@tsarstepan,
A. They can show the attitude of the establishment at the time of the release which can be instructive of what the temper of the time was. Also, you get the "official" reason for fighting the war. Movies like this can be valuable in teaching how propaganda works so future generations are not as easily fooled by governement sanctioned movies.
B. Only for entertainment. I feel we are more sophisticated today and do not fall as easily for the propaganda type films typical of the 1940s. However, if you look at box office receipts of recent realistic war movies (e.g. In the Valley of Elah), the audiences in America are not really open to the unofficial version of what is taking place in Iraq, for instance.
II. A. The people who make the decisions and the potential recruits are not swayed by anti-war movies. Those people would not watch the movie anyway because it does not encourage already held beliefs. A good anti-war movie might have an effect on voters, but not enough to make a difference.
B. I would think the opposite, but to no purpose because not enough people with enough influence would be impacted.
III. A good war film will give an accurate portrayal of what war is like for the soldiers, thus giving potential recruits and their society a realistic portayal of what they are getting into. It can also engender much deserved respect for the men who went through the experience. "Cinematic roller coaster rides" are dangerous because they do the opposite. Rambo II, for instance, started a wave of movies that taught that the government is corrupt in dealing with soldiers and soldiers can be superhuman and do superhuman things. You could make the same case for video games that sanitize killing with no consequences.
