Missed opportunities abound in the inert Warfare

by

According to the initial text in the movie “Warfare”, the story is rooted in the personal memories of its creator, Ray Mendoza, and other soldiers who experienced the Iraq War. Unlike many films, there’s no pre-existing book or media to draw from. Instead, it relies on the firsthand accounts of those who were present during the battles. This unique, subjective approach contrasts sharply with the more objective filmmaking style that Mendoza and co-director/co-writer Alex Garland developed in their recent collaboration, “Civil War”. In “Civil War”, Garland honed an impersonal visual aesthetic that’s been a hallmark of his previous works such as “Ex Machina” and “Men”.

In the movie “Civil War,” the detached atmosphere was portrayed exceptionally well, particularly in scenes that built small-scale tension, such as the one where Jesse Plemons asks, “What kind of American are you?” Unfortunately, the climax of “Civil War” became overly loud, lacking the unique flair that Garland’s filmmaking style usually brings. Now, Mendoza and Garland apply their signature visual style to a deeply personal narrative. The movie “Warfare,” like “Civil War,” effectively shows both the advantages and devastating consequences of this visual approach they have adopted as a default.

The script for Mendoza and Garland’s “Warfare” primarily focuses on a series of events involving Navy Seals stationed in a single Iraqi house during November 2006, with the exception of a brief introduction delving into the past. Within this home, under constant watch for hostile fire, we find Ray Mendoza (portrayed by D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai), our lead sniper Elliot Miller (Cosmo Jarvis), Commander Erik (Will Poulter), novice gunner Tommy (Kit Connor), and Petty Officer Sam (Joseph Quinn). To begin, the camera follows this team as they remain vigilant for any enemy activity and strive to avoid unnecessary attention.

In Mendoza and Garland’s portrayal of war, they deviate from common dialogue patterns in war films by using a script that avoids lengthy expository dialogues about characters’ pasts or the use of affectionate nicknames to reveal their personalities. Instead, the characters communicate through brief technical terms. Dialogue is minimal and primarily occurs when there are no other options. The narrative begins mid-mission, immersing viewers directly into the action, creating a sense of authenticity as the events unfold. Mendoza and Garland serve more as observers in this raw depiction of warfare.

In the initial, largely silent segments of ‘Warfare’, Mendoza and Garland’s filmmaking technique really shines. When the screen is filled with vast emptiness and haunting stillness, their minimalist approach allows viewers to fill in the gaps on-screen with their own imagination. For example, during the civil war scenes, you might find yourself gripping your seat tightly as your mind conjures up the potential actions of the unidentified Jesse Plemons soldier. Likewise, the early scenes in ‘Warfare’ keep viewers on edge, wondering what could happen next as these men exchange water bottles, rotate sniper positions, or perform other seemingly ordinary war activities.

As Mendoza and Garland’s discreetly operated camera suggests throughout, peace could swiftly give way to brutal turmoil at any moment. A fleeting scene of Sam idly rubbing his fingers along a dusty surface serves as an impressively subtle early example of realistic portrayal. With the soldiers’ pasts shrouded in mystery, it’s impossible to guess what thoughts might be crossing Sam’s mind during this moment. Could he be thinking of home? Or is he recalling a long-forgotten childhood memory involving dust? Alternatively, he may simply be passing the time. The film truly shines when the camera functions as an unobtrusive observer, capturing subdued action.

Suddenly, a hidden adversary tosses a grenade into the house they’re in, causing a deafening ruckus. Regrettably, the bland and impersonal filmmaking style of Garland and Mendoza fails to complement the cacophony and explosions. The intensity of warfare, once symbolized by the depiction of ambiguity and unspoken tension, has now been replaced with a straightforward portrayal of chaos, feeling more like a duty than art during this conflict. The subtlety has vanished, leaving only surface-level, literal representations that are detrimental to their own impact. Instead of intriguing, distanced scenes of underlying tension, we’re left with an unfeeling rendition of screams and explosions.

As a movie enthusiast, I can’t help but notice that even with Mendoza taking the director’s chair, Warfare seems to share similar flaws as Civil War. Both films struggle with underdeveloped characters that work well in tense moments, but fail to captivate during prolonged scenes of war brutality. In Warfare’s case, these issues are amplified because the film is heavily focused on gunfire and human suffering, which takes up a significant portion of the runtime.

Surprisingly, directors and cinematographer David J. Thompson seem to overlook the opportunity to use the limited backdrops of Warfare to create visually striking scenes. Instead, they resort to typical quick cuts, medium shots, and close-ups for their most intense sequences. This results in a feature that could have been more impactful if it had used its settings more creatively.

In the end, that final aspect seems particularly out of place within this narrative. Whenever the camera came close to the soldiers’ faces, it didn’t stir an emotional connection akin to peering into someone’s soul. Instead, I was reminded that the movie, Warfare, hadn’t managed to engage my empathy for these characters before subjecting them to intense emotional and physical pain. The distress portrayed is indeed central to Warfare; however, the casual presentation of gruesome images like dismembered limbs scattered on streets or young men agonizing over their mutilated bodies lacks emotional depth due to straightforward visual storytelling.

The story unfolds chronologically, avoiding visual aspects that could potentially deter some mainstream viewers, such as prolonged or unusually wide shots. To alleviate feelings of claustrophobia from being confined within the house, scenes are occasionally cut to outside elements like soldier Jake (Charles Melton) and his platoon, aerial views of the area, and even radar-like representations of enemy soldiers. These additional elements serve primarily to provide information to viewers. However, despite the movie’s innovative aspects, such as its lack of a score or minimal dialogue, there are elements that seem overly cautious. Instead of creating an intense, chaotic experience, the film frequently makes compromises to appeal to mainstream audiences. Like landmines hidden underground, Warfare consistently catches viewers off guard with missed opportunities in both visual and narrative aspects.

Notably, contrary to the initial on-screen text, Warfare functions more like a carefully crafted narrative rather than a human memory. The accounts of past events are incomplete, imperfect, and chaotic. Yet, it is through these “imperfections” that we discover hidden aspects of ourselves. Warfare, however, presents an unusually structured and polished production. Even after an unforeseen explosion, the editing and camera work remain clear and coherent. Instead of evoking raw, disjointed warzone memories, it appears overly rehearsed compared to the countless other war films focused on gruesome injuries and camaraderie. Directors Mendoza and Garland fail to establish a compelling visual aesthetic for Warfare, neither successfully portraying memories nor immersing viewers in the same space as the characters. The images shown lack the distinctiveness needed to distinguish themselves from the multitude of war films preoccupied with graphic violence.

In theory, Warfare seems uniquely crafted by Ray Mendoza, but upon viewing, it’s only the initial, quiet sequences that stand out as particularly original within the genre of Iraq War films. The remainder doesn’t offer much in terms of idiosyncrasy or subversion compared to other war movies. Contrast this generic film with Elegance Bratton’s equally personal work, The Inspection. The Inspection possesses a gritty realism and visual diversity that is absent in Warfare. While there are undeniably competent aspects within this new collaboration between Mendoza and Garland, particularly the outstanding sound design, for many viewers, Warfare may eventually blend into memories of other war films.

Read More

2025-03-28 16:15