“A
War” is a Danish war movie.In Danish it
is titled “Krigen”.It was directed by
Tobias Lindhoum (“April 9th”).It was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy
Awards.It lost to “Son of Saul”, so
there’s no shame there.Some actual
Danish soldiers who served in Afghanistan are in the cast.
The movie opens with a patrol in Helmund province
in Afghanistan.An IED kills a
soldier.His commander, Claus Pedersen
(Pilou Asbaek), can do nothing to save the man as the movie intercuts to him at
headquarters.War can be very
frustrating.And the home front can be
frustrating.The movie covers Claus’
wife Maria (Tuva Novotny) as she raises three young children without her
husband.It ain’t easy.One of them is acting out at school.Back in Afghanistan, Claus decides to lead
every patrol himself.He is a great
leader and empathetic towards his men and the civilians they encounter. Claus tells his men that their mission is give
the civilians a better life.That’s
nice, but the rules constrain him from doing everything possible for the poor
people caught between the NATO forces and the Taliban.He makes a terrible decision regarding a
family asking for refuge and this starts dominoes falling.When he leads a patrol to the family’s
village, he decides to overlook the rules of engagement in order to avoid
casualties like the soldier killed by the IED.The incident results in him being accused of a war crime and sent back
to Denmark for trial.The second half of
the film deals with military justice. His lawyer tells him he will have to lie
and even then the evidence against him is damning.He has to decide between telling a lie and
losing his family or telling the truth and losing his honor.And his men have to decide whether to tell
the truth about the incident or support their commander.
ACTING:
A
ACTION:
N/A
ACCURACY:
N/A
PLOT:
A
REALISM: A+
CINEMATOGRAPHY:
A
SCORE:
not much; electronic; subtle
BEST SCENE:Butcher’s testimony
I
was surprised at how good this movie is.You would not expect a movie about Danish soldiers in Afghanistan to be
one of the best movies about that conflict.Hell, how many Americans even know that Denmark had troops in
Afghanistan?Americans need to broaden
their horizons by watching more foreign war movies.It doesn’t have to be American-made to be
entertaining.There have been movies
that have dealt with war crimes in Iraq or Afghanistan, like “Battle for Haditha” and “The Mark of Cain”.None
are as good as this.The acting is top
notch.This is the fourth time Asbaek
has worked with Lindhoum.As Claus,
Asbaek is perfect as the man torn between his duty to protect his men and the
rules of war.He is also torn between
his job as a soldier and his job as a husband and father.Tuva Novotny turns in a strong performance as
his wife.It could be argued that she is
the stronger of the two. The movie balances the stress of combat with the
stress of raising a family by yourself.The scenes from the home front and the combat zone have a different pace
to them. The cinematography for the soldiers is all hand-held. It has an embed
feel to it, similar to “Restrepo”.
The movie is not a typical small unit film.There is no dysfunction in the unit and Claus
is a bit too perfect, but that probably reflects most Danish officers.Although a Danish film, it could easily pass
for an American movie and it does give Americans an accurate depiction of the
confusing nature of the war in Afghanistan. It leads off with the loss of a
19-year-old on a patrol.You have to
wonder what was the purpose of the patrol. It is in daytime, so there is no
chance they will run into the Taliban. If it is to reassure the villagers, they
know that come dark or simply once the Danish are gone, the Taliban will be
back and retaliating for any cooperation with the Danish. The movie is not
meant to be a criticism of tactics in the war, but you can read between the
lines and make your own judgment.
The war crime could easily have happened to an
American unit.Our rules of engagement
are similar.The central question is one
that American soldiers face, too.Should
the rules of engagement be overlooked in order to save soldiers’ lives?That question hangs over the trial, even
though the official answer is no.The
trial is the climax to this basic question of modern wars.This type of trial would never have occurred
in WWII and probably not in Vietnam. Ironically, when Claus adheres to the
rules, it results in tragedy for a civilian family. It is unclear if the movie
meant to signal that Danish officers sometimes bent the rules to protect their men,
but not to protect the civilians that they were there to protect.
The movie is thought provoking.It has a “what would I have done?” vibe to
it.It does not take sides in the
war.It does not answer that central
question.It is up to you to decide if
Claus did the right thing and whether you would have done the same.Just remember for some veterans who have
returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, the question that plagues them is “what
should I have done?”
“Rules of Engagement” is a
military courtroom drama directed by William Friedkin (his only war movie). The story originated with decorated Marine
veteran and U.S. Senator James Webb.
Friedkin had problems with Webb’s screenplay and someone else had to
write the script that was used. Webb was
so resentful of this turn of events that he tried to prevent Pentagon
cooperation on the film. Later, after
seeing the movie, Webb complimented the finished product. The movie was partly filmed in Morocco. The movie was criticized for its treatment of
Arab Muslims. The American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee claimed that the movie was the most racist movie
ever made concerning Arabs.
The movie begins in Vietnam in
1968. The 54 year old Tommy Lee Jones
plays 2nd Lt. Hays Hodges and the 52 year old Samuel L. Jackson
plays his best friend 2nd Lt. Terry Childers. (They couldn’t make these two old coots
Captains?) When Hodges’ platoon is
ambushed, Childers executes an enemy prisoner to force a North Vietnamese
officer to call off the dogs. Twenty-eight
years later, Hodges is preparing to retire from his job with JAG. Childers is head of a Marine unit that is
sent to defend the U.S. embassy in Yemen.
In the process of evacuating Ambassador Mourain (Ben Kingsley) and his
family, the Marines take fire from snipers.
A mob has gathered outside the embassy and when Childers gets a view
from the roof he sees people in the crowd firing at his men. He orders his men to “waste the
motherfuckers” and 83 Arabs end up dead, including women and children. In the aftermath, no weapons are found and of
course the world assumes Childers has perpetrated a war crime. National Security Adviser Bill Sokal (Bruce
Greenwood) decides to throw Childers under to bus to appease the Arab world. Guess who Childers insists on for his
lawyer? He does not mind that Hodges is
a bad lawyer and an alcoholic who has no self-esteem. Time to return the favor. The prosecuting attorney Maj. Biggs (Guy
Pearce) is the usual overconfident hot shot.
And why shouldn’t he be? Hodges is guilty of firing on a crowd instead
of the snipers who had actually killed some of his men. But wait, that doesn’t make for a satisfying
movie.
the two oldest grunts in Vietnam
Sokal turns out to be a slimy
politician who is willing to destroy evidence and bribe witnesses – for the
good of the country, of course. And for
plot purposes. Hodges starts the trial
by telling the jury that he sucks as a lawyer and then proceeds to do nothing
to disprove this. The deck is stacked
against Childers since no one is willing to testify that they saw weapons in
the crowd. And there is no tape to prove
what Childers insists he saw. Since this
is a courtroom drama, there has to be a surprise witness and this one is a
doozy. Biggs brings in the NVA officer
that Childers had atrocitized (I know there is no such word). Hodges closing argument is: “It’s not murder,
it's combat.”
damn, these dudes don't look a day older than when they were in Vietnam 30 years earlier
The movie is not a total
disaster. The acting is fine and the only reason to watch it. But Jones and Jackson are sufficient reason
to watch any movie. It’s a shame they
weren’t given something better to work with.
By the way, if you are keeping track, Jackson says his first
“motherfucker” at the five-minute mark.
Pearce is fine, but distractingly decided to adopt a weird accent. Greenwood is appropriately slimy, but
Kingsley looks lost. The combat scene is
well done and realistically chaotic.
Unfortunately, the trial itself lacks suspense. Again I want to emphasize that this is
because Childers is guilty. I have to
add that I did not find the movie to be
racist.
It’s possible to make a good
military courtroom drama. “A Few Good
Men” is an example of this. “Rules of
Engagement” is not in a league with that film.
The script is the weakness. Maybe
if they had not wimped out on the weapons in the crowd scenario. However, who wants to see a movie where an
American soldier fires on a crowd of innocent Muslims? No American soldier would do that. Even a soldier who once shot a prisoner in
the head.
SPOILER ALERT: Because of the nature of this post (comparing the movie to the actual facts), I will cover the whole plot of the movie.
“The Battle for Haditha” is
misnamed as it is actually about the Haditha Incident (alternately called the
Haditha Massacre or Haditha Killings).It was probably the most infamous atrocity (or so it was claimed) of the
Iraqi War.The reenactment was filmed in
documentary style by British filmmaker Nick Broomfield.Broomfield cut his teeth on documentaries and
used the minimalist approach for his second feature film.He produced, directed, and co-wrote the
movie.Broomfield filmed in the city of
Jerash, Jordan and used some ex-Marines in the cast and Iraqi refugees.The cast was allowed to improvise some of
their lines.The finished product is
controversial, to say the least.
The film opens with a montage of
several Marines describing their feelings about being in Iraq.One says he’s only interested in surviving
and does not know what he is there for.Another mentions the problem of having civilians turn into combatants.A third likens the situation to being similar
to hunting because you have to think like the enemy.Cpl. Ramirez (Elliott Ruiz) likens Iraq to
the asshole of the world and the insurgents are like dingleberries.
Words on the screen preview that
the movie is about an incident in 2005 that involved an IED (improvised explosive device) killing a Marine
and then subsequently the Marines killed 24 civilians.(The perceptive viewer gets an inkling of
what is to come by noting that the word “marines” is not capitalized.)The Marines of Kilo Company, 3rd
Battalion, 1st Marines are young and immature.They listen to heavy metal in their Humvees
and delight in pranking each other.The
barracks banter feels authentic.The
video game generation goes to war.
The movie has three
threads.The second revolves around
Ahmad (Falah Flayla) who is a disgruntled Iraqi Army vet who is now
unemployed.He does not like the foreign
Al Qaeda jihadists, but agrees to plant a command-detonated IED for
$500.He is assisted by a younger man
who is just as immature as the Marines.They plant the bomb in broad daylight along a road.
The other thread follows a
typical Iraqi family that is preparing to celebrate a toddler’s
circumcision.Hiba (Yasmine Hanani) is
pregnant and in love with Rasheid.The
family and neighbors are aware of the bomb, but try to go about their lives and
do not take sides.One remarks that if
they tell the Americans about the bomb, the jihadists will kill them.If they don’t tell, the Americans will blame
them.Spoken like a South Vietnamese
civilian.The party is a good taste of
Iraqi culture, but there is a heavy layer of dread.
On Nov. 9, 2005, Ramirez’s squad
of eleven Marines in four Humvees are hit by the IED.The last Humvee is destroyed and a Marine is
killed.At the same time a white car is
stopped on the other side of the road.Ramirez, who is deeply affected by the death of his mate, executes the
occupants.A relative of the men opens
fire from a nearby home.Ramirez is
given permission to take out the house, but it’s not the house the fire came
from.He interprets the “Rules of Engagement”
to justify shooting first and asking questions later.
House 1 is greeted with a
fragmentation grenade.Ramirez and a few
comrades indiscriminately kill most of the occupants although they are clearly
noncombatants and none are armed.Hiba
and her boyfriend survive by hiding behind a chest.The Marines move on to House 2 with similar
results.The “battle” is being monitored
back at headquarters where a colonel orders a helicopter strike on a group of
individuals walking together.Hibas’
boyfriend is shot by a sniper because he is running (as per the ROEs = rules of engagement).He high-fives his mates.House 3 yields prisoners, but the killing is
finally over.A captain arrives and in a
prayer for Cpl. Terrazas mentions the battle they have won.He gives Ruiz a field promotion and
recommends him for a Bronze Star.
The Marine Corps issues a press
release that 15 civilians were killed by the IED and another 8 were insurgents
that opened fire on the convoy.The
story drew little media attention until a video made by the jihadists was
released.It contains eyewitness
accounts which force the military to investigate.Ramirez and three others are charged with
murder.
Taken at face value the movie is
entertaining.It’s definitely low
budget, but Broomfield overcomes the vibe by giving it a vibrant documentary
feel.This is through mostly hand-held
cinematography.The negative side of
this is some might swallow all of it as a factual documentary, although I am
not accusing Broomfield of trying to put something over on the audience.However, it is clearly apparent that
Broomfield is offering an alternative view to the Marine Corps version.The movie is obviously pro-Iraqi and
anti-Marine Corps, but it is somewhat balanced.Ramirez is depicted as suffering from stress and the rest of his squad
are not evil.The acting is adequate and
does not get in the way of the story.Ruiz is good, if a bit too earnest.Hanani seems to have a future in the business.
The movie has some noteworthy
themes that could be enlightening to anyone with little knowledgeof the Iraqi War.Civilians get caught in the crossfire in a
conflict like this.Rules end up being
bent sometimes in stressful combat situations.Atrocities happen.Young
Americans who view war as a game sometimes react outside the rules when
confronted with its realities.
I spent the whole movie
wondering how much was true and looking forward to finding out.It had some head-scratching moments like the
planting of the bomb in plain sight.Earlier, the bombers had gone through a check point without the Marines
bothering to check the back of the truck where the bomb was hidden.I suppose that was possible.When running away from the scene, the bombers
open fire for no good reason.There is a
scene where Ramirez goes to his commanding officer to admit to stress and ask
to see a doctor.The officer denies the
request and cites Marine Corps policy.I
could not determine if this was factual, but it does not seem so.
I did a lot of research on the
Haditha Incident and still cannot say definitively where the truth lies.Although it is compared to the My Lai
Massacre, it is a lot less clear exactly what happened here.The movie presents the Iraqi version of what
happened.The American version goes
something like this.Ramirez represents Frank
Wuterich.The IED explosion is the same
in both versions, but from there the stories diverge.When the white car is stopped it is suspected
of being involved in the ambush.One of
the men runs so Wuterich shoots him and then proceeds to shoot the others. Fire
comes from the direction of House 1 and Wuterich leads a fire team in.He did apparently tell them to shoot first,
but it was dark and confusing inside.It
was unclear the victims were unarmed and supposedly an AK-47 was heard being
“racked”.The second house was taken
because it was assumed someone from the first house ran there.The group admitted to firing through the door
which happened to have a man on the other side.The situation inside this house was basically a replay of the
first.Only prisoners were taken in
House 3 ( as per the film ).At House 4,
two men with AKs were shot and two others that were using the house as a
refuge.This incident was surprisingly
not depicted in the film, but the Iraqi version contends that the four were
innocent and were executed.
The film adds a few things that
even the Iraqis don’t claim.The bombers
were fictionalized.There was no
helicopter strike on a group.No one was
shot by a sniper while running. The
video was not by jihadists, it was done by a journalism student (who granted
may have sympathized with the insurgents).
At the time the film was made
the latest development was the charging of Wuterich and three others for murder
and the charging of several higher officers for a cover-up and non-investigation.In the subsequent trial, all but Wuterich got
off.He was found guilty of a much
lesser charge and basically given a slap on the wrist.This lack of justice aggravated many, but
NCIS did put 65 agents on the case and although the prosecution may have done a
less than stellar job, it was understandably difficult to prove a case like
this.For instance, no Iraqis would
testify.Forensics tended to disprove
the two execution scenarios and lenient interpretation of the ROEs left
reasonable doubt as to premeditation or revenge.It is instructive to note that the military
tightened up the Rules of Engagement after this to no longer condone shooting
of clearly unarmed civilians.
So who is telling the truth –
Broomfield and the liberal press or the military and Fox News?As usual in cases like this the truth is
somewhere in between.Although I cannot
discount the possibility that Broomfield is accurate, I lean towards the Marine version.With that said, I do not feel that even under a flexible
interpretation of the ROEs, what happened in Houses 1 &2 and with the white
car was justified.Like an ex-Marine
said, the Marines were the baddest asses in this situation and they should have
been capable of asking questions first and then shooting.To shoot civilians in two houses where they
had not taken any fire from within indicated either payback or the desire to
take no chances whatsoever.As far as
the white car, it seems logical that confronted with a group of very pissed off
Americans, one might run and Wuterich would have snapped.I do feel Wuterich got off easy.In this respect he reminds of Lt.
Calley.The coverup also is reminiscent
of My Lai and again the higher ups got off.The press release was ridiculously false and there was no attempt to get
to the truth until Time magazine broke the story.
So, what to make of
the film?I recommend it provided you
realize it is one point of view about an historical incident.I also suggest that you watch the Front Line
documentary "Rules of Engagement" afterwards.Then keep in mind that the truth is somewhere in the middle and we may
never know what actually happened that day.
