The film “Warfare”, as co-produced by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza, is one of the most directly visceral war films ever made. The filmmakers’ camera is suspended, like a fascinated extraterrestrial, on tiny details, observing them as if they record organic field notes. Viewers can practically feel the textures of the soldiers’ cannons, the weight of their huge uniforms and the temperature of the parts in which they are. When the EEDs start to explode, the audio begins to fade, the boom microphones in the film existing in the ears of any soldier that we are looking for during this moment. There is a lot of cries, bleeding and panic.
Advertisement
“Warfare” takes place in Iraq in 2006, detailing a very specific battle during the broad and chaotic war of George W. Bush against terrorism. Garland and Mendoza built their film entirely from memories of the soldiers involved and built the sets of the film based on photos taken in the heat of the fighting. Indeed, Mendoza was one of these soldiers, having been a communicator. (The actor of Haraon Woon-A-Tai plays Mendoza in the film.) The cameras remain with the American soldiers throughout the film, either standing right next to them, or to see their perspective through spy cameras, allowing the public to see where they are on the battlefield. “Warfare” has the most surprising feeling of spatial continuity of any film.
Advertisement
In a frustrating way, the “war” does not seem to have a point of view either. We are not talking about the function of this battle or what is at stake if its meters win or lose. There are no discussions on Bush, the meaning or the emptiness of the whole war, nor what Americans think in Iraq or Iraqis. The soldiers themselves are not represented as heroes or bad guys, but as simple stiffness that sometimes do courageous things and sometimes horrible things. It is not an anti-war film like “All Quiet on the Western Front” or a work by Jingoiseme like “Act of Valor”. It’s neutral.
What about war?
Anyone with a political point of view will leave “the war” shaken and shocked, so strangely disappointed. It does not seem to have feelings about the war in Iraq or the role of the United States. The film opens with a group of soldiers who watch a sexy training video with gentle knots, humitting and howls on the buttocks exposed, which may imply that their aggressive heterosexuality can link to their role as fighters of “virile” freedom. However, these images and ideas once stop the battle begins. The film does not include other symbols or discussions on sexuality or masculinity.
Advertisement
There is a scene halfway from “war” when a seriously injured man moans in pain, how much another soldier between his bastion and begins to bark epithets on tenacity. He approaches the injured man and shouts things like “You have that! You are hard!” This man is widely ignored, however, like all the other soldiers (Will Poulter, Cosmo Jarvis and Charles Melton among them) are more concerned with their evacuation because they come under fire. “Warfare” more concerns the logistics of flights and counterators, as well as the planning of evacuations, than the individual tenacity of anyone. It is not bravery or cowardice. This is just the experience.
It turns out that it was the point. Speaking in an interview with / film, Garland and Mendoza claimed that the “war” is supposed to be intimate to the point of losing his thesis. Garland described the cinema as a large church, declaring:
Advertisement
“In this large church, you could have a film on the fight, which is trying to be as honest and faithful as possible. And I must say that honesty must imply a kind of neutrality in the presentation of the facts.”
Garland fell on his own film, saying more or less that interpretation was the work of criticism and viewers.
Garland did something similar to the civil war
Garland added that, with regard to war, simple observation is enough in some cases. The other filmmakers, he pointed out, are indeed to have a thesis with regard to war, but he did not want it. He continued:
“This is just the space that we choose to occupy this film. The reason is that there is an inherent value to try to be as honest as possible on what the war is and to listen to the experiences of people who were at war. Just to listen to and take it, in a way, in a way in account. Try to do.”
Advertisement
Of course, by making us the film to us, Garland seems to be detached from any moral responsibility. He is the one who makes a film on the fight and has selected this story to tell. To say that history is only a mirror suggests that he has no feeling about Iraq, American soldiers or war in general. And this is a frustrating point of view to affect.
Garland did something similar with his film in 2024 “Civil War”, a dystopian film for the Trump era. The film takes place in the near future at a time when the United States was thrown into a self-destructive civil war. The cause of war, however, and the ideologies of the combat sides are never clearly indicated. Why did the United States started a second civil war? There is no explanation. Garland adopts a neutral position, simply explaining this war, whatever the cause, gives you off. It is a beautiful thesis, of course, but it could have been made without using such political images.
Advertisement
Garland also has no prospects on the years George W. Bush, it seems. “Warfare” is apolitical. And that could, according to some, a failure.
“Warfare” is now playing in theaters.
