My I selection is one of the best WWII naval warfare movies. “In Which We Serve” was released in 1942. The movie is dominated by
Noel Coward who stars as Capt. Kinross and also wrote the screenplay,
wrote the score, and directed. In what might be the shortest opening
narration the movie opens with “This is the story of a ship”. The ship
is the HMS Torrin which is sunk during the Battle of Crete fourteen
minutes into the movie. Some of the crew, including Kinross, take refuge
in a lifeboat. The film then settles into a series of flashbacks
relating the stories of Kinross, Ordinary Seaman Blake (John Mills), and
others. The various flashbacks contrast the lower, middle, and upper
class strata on a ship. The scenes of family life are authentic and
emotionally real. One highlight of the film is X-Mas dinners of three of
the crew showing how the classes dealt with the war. It is apparent in
each family gathering that the sailors love their ships more than their
women and the women accept it.
“Warfare” is the
latest feature film from A24. The independent studio is on a hot streak that
has resulted in numerous awards for its films and actors in them. It has won Best
Picture Oscars for “Moonlight” and “Everything Everywhere All at Once”. It’s “Zone
of Interest” won Best International Film last year. Although most noted for
horror and arthouse films, it has made some war movies like “Civil War”. “Warfare”
is its attempt to make a very realistic war movie. It was written and directed
by Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland. The film is personal for Mendoza, who was a
Navy SEAL in Iraq. It is based on an incident involving Mendoza and his platoon
in Ramadi in 2006. He and Garland conducted extensive interviews of the
participants and wrote the screenplay from this research. The movie is dedicated
to Elliott Miller, who lost a leg and his voice in the incident. The actors
were put through a boot camp and it shows.
The movie leads with
a scene where the platoon is geared up for a mission and prepping by watching a
workout tape with hot aerobics chicks. Camaraderie established. And we
recognize them as American young men from the videogame generation. Fade to the
platoon on a night mission in an Iraqi neighborhood. The strict noise
discipline and lack of soundtrack is the first clue that the movie will be
realistic. “I like this house. I think we are gonna take it.” They enter the
house and put the family in a room under guard. They are there to establish an
observation post to monitor possible al Qaeda activity. Although they have no screw-ups
in the squad and they do nothing to give away their position, a grenade is thrown
through a window, wounding Miller (Cosmo Jarvis from “Shogun”). They call for a
medical evacuation, but the house is under assault. When a Bradley fighting
vehicle arrives, an IED ratchets up the FUBAR.
First, let me get my
petty criticism out of the way. This movie has a stupid title. It’s like Mendoza
and Garland sat in a room with the studio suits and they brainstormed a title. “What’s
the movie about?” “Warfare”. “Well, why don’t we call it that?” I assume these
were the same geniuses who entitled “Civil War”, but at least that movie was
dealing with a civil war in America in the future. This movie is about one
small incident in a counter-insurgency. It reminds me of “The Great War” which
is a fictional story of black soldiers in WWI. Grandiose, much?
“Warfare” is the kind
of movie which causes me to assume it is accurate because things happen that a
screenwriter would not put in for entertainment purposes. The movie sets up a
scenario that forebodes the cliches that come with typical war movies. The
house should be an Alamo. The sniper should kill several bad guys. The squad
should be whittled down. There should be dysfunction. The brass back at base
should make bad decisions that cost lives. At least one of the men should be a
screwup and/or a coward. The enemy should be slaughtered. None of those tropes occur.
The movie is not predictable. This might actually be drawback when it comes to
word of mouth because the movie has a very low body count. Don’t get me wrong,
I commend the movie for being the opposite of combat porn. And I appreciate the
military jargon that is not dumbed down for the audience. However, unless you are
familiar with military terminology, you are going to be in the dark as to what
the hell they are talking about. Do you know what MAM means? Does your wife?
The movie cost only $20
million. They saved money on the cast, none of whom is famous. They do a good job
playing soldier. The boot camp worked. They move and act like their characters
did. Unfortunately, in bringing the movie in at only 95 minutes, there was no room
for character development. And the enemy is faceless.
The movie would be
more impactful if the US was still at war in Iraq. It is excellent in portraying
modern urban warfare. This starts with the fact that missions in a hostile environment
often go off script. You can never be sure of when you might end up poking the
bee hive. The public needs to know what our young men and women (of which there
are none in the movie) are faced with. The men are not like the grunts you see
in Vietnam War movies. They were well-trained and professional. They take
notes! Not that the film will increase recruitment because what happens to them
is traumatizing. And this was not an extraordinary mission. But that is one
reason why the movie is good. It is realistic. There are two things that stand
out. The hurry up and wait aspect of war is followed by the insanity of combat.
The other realistic element of war that is depicted is what happens to the
wounded. One of my biggest criticisms of war movies is the incredibly high percentage
of deaths. Movies seldom show wounded men screaming for their mothers. And the wounds
that cause that pain. You’ll be begging for the morphine to take effect.
“Warfare” wears its
microness on its sleeve. It is great in recreating one incident, but it gives
nothing of the big picture. The audience is given no idea what is going on in
Ramadi. It is not even clear what their mission is. It appears to be
a search for a high value target. There is no mission
briefing. There’s no intercutting to headquarters. It is certainly not an
important mission. But most of warfare is routine. The cinematography does not
rely on CGI, but there are some nifty drone shots to give an idea of where the reinforcements
are coming from.
“Warfare” is
definitely worth the view. It may be the best very small unit movie that
accurately depicts modern urban warfare, but it is not in a league with “Black
Hawk Down”. Watch it and admire the effort of Ray Mendoza in bringing to the
screen the story of one day in the life of his unit in an ugly war. How ugly? Try
empathizing with the innocent family whose home was invaded by foreigners who
liked the location.
The G movie that best represents the genre is "Glory" because it is a great example of how a war movie can bring recognition to a military unit that was known by few.
