Review: Warfare ***

Image: CNN

Really? Did we really need another film like this?

I had a LOT of reservations about this film, from the marketing, to the very questionable press tour, to the subject matter and the perspective it chose to take on. It's well made/competent, yes, undeniably, hence the three star rating, but all this for what? What am I supposed to take away from this? You could say the overarching theme is war = bad, but almost every war film conveys this and it's understood to be a given.

In the Q&A Alex Garland addressed the wider criticisms that he avoids politics and messaging, and insisted his films are political; it's up to the audience to interpret for themselves because he takes an "honest approach". This therein lies the problem: there is minimal characterisation, which is understandable with the nature of this film, but with the lack of wider context and total neglect of the family whose house is invaded by US soldiers, it's sending the message that we should sympathise more with the people who are doing the invading (bear in mind this is based on the memories of Iraq war vets, and memories can be notoriously unreliable - some vets when asked about the events forgot a family was even present, which speaks volumes). He also acknowledged that Iraq war vets joined of their own volition, but mentioned they were mostly kids and posited that they all had other external influences eg naivety factoring into that. If there were even so many as two lines in this film alluding to that, he would have been much closer to achieving his goal of making an anti war film. I only have so much mileage for men screaming and wailing in pain knowing full well they were the perpetrators.

Image: The Guardian

I initially gave the cast the benefit of the doubt because I understand that actors need work, but the group photo of them all with matching tattoos, and Charles Melton constantly bringing up his dad being an Iraq + Afghanistan war vet in interviews were incredibly tone deaf. On that note, the end credits sequence was absolutely disgraceful. You can't show the brutality of military force and then have a montage celebrating these men (with their faces blurred, no less) and end it with a group photo of the actors grinning and flipping their middle fingers.

I'll begin my final point with this: a man asked Alex Garland how he acquired an image at the beginning of the film of a young boy standing outside the actual house that was raided, and he responded with "I can't say".

There have been many singing this film's praises and vehemently defending it as an anti-war film, often referring to declining media literacy when arguing online with people who feel otherwise. To them I say this sets a concerning precedent: how do you defend the closing montage? How do you rationalise Garland's caginess towards the acquisition of the opening image? How did this film depict the Iraqis?

This is not an anti-war film, this is an anti-Americans-in-danger film.