“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.
GRADE = A-
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please fell free to comment. I would love to hear what you think and will respond.