stake and in this sense World War II merely stands for an archetype of War. The issues of race, nationality, ideology and strategy are purposefully de-emphasized, in order to explore the roots of such conflict in a more abstract level.

A lot of World War II combat films portrayed the hardships and the ugliness of warfare, but the war per se was never questioned. The soldiers had faith in the war and platitudes about protecting freedom or saving democracy were often used to explain the American involvement. On the other hand, the soldiers in the Thin Red Line are presented as pawns of the army that are easily consumable and replaceable. Contrary to most World War II Combat films, there are no moments of glory and triumph nor there is any pride in the military service.

There is also a matter of identity in this film. “Despite the superficial use of some clichés, such as calling them “the Japs”, or showing the mutilated bodies of the American soldiers as sign of their violent nature, the film does not really distinguish the American soldiers from their opponents. They are all victims of the war and their sufferings are equally unjustified. When a group of Japanese is captured, the close-ups on their faces reveal the fear, the panic and the pain that any human being would experience.” (The Thin Red Line and the World War II Hollywood Tradition by Eleftheria Thanouli,)

World War II films painted a portrait of victory and competence, of American true grit overpowering storm trooper discipline and samurai fanaticism. Vietnam erased that image. The disrepute of the thousand-day war transformed military action into a code phrase for legalized atrocities and made the soldier the butt of comedy, condescension and contempt. The increasing number of films about the past are no longer historical; they are images, simulacra, and pastiches of the past. They are effectively a way of satisfying a craving for historicity, using a product that substitutes for and blocks it. Yet for all the cinematic qualities, and the power of the film, who is to say if it is a real war story?

One of the best war films ever made would have to be Platoon by Director Oliver Stone which was based on his experiences in Vietnam. This is probably the closest anyone would come to making a true war film or story since there are no morals, no villains, no good or evil, just man as the summation and decision maker of what happens.

There are no defined battle lines and the combat scenes lead you to believe that the enemy is everywhere. The line between good and evil is blurred and often times non-existent in this film. Two of the characters of the film; Sergeant Elias is portrayed as a caring, intelligent leader who escapes reality through the use of drugs. His nemesis, Sergeant Barnes, is portrayed as an efficient fighting machine who will stop at nothing to get the job done. You soon realize that he, too, is just doing everything to ensure his own survival. This in itself shows you that besides a what going on against an enemy, there is also another war going on between different groups and who is to say who the real enemy is. Throughout the film you get the idea that there is a belief among the troops that if you're going to get killed in Vietnam, it's better that you get killed early in your tour. That way you don't suffer so much. Because of the lack of suffering, a newly arrived soldier's life isn't worth as much as the people who are "short".

Some may say that the character development in the story is weak and there is no plot. Simply put, this adds to the story and makes it different from others which glorify war and have heroes fighting the good fight. There are no real heroes in this movie and no real villains. There is just a group of frightened men fighting for survival in their own ways and counting the days until they can leave the country. And Platoon is a film which happens to show that.

Another wonderful war movie is Apocalypse Now and this was done showing the blurred lines between what is right, good and what is expected of soldiers. It is another example of as close as a person can come to a real war story.

The movie opens with Willard stuck in a hotel room in Saigon, waiting and wishing for a mission. As he narrates the film, he says, "and for my sins they gave me one." He is assigned by General Corman a mission in which he is to track down a renegade colonel deep in the jungle and ‘terminate his command’ . The colonel has a sanctuary in Cambodia where he has an army of Montagnard tribesmen who both worship and despise him. Then you view more characters as the story goes one, one of whom is Colonel Kilgore who seems oblivious to war and seems to look at it as just another job. He only agrees to get the boat into the river after he discovers that the water at the mouth of the river is excellent for surfing.

Willard and a boat crew start up the river and from them you can see Willard's mood change the farther they go, he becomes more distant and brooding. He realizes that Kurtz has discovered the madness and futility of war just like what he, too, is discovering. Besides the end of the film where he exclaims “The Horror. The Horror,” The movie ends with Willard throwing down his machete and then the Montagnard tribesmen throw down their weapons more or less symbolism for the end of war. This is probably one of the best war movies ever made. It shows the absurdity and futility of war and, as Kurtz discovered, what it takes to win a war, yet it elements of true war film but is not a true war story because of the morals, symbolism and definitions of what is good and evil.

The difference between these movies and what can be constructed as a true war story is that there definitions of what can be done in a movie and whereas in a war, there are so definitions. All in all, there can be stories and films which come close to telling a true war story, but there can never be one. O’Brien said it best;

“A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil.”

When one takes into account what a true war story is, it can be understood why it is never made and why people choose the fantasy over the facts. They seek the release and they look at something that would make them feel good and uplifted, not depressed and hopeless. There never was a true war story made in Hollywood and as long as there is a craving for entertainment and fictional stories, the factual ones will never be told.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “Platoon”
2. “Apocalypse Now”
3. “Operation Hollywood, Hollywood’s Dirty Little Secret.
4. “The Thin Red Line and the World War II, Hollywood Tradition by Eleftheria Thanouli.
5. ‘The Hollywood war Machine’ by Tom Pollard
6. ‘How to Tell a True war Story’ by Tim O’Brien