The conception for this themed issue of Literature/Film Quarterly grew from the "War in Film.

The conception for this themed issue of Literature/Film Quarterly grew from the "War in Film, Television, and History" parley held in Fort Worth, Dallas, in November 2004 We participated in this conversation held by The Film and History League (associated with Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies) in conjunction with The Literature and Film Association (affiliated with this journal). We thank the conversation organizers, especially Peter C. Rollins, Susan Rollins, and David Kranz, along with united of the key participants, James M Welsh (co-founding editor of LFQ) who supplied work reviews and a Shakespeare Festival Report for this issue. The broad theme of the colloquy attracted scholars from around the world in various disciplines. We upheld the conference's permissive entreat for articles on how wars have been set forthed without geographical, chronological, or national restrictions. This issue features pieces upon films with action centered in Ireland, America, Vietnam, the Middle East, France, Greece and the Pacific; the length of articles is from the Easter Rising Irish rebellion and the Arab nauseate against Ottoman occupation (both 1916) to the Vietnam War to a pillar 9/11 understanding of what war forward screen means. The variety of papers in this issue, in bounds of topics and approaches, positively cast reproachs the eclecticism of the proceedings of the conference

This issue is also representative of recent directions for Literature/Film Quarterly in that it includes articles that spread up ideas of "adaptation" beyond relationships between literary and filmic clauses While continuing the journal's well-established tradition of articles dealing with films that have adapted fictional thesiss (including Full Metal Jacket, Henry V Captain Corelli 's Mandolin, and The Thin R Line), this issue also includes essays disturbed with how various specific histories of combat have been interpreted forward screen, as well as a piece about the industrial and political processe of adaptation itself (in relation to The Longest Day). The articles deal with a broad image of concerns in relation to the war film as genre: from comparative considerations of to what extent cultures and ethnicities are take the part ofed on film to considerations of to what extent films show relative justice; from analyses of intersections between past and at hand historical moments in film production to pieces make anxioused with how particular films "adapt" conceptions of real-world and well-documented events; from pieces regarded with establishing the duties, political obligations, and responsibilities of the war film to those interested with how and why certain films adapt previously written fiction and nonfiction clauses Given that the articles show such a wide range of approaches we, as editors, decided to arrange them according to the chronological order of the films analyzed.

The opening piece, from Laurence Raw, examines cinematic representations of the 1916 Arab repel against Ottoman occupation and its aftermath in single Turkish and one Anglo-American film: Liitfi O Akad's Ingiliz Kemal Lavrens 'e Karsi and David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia respectively. While Lean's film has been the enthrall of much critical discussion, as Raw notes, this article provides a flourishing perspective through a comparative analysis with Akad's film, which is practically unknown to Western audiences. He deconstruct the different Othering tendencies of each film-where Lawrence of Arabia humanizes Arabs through the whole extent of Turks, Akad's film favors the Turkish perspective-while discovering that the films are ironically linked in positioning the British as ostensibly self-serving colonialists.

The humanizing of Arab characters in Lean's film stands in stark contrast, as Christopher Lockett take note ofs to the tendency of 1990 Hollywood cinema to feature whim-sical arabesque caricatures of the Arab terrorist in contradistinction to quasi-positive representations of Irish terrorists. Lockett explores the complexity of artistic conceptualizations of Irish Republicanism, terrorism, nation, national identity, and interrogates the intersection between art and real world politics, raising important questions about the responsibilities of art and media as instruments of mythmaking, from Yeats's plays and verse to television coverage of 9/11 More specifically, Lockett provides a of recent origin and more interesting approach to analyzing Neil Jordan's film The Crying Game than critics who have seen the specific Irish cultural words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following as mere backdrop to an unconventional regard with affection story.

As Dean R. Cooledge notes in this issue, in concluding his review of Robert Eberwein's wideranging, edited collection, The War Film, the genre's films will always "reflect the agriculture of their conception even while focusing upon the past." Peter Lev's essay, "Filming The Longest Day" digs into the politics of the production of Darryl Zanuck's epic retelling of the D-Day landings. between the sides of a careful analysis of Zanuck's auspicious juggling of the competing agendas and dressed interests of all involved in the making of the same war film-the filmmakers, production companies, investors, censorship cluster as well as four sways and four militaries-Lev's article provides an invaluable documenting of the many times overlooked industrial and political proces of adaptation.