ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

war film

The Outpost: ‘If We Survive, We Win.’

by

Directed by Rod Lurie (The Contender), The Outpost tells the story of Bravo Troop 3-61 CAV, a small unit of U.S. soldiers left alone at the remote Combat Outpost Keating, who are tasked with helping maintain the peace and build relationships with the locals. Trapped at the bottom of a deep valley between three mountains in Afghanistan, the division sits exposed and faces daily attacks from insurgents. Then, when an overwhelming force of Taliban fighters attacks them, the unit finds themselves faced with the impossible task of defending their station and staying alive. 

Based on the true story of The Battle of Kamdesh, The Outpost is a visceral and intense experience that feels like an authentic look at the brutality and senselessness of war. A master of the handicam shot, veteran cinematographer Lorenzo Senatore has created battle sequences so intense and lifelike that they refuse to allow you to look away from the screen. Long takes that follow soldiers as carry their wounded across the seemingly endless showers of gunfire that surround them feel endlessly stressful, despite their actual brevity. Featuring solid performances, especially standout Scott Eastwood, Lurie?s film gives time to every member of the throughout the film. Although the film offers little in the way of backstory for its characters, the decision to do so is deliberate as The Outpost focuses its narrative on this particular moment in their lives.

In a unique structural choice, The Outpost is split between two narrative pieces. While the first half feels like a series of narrative ?events? over a period of months and years, Lurie?s final battle extends over the rest of the film. In doing so, Lurie builds the tension in a way that recognizes the importance of each moment within military altercations. Though battle scenes in other films can feel simply too long or over-choreographed, Outpost uses its time to remind the viewer that death stands above them at any moment. (This idea is also emphasized through high overhead shots that highlight the unit?s increasingly feeble hopes for survival.)

The interesting thing about Outpost is that, even though every character is named, eventually they begin to blur together. Almost all of them similar age and ethnicity, you could be forgiven if identifying them becomes murkier, especially when they?re covered in gear in the midst of a firefight. In this way, Outpost has a ?next man up? mentality in their approach that emphasizes the need to make use of whomever may be available. (In fact, the narrative is even framed through the lens of an endless parade of commanding officers that come through the unit for various reasons.) However, this is not to suggest that anyone?s life is unimportant in any way. Rather, Outpost serves as a reminder that, in the most dangerous of scenarios, everyone must work as one seamless unit in order to survive.

And survival is the only goal.

While many other war films focus on the overall ?mission?, Outpost states on several occasions that their sole objective is to survive their assignment. Sent to watch over an impossible location, the soldiers of Outpost Keating have lost any sense of their mission and are simply trying to live until their assignment is over. Though the film absolutely highlights the bravery of the men who sacrifice their lives on the front lines, these soldiers also understand that their assignment is a battle that can never be won. Instead, for these men, if they ?all stay alive?, [they] win?. 

DSC01757.ARW

It?s this level of futility that drives the unit and speaks to the overall senselessness of the mission itself. One example of the film?s point of view comes when one soldier questions his commanding officer on the fact that neither the Qur?an nor the Bible should be used to validate military action. When is commander argues that both sides ?can?t be right?, his responds that ?but we can both be wrong.? In moments such as these, Outpost recognizes that these aspects of war are misguided and cause unnecessary sacrifices of human life in the end. 

Ferocious and unrelenting, The Outpost is not for the faint of heart. Known as the bloodiest American engagement of the Afghanistan War, the film?s portrayal of The Battle of Kamdesh wants the viewer to feel as though they?ve lived through the moment themselves. However, the value of Lurie?s film lies not in its graphic violence but in its message. At The Outpost, the sacrifice of these men is great but seems unnecessary overall. Though the characters are many, each life matters in The Outpost. 

For Lurie, it?s the mission that remains in question.

For audio of our interview with director Rod Lurie, click here.

The Outpost makes its stand on VOD on July 21st, 2020.

The Battle of Jangsari: The Bloody Battle of Brother Against Brother

by

Directed by Kwan Kyung-Tae,?The Battle of Jangsari?is a gruelling war thriller showcasing a horrific battle of the Korean war in the 1950?s. At a crucial point in the war, a small group of South Korean soldiers must fight for a tactical strip of land on Incheon, called Jangsari Beach. The inexperienced group of underdogs consists mostly of recruits with (at most) 10 days of training and are severely underprepared in ammunition, rations, and overall supplies yet they must try to fight against the odds and the brutality of war.

The beauty of?The Battle of Jangsari?is that really portrays the different perspectives that these young soldiers experience when going through the pitifulness of war. Focusing on the recruits, each character has their own individual story but there seem to be two common motivations that unite them: they either want revenge on the North Koreans for attacking them or they want to be seen as heroes for protecting their own people, the South Koreans. In?Jangsari, Kwan does a great job showing how the propaganda of South Korea has influenced the young soldiers to fight against their enemies. In reality, a lot of North Korea?s soldiers were people forced to fight for their country or face execution. Another thing the film takes note of is that Korea had only split in 1945. So, only 5 years before the war, they had considered themselves one country and one people. As a result, the war ultimately became brother fighting against brother as both sides were Koreans fighting for freedom from one another and killing each other senselessly.?

Personally, I loved how beautiful the sets were and how each scene captured the intensity of war. Through the large set pieces, the viewer feels like they?re actually there joining the South Koreans and fighting in the name of freedom. Featuring an enormous cast, the film brings to life the scale of war and the devasting onslaught of bullets and artillery firing constantly. In doing so,?Jangsari?proves that, no matter beautiful or blessed your life was?before, once you reach the battlefield of war nothing changes the devastation of what hot lead and shrapnel can do to human flesh.??

Overall,?The Battle of Jangsari?is a great war film that showcases an intense battle at a crucial point in the Korean war. In the end, I recommend the film as it beautifully portrays the futility of war and the senselessness of violence.?

The Battle of Jangsari is available on BluRay and On Demand now.

1917: Down to Gehenna or up to the Throne

by

Director/co-writer Sam Mendes used stories his grandfather told about World War I, plus others? stories from the Imperial War Museum archives, for the foundation of 1917. It is the story of friendship, loyalty, determination, and courage. But it also touches at times on the futility that is inherent in war.

The film opens with Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) relaxing during what has become a lull in the fighting. Blake is summoned to report to the General and to bring someone with him. The two report and Blake is tasked with delivering a message. The Germans seem to have withdrawn. Another battalion, thinking the Germans are on the run is planning a dawn attack to try to finish them off. However, it?s a trap. If the attack happens it will cost the lives of 1600 men. Blake was chosen because his brother is in that group, and so Blake will have great motivation. The difficulty is that to get there they must navigate through No Man?s Land, and then a few miles through enemy territory that may or may not still have enemy soldiers waiting to kill them.

Mendes, working with lauded cinematographer Roger Deakins, strives to let us see the journey step by step. The film is seemingly one continuous tracking shot of the two soldiers and the landscapes they travel through. This is truly a technical challenge to accomplish, and it is worth noting that it is achieved.  Personally, I find that a bit distracting because I start looking for the seams of where different takes have been blended to each other.

This method creates an atmosphere of constant tension. From the first steps into No Man?s Land they are targets. They must work their way through barbed wire, the various craters and rotting corpses (both equine and human), never knowing when something might happen. When they reach the enemy?s abandoned trench, there is still no safety. There could be other threats to deal with. There is little time to relax. Even in open country, any building could be dangerous.

While there are other characters they encounter (the cast includes Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, and a number of others in what are essentially bit parts), this is really the story of Blake and Schofield and their mission. They are comrades, but not especially close. They have different outlooks on the mission. Blake, with the motivation of saving his brother, wants to start immediately; Schofield is more cautious. Schofield is a bit more experienced, having been awarded a medal from an earlier battle; Blake looks forward to doing something that will get a medal. Blake is open about talking about his family; Schofield is more compartmentalized, knowing he may never see his family again.  Their relationship grows through this mission, but that is not the real focus. Instead, as we see these two soldiers risking their lives to complete the mission, we note the wartime virtues that they embody.

I have to admit that I?m nearly always conflicted about war movies. I view war as evil. Even a just war (if such a thing exists) is inherently evil, even if it must be entered into to stop greater evil. Yet, in the midst of that evil, we are able to find examples of people acting valiantly. This can often lead to an idealized and romanticized view of war and those who fight. That is a danger that 1917 flirts with at times. Yet, Mendes also includes bits and pieces that point to a more balanced understanding. For instance, when Blake asks Schofield why he doesn?t wear the medal he earned, Schofield tells him he traded it to a French soldier for a bottle of wine. He was thirsty. The practicalities of life sometimes are of more value than the trimmings of glory.

An interesting, seemingly throwaway line, struck me when I heard it. I think it gives some insight into how to understand the film. When the two are about to set off, they ask the general why they aren?t taking more men with them. He quotes a line from a Kipling poem: ?Down to Gehenna or up to the Throne,/He travels fastest who travels alone.? (How very British to answer in such a way!) But this journey is one that is indeed a walk through Hell. Perhaps it also is an ascent of the spirit as the soldiers find within themselves qualities they had not known they possess.

Photos courtesy of Universal Pictures

T-34: Rolling to Freedom

by

Having broken box-office records overseas,?T-34?transports the viewer into the heard of Russia during the Second World War. Having been captured in the field of battle, young lieutenant Ivushkin (Alexander Petrov) is tasked to assemble a group of POWs to aid in training the Nazis tank battalion. However, as they prepare for the exercise, the team devises a daring plan to escape from captivity. With the power of a half-destroyed T-34 tank, Ivushkin and his crew attempt to break free from captivity and escape across the border, if they can make it alive.

Written and directed by Alexey Sidorov,?T-34 is inspired by true events during the Second World War (though what those events are isn?t entirely clear). High on action and suspense,?T-34 proves to be an entertaining addition to the ?war film? genre. (Interestingly, apparently ?WW-II tank movies? are quite the rage in Russia these days, having released three films of the genre since 2012.) Rather than forcing this story into the grander narrative of the war itself,?T-34 wisely focuses its lens on a small scale, allowing the journey of this band of survivors to take front and centre. Without question, this is a film designed to entertain and, for the most part, it does so effectively. While light on character development, each of the crew members get their ?moment? to prove their dedication to the cause. Bullet-time? special effects give the film a modern feel while still maintaining the urgency of the war itself for those who still remember ?the Great Patriotic War?. (Ironically, this is also a film that remains relatively light on politics, barely mentioning larger, more controversial ideas such as the ?Red Army? or ?Stalin?.)

Like many other films of this genre,?T-34 highlights the veterans who were courageous enough to stand up against the oppression of the Nazi party in the face of insurmountable odds. At a time when Russia isn?t always held in the highest of esteem in the West,?T-34 reminds the viewer of their sacrifice in the war effort as well. Like the other members of the Allies, Russian men and women faced certain death at the hands of their Nazi dictators and were persecuted for standing up against tyranny. While there is little question that this is a ?pro-war? film, it still highlights the devastation that was caused by those who sought to keep their own freedom?not to mention that of others?alive. (In fact, one of the most beautiful moments in the film stems from a short time of play in a nearby lake. In this poignant scene, the film manages to underscore the utter beauty of freedom in the face of persecution.)

By the end,?T-34 proves to be an entertaining ride that keeps the viewer engaged throughout. By focusing on the journey of its heroes as opposed to the politics, the film translates well for Western audiences and deserves our attention.

T-34 rolled onto video and on demand on June 11th, 2019.

War Machine – What Makes a Successful Satire?

by

Image result for war machine movie

War Machine?is the newest Netflix original film from director David Michod, starring Brad Pitt, Topher Grace, Emory Cohen, John Magaro, and Scoot McNairy. David Michod is best known for directing?Animal Kingdom, a 2010 crime story from Australia with a hit cast including Joel Edgerton, Guy Pearce, and Ben Mendelsohn.

Going into this movie, I knew that it was a satirical take on a nonfiction book about an army general but?nothing about the true events surrounding this story. I’m generally intrigued by most true stories no matter how ‘off the beaten path’ they may be. Knowing that they actually happened, films based on true stories always hit me harder than others and I usually feel that I learned something in the process.

After watching War Machine, I wanted to do some research on the book it was based from in order to get more background context. Entitled ?The Operators ? The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America?s War in Afghanistan?, the book is written by Michael Hastings, a journalist at?Rolling Stone?who accompanied General Stanley McChrystal (the real life General that the film?is based upon) to assist in gathering help with their war efforts. Michael Hastings was present when the team openly bashed the Obama administration?and?produced a piece about his time with General McChrystal, ultimately leading to McChrystal’s firing.

The first thing that stood out to me within the film was Brad Pitt. (No, not like that!) Pitt plays the role of General Glen McMahon, the character based on the real life General Stanley McChrystal. Throughout the film, Pitt has a large focus on physical acting in the way he walks, talks, runs, uses his hands, and moves his face. Initially, I appreciated the way he was playing this role. I typically have a lot of respect for the way he dives into his characters but it didn’t take long for me to think that it?was very overdone. ?Still, I suppose, this is where the satirical aspect of the film kicks in.

Image result for pitt and kingsley

The other obviously satirical character was President Karzai, played by Ben Kingsley, who was portrayed as a complete joke. Both General McMahon and President Karzai are downright caricatures – obvious exaggerations of who the real life inspirations would have been.

Besides McMahon and Karzai, all other characters seem completely normal and serious. I think this is where my confusion with this film began. I didn?t know where they were taking the film, nor what tone they were expecting the audience to take from it. There was a very blurry line between being a serious war film and a satire.

One interesting element is that they seem to be intentionally making (then) President Barack Obama look bad. The scene in front of the airplane made it seem like Obama only wanted a photo op with General McMahon and no actual face time as originally anticipated. I found this to be an interesting way to approach the addition of President Obama into the film. As mentioned above, the bashing of the Obama administration by McMahon and his team led to McMahon?s firing. They could have put Obama in a more positive light, but perhaps they wanted us to see the Obama that General McMahon saw in order to build that story line.

Image result for rj cyler war machine

In my opinion, the best part of this movie was RJ Cyler, who played Andy Moon. He was in most of my favourite scenes. I was immediately interested in him when he spoke up during General McMahon?s address to his new troops:

?…it seems to me that we?re all here with our guns and (expletive) trying to convince these people that deep down we?re actually really nice guys. And I don?t know how to do that, Sir, when every second one of them, or every third one of them, or every tenth one of them is trying to (expletive) kill me, Sir. Cause I?m a marine. Cause we?re marines. And it seems like now they?re handing out medals for heroically not being a marine, Sir. I?m confused, is what I?m trying to say, Sir.?

This scene was fantastic. I?m definitely looking forward to what RJ Cyler will do in the future.

This particular scene really got me thinking about the war efforts in Afghanistan. Certainly, the main focus of the war was to remove the Taliban from power in the wake of the devastating 9/11 attacks. During this scene, another marine was discussing what exactly they were doing there. He says ?to protect the people from the enemy?. How interesting and simultaneously heartbreaking to think about how difficult and tragic this must have been. The marines had to determine who was a civilian and who was an enemy, not knowing?whether someone?may try to kill them or if they were innocent bystanders. On the flip side, think about strange troops invading your town and shooting at your family. To those locals, the troops are the enemy. I feel so contradictory about it all. I’m sure we all remember hearing about the war in Afghanistan on the news but were barely shaken by hearing about it because it didn?t directly affect us. This is almost a tragedy in and of itself.

Moving back to the cast, John Magaro and Topher Grace played the secondary roles of Cory Staggart and Matt Little respectively. ?I really enjoyed their additions to the film and would have loved to see them in a few more scenes.

Image result for tilda swinton in war machine

An unexpected but welcomed addition to the cast was Tilda Swinton, who played a brief role as a German politician who burns General McMahon during a presentation where he is speaking. She did a phenomenal job with her accent and monologues, as you would expect from the always intriguing Ms. Swinton.

Cameron from Ferris Bueller shows up too! I’ll pay the guy enough respect to call him by his real name, Alan Ruck. Who, by the way, has three new projects in the works in the next year and a half!

One more random and very brief appearance is made in the last scene of the movie by none other than Russell Crowe. He plays Bob White, who replaces General McMahon after he gets fired. Interestingly, Russell Crowe is not credited. And his appearance seems to open the door for a possible second installment.

Soundtracks are a fascinating element to film and they can either make it or break it. The?War Machine?soundtrack was all over the place. Anything from hip hop to classical. Standard background score to Lady Gaga. This could be attributed to the satirical nature of the film, so it?s difficult for me to fault it but I spent a lot of time during the movie wondering what path they were going on with the music.

As a whole, I think this movie missed the mark. I must admit, my exposure to satirical film is not vast, and that could be a large reason why it wasn?t my favourite. Personally, I thought it was disjointed and confusing. I have spoken to some fans of satire that share my feelings on this film. However, some fans online are comparing this film to one of the great satires, ?Dr. Strangelove? by Stanley Kubrick.

So this begs the question: What makes a successful satire? Are satires best when they?re more obvious or subtle? I have always assumed satires were more like comedies, and were just poking fun. Although this is sometimes the case, it?s interesting to see how subtle some satire can be, as I have undoubtedly learned from watching War Machine.

My bottom line – I recommend watching this movie if you have a deep appreciation for satire, as you will likely grasp this movie far better than I. ?If you aren’t as much of a satire fan, I would?pass on it.

Image result for war machine movie