Call of Duty, New Historicism, and Semiotics

Many of the most well-known video games that have been released in the past

two decades are about war, and the Call of Duty series has put a stake in the genre.

Many boys and young men either have or know someone that has played any of the

games in the Call of Duty series, with games like World at War, Black Ops 1 or Modern

Warfare 2 having a special place in their hearts as a classic favorite. World at War is

based around World War II, and by analyzing it through the lenses of new historicism

and the concept of connotations from semiotics, it is seen that the game stays true to

the atrocities and the ghastly and ever-disastrous events that occurred during the

Second World War. It is a reminder to the newer generations of the world that war is no

joke, and that instead of harboring hate for each other, we should strive for peace.

World at War takes place during World War II, and has different story arcs taking

place on the European front and as well as the Pacific front. Players take on the

characters of soldiers from the U.S Army, fighting against the Japanese on pacific

islands, and soldiers from the Russian Army, fighting against Nazi Germany in their

motherland.

Analyzing the events that take place with new historicism, it is seen that the

game’s writers took real events and put characters they created into them. New

historicists argue that stories such as ones about WWII are “made up and constantly

redrawn by artists, audiences, and readers” which makes it hard to find reliable

interpretations of the past (Granillo). However, by looking at a history textbook and

comparing it to the game, many events such as the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of
Okinawa do take place and the results of those conflicts are the same in both instances.

So, the game’s creators have done their research and respected the events and the

people who fought in them all those years ago.

World at War is also a game that doesn’t beat around the bush when it comes to

displaying violence, and by analyzing that through Roland Barthes’ theory on semiotics,

we see that war is absolutely horrifying. Roland Barthes argued that things such as

colors and items have “connotations, or implied meanings” (Granillo). Almost every

single story mission in the game has dark tones and colors in the land, the sky,

vehicles, uniforms, you name it. The connotations behind such dark tones and colors

lean towards bone-chilling, frightening, and somber feelings and ideas. This coupled

with the extreme amount of gore in terms of blown up limbs definitely does not create

any notion that these people are happy or glad at all to be fighting such a war. This

display of great turmoil may put ideas in players’ heads that they must do everything

they can to avoid war.

Many games tend to use historical events as a basis to tell a story from. Some

are historically accurate while others, not so much. Some tell stories that send

messages such as how if the story of World at War is analyzed through Barthes’

concept of connotations, and new historicism, there is a clear message: war is terrible. It

is dark and violent, with no room for smiles and sunshine. People of future generations

should move towards peace instead of hate.

300, Gender Theory, and Critical Disability Studies

 Most people have an impulsive reaction to feel bad or pity people who we see

having physical disabilities such as blindness, or having to use crutches or a wheelchair

to get around properly. Society has conditioned people to look down upon disabled

people, to not think very much of them or to have people automatically jump to their aid

to help with whatever the disabled person is doing. However, people with disabilities

aren't helpless little puppies that need assistance with everything, they are capable to

be just as great as non-disabled individuals. In viewing the movie 300 through the

lenses of disability theory and gender theory, we see that even if an individual is

physically abnormal and doesn’t exactly fit the role of a “manly man,” that individual can

still perform great feats.

300 takes place in 480 B.C, with the Persian king Xerxes leading his army of

over 100,000 men to conquer all of Greece. To defend Greece, King Leonidas and his

band of 300 well-trained Spartans fight Xerxes’ army at the pass of Thermopylae. The

movie displays a grand last stand of brave men Spartans going against a far superior

force, ultimately leading up to their courageous deaths.

First, through analyzing the movie through the body facet of disability theory, it is

seen that despite severe physical deformities, the character Ephialtes deals a great

blow to the Spartan army. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson states in an essay that “the

disabled have been imagined as medically abnormal-as the quintessential sick ones”

(Garland-Thomson). Ephialtes originally wanted to fight with the Spartans against the

Persian Army but King Leonidas rejected him on the account that his body is in no

condition to fight due to Ephialtes’ extremely hunched back and lanky appendages.

Leonidas saw Ephialtes as dead weight and sent him away. Ephialtes, angry about this,
then went to Xerxes and informed him of a secret path that would allow his army to flank

the Spartans, allowing for a swift victory. Despite Ephialtes’ physical deformities, he

made up for it with his mind, giving the Persians information key to their success.

Analyzing the movie through a gender studies lens it is seen that even if a man

doesn’t fit the role of an absolutely ripped and good looking soldier, that man has the

ability to contribute just as much, if not more, as their “manly” counterparts. Lois Tyson

argues that for in order for men to perform as society’s accepted belief of what a man is,

that individual must be “rational, strong, protective and decisive” (Tyson 81). Ephialtes is

nowhere near as strong as any of the 300 Spartans, as he is seen lacking the strength

to hold his shield above him. He argues with Leonidas, that he has just as much heart

as the rest of them, which makes up for his lack in strength. Leonidas, seeing Ephialtes

struggling to hold up his shield, looks down upon him and sends him home. This was

the fatal mistake Leonidas made, rejecting Ephialtes led to Xerxes learning about a

flanking route and subsequently had Leonidas’ men obliterated. In wars of the era it is

generally thought that the strongest and well-trained warriors, which mirrors the

traditional gender roles of men, win on the battlefield while the weaklings lose and die.

Instead, we see the weakest of them all contribute massively to the defeat of the

strongest and most well-trained warriors on the planet.

In the end, it is seen that disabled individuals and “unmanly” men should not be

looked down upon or taken lightly, for they have the ability to just as much, if not more,

than non-disabled individuals. The drastically deformed Ephialtes in 300 proved, while

displaying both disability and unmanliness, that he could play a massive part in the war.