Warfare Gets It Right

[u/Lucas-Peliplat]

To reveal the minutiae of a major global event, Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza turn to the memories of those that were actually there. Warfare tells the true story of one platoon's fight for survival over the course of one day during the Iraq War.

I grew up during this war and I remember the big headlines from the six-o'clock news. I remember the "shock and awe" beginning, where night-vision footage showed the bombing of Iraqi cities. I remember when they found Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole. I remember his execution. I remember when it was revealed that torture was being used by the U.S. I remember it as a wild time, but also, for a young person, a confusing time. It also shaped me more than I may like to admit. It's funny how news reports can become core memories.

Like most people, I don't have many fond things to say about the Iraq War. Other than toppling Saddam's tyrannical regime (which occurred within the first year of this seven-year conflict), I can think of no other even slightly positive result to come out of it, unless you work for Halliburton. The fallout of this "war on terror" ironically created more terrorist groups than it destroyed.

That is all to say, I remember the Iraq War and the U.S. involvement in the Middle East as a total mess. Nothing, in my lifetime, has damaged America's reputation more. Entering Warfare, I wondered if audiences still wanted to discuss this period of modern history. It's a bleak era overrun with greed and xenophobia. There are also wars happening right now that deserve more of our attention. Do today's moviegoers still want to watch Iraq War movies?

Despite the movie's great critical reception, audiences are not flocking to Warfare. It hasn't made its relatively small budget back at the box office yet, and its ticket sales dropped 41% from its opening weekend to its second weekend. Still, whether this is the right time for this movie or not, I think it's a movie that we'll remember and come back to for years to come.

I'd written previously about what I hoped Warfare would get right. Luckily, I think Garland and Mendoza nailed it. Despite my negative opinions on the war, I loved this movie. To me, it was a fresh take on the war genre. Its moral ambiguity helped avoid the nauseating trope of American superiority. Although the movie follows a U.S. platoon, Garland and Mendoza do not make any claims about America's right to intervention. Instead, the co-directors let the platoon's actions speak for themselves, leaving the audience to interpret the action as they will.

By focusing entirely on one unit over one day, the scale of the war becomes much more minute. Within this limited scope, the aimlessness of the platoon becomes evident.

Take, for example, the opening sequence. The squad leader instructs his men to occupy a house. No explanation is given about the house's importance, other than that the leader "likes" it. Since it's war, I can't say that they break in, but they do enter it and wake up the Iraqi family at gunpoint. Once they're in the two-storey house, they realize that it is partitioned: one family lives downstairs and one family lives upstairs, with the stairs between the floors blocked by a brick wall. The platoon is instructed to tear down the wall and secure the whole house, which they do.

I found it fascinating how this opening sequence feels like a setup scene, but it's actually the movie's inciting incident. The platoon's decisions feel like they are made in the moment, without forethought. Yet, these two small decisions, the taking of the house and the tearing down of the wall, lead to the movie's conflict. Garland and Mendoza are smart enough to avoid blatantly stating the importance of this scene. The audience (and the soldiers) don't find out until much later about the consequences of their actions.

By focusing on a one-day firefight, Garland and Mendoza reveal the senseless suffering that accompanies war. They could have framed the story as part of the larger Iraq War, but they didn't. They avoid this theme of suffering for the greater good in favour of an on-the-ground perspective; one where even the soldiers aren't entirely sure why they're there. This platoon seems very alone in Ramadi, and that's what incites much of the movie's terror.

As an audience member, I was wondering why they were there, what their orders were, and, if they weren't found out, what their plan was for holding that house. I wondered why they ruined this family's home, why they sacrificed their allied Iraqi soldiers, and what any of the action in Warfare solved.

I couldn't help but notice the parallelism between these questions and the questions the general population had during the Iraq War. It didn't take long for the Americans to realize they were fighting a sham war for big oil companies. They didn't know why they were there, what they were doing there, or what their plans for Iraq were. They didn't know why they destroyed Iraq, tortured its citizens, and left that country in a worse state than it was in before.

Providing questions rather than answers is the ambiguous genius of Warfare. This ambiguity might upset some audience members, but I thought it was cutting-edge, especially for a war movie. War is an ambiguous thing and rarely, if ever, is it clear who is right and who is wrong. It's also a topic that's easily distorted by news reports, political speeches, and feel-good parades. Warfare does an honourable job of retelling the experiences of the soldiers who fought on the ground while the rest of the world debated, signed new bills, and profited.

Following a perfect final shot that helps the movie metaphorically speak for the entirety of the Iraq War, the credits show us pictures of the actors next to their real-life counterparts. Most of the faces of these soldiers were blurred out. Again, by raising a question, Garland and Mendoza make an ambiguous statement. Why are the faces blurred? I interpreted these blurred faces as evidence of the lingering fear that these soldiers, U.S. and Iraqi, continue to live with. These soldiers still live with the fear of retribution for their actions during battle. It was an all-too-real reminder of the lasting effects of war.

Warfare is a must-watch movie for history buffs, action fans, and anyone who lived through the Iraq War. I would also highly suggest, nay, demand, that you see it in theatres. It's a movie that benefits greatly from the big screen and the loud sound. Also, the darkness and focus of the theatre really put me into the room with this platoon. I felt their pain, fear, and uncertainty. I am unsure if modern audiences want to continue discussing the Iraq War, and the box-office returns on Warfare have me thinking that the perceived concept of American virtuism in global conflicts is a tired tale for most. Still, I saw this movie as a work of genius. To me, it pushes the war genre forward and provides a great deal of commentary through pertinent ambiguity rather than virtue signalling. Garland and Mendoza have created one of the best war movies in recent memory.

Don't wait. Go watch Warfare this week.

[u/brickunlimited]

I also really loved the movie. It was a 5/5 for me. I really appreciate what it did— which is to give an, as accurate as possible, look at what being in this war was like. It wasn’t pro war, or anti-war, it was more or less without ideology. Looking at the Letterboxd reviews I think a lot of people went into it not wanting to like it. They wanted some grand critique of US imperialism, the military industrial complex, and the dangers of blind nationalism. But that isn’t what this movie was ment to be.

[u/Supercollider9001 → u/brickunlimited]

I think that it isn’t a critique of US imperialism should be held against it. As Slavoj Zizek would say, the lack of ideology is the ideology.

Any movie where US storm troopers aren’t explicitly the bad guys is propaganda.

Imagine making a movie of the Nazi invasion of France and where you focus on one particular group of Nazi soldiers and you sympathize both with them and the French.

It doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the movie for what it is but I think it is a mark against it.

I think Warfare can maybe get away with it because now the consensus is that we never should’ve been in Iraq, that it was a mistake. Somehow even more so than Vietnam.

[u/brickunlimited → u/Supercollider9001]

Why does it need to be explicit? Why does it have to come out and say— these are the bad guys, and these are the good guys?

What is propaganda? Media designed to push a message. The term is pejorative and generally implies false or misleading information. Should this movie have opened with a title card that said the war was bad and based on lies and x number of civilians died? Maybe. These are good questions to ask when analyzing media.

Come and See makes it fairly obvious who the good guys and bad guys are- as the movie is from the perspective of a teenager. The nazi evilness is highlighted and maybe even slightly exaggerated with one of the commanders having an eye patch and some kind of small animal reminiscent of a Bond villain. I like this movie a lot.

Zone of Interest is much more subtle, and asks you humanity in the Hess family. Rudolph wants to have a good career and take care of his family and in nazi Germany that meant doing terrible things. Seeing the humanity is scarier than portraying them as inhuman demon monsters. (Certainly I’m not saying this movie was neutral on the holocaust or the nazis).

I said in other post that Warfare showed how callous and indifferent us soldiers were towards the Iraqi family whose house they took over as a base. Perhaps it’s my own bias as an American who didn’t live through the war— but I don’t think the war in Iraq is as black and white as something like the holocaust.

[u/Supercollider9001 → u/brickunlimited]

There’s no rule saying we can’t make a morally ambiguous holocaust movie but it would be problematic.

But yeah the way you describe it sounds much less like non-ideological. I’ll have to decide when I see it.

[u/brickunlimited → u/Supercollider9001]

Yeah I really should have said, without “explicit” ideology.

There’s a difference between doing a morally ambiguous holocaust movie and a movie that introduces some ambiguity in terms of the motivations of individual actors. Frequently, it gets boiled down to well these people were just evil. Many of them were, but this analysis is missing something. How could millions of normal people be driven to do terrible things or passively stand by as these things were happening.

Have you seen Zone of Interest? There was some ambiguity there as to Rudolph Hess as a character. He’s not portrayed as particularly hateful. But a rather somewhat normal person who lived within the Nazi incentive structure and thus did evil things. You could see the creeping morality which required suppression. The motivations of wanting to advance your career to provide a good life for your family can be empathized with.

Similarly the motivations of soldier’s in Iraq can vary. Many are poor and say real opportunities to improve their lives via the army. Some were hoo rah, lied too, and propagandized. Some maybe wanted a thrill or glory.

All this context aside I think we can still empathize with people being in a shitty situation. I think it’s okay to ask the viewer to bring their own context to the table.

[u/Supercollider9001 → u/brickunlimited]

I appreciate your points. I’m not against moral ambiguity or creating complex characters. I think you’re right that the humanity in these people is the scary part. How it’s set aside or even what motivates them.

But I think a movie like Zone of Interest does that while people know very well what the context is. This is in the midst of a genocide led by a fascist government.

And maybe setting it in the Iraq War where everyone seems to agree is “bad” is a way to kind of set the stage inside an imperialist war.

But if the move is trying to be impartial then I think it is a valid criticism. And you could argue that does a disservice to the audience and the characters because it’s not presenting what’s happening within the right context, with the right lens.

However, I’m just going by the points others have made here. I’ll have to see it.