Alex Garland’s Iraq-war film Warfare is visceral, exciting and unethical
In director Alex Garland’s latest film, Warfare, viewers are thrown into a chaotic and confusing world where the lines between friend and foe blur amidst the chaos of battle. The film follows a group of soldiers as they navigate a harrowing and intense firefight, with explosions, screams, and urgent commands filling the air.
The film opens with a tense situation on the roof of a building, where multiple MAMs (Military Aged Males) are causing havoc. The commanding officer, or CO, is shouting orders to collapse to the first deck, while the Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) is urgently calling for a Casualty Evacuation (CASEVAC). Outside, two bravos are surrounded by IED phosphorus, adding to the sense of danger and urgency.
Amidst the chaos, a frogman kneels beside the protagonist, while another frantically asks if all equipment is in working order. The tension is palpable as someone pops smoke and the show of force is three minutes away. Despite the dire circumstances, the first frogman offers a smile and a reassuring “BTF up, bro!”.
Garland’s approach to Warfare is to present a raw and unfiltered depiction of the realities of war, drawing on the real-life experiences of ex-Navy SEAL Ray Mendoza. The film eschews traditional storytelling devices and character development in favor of a more immersive and visceral experience. Garland’s goal is to present the unvarnished truth of war, without the trappings of cinematic artifice.
While Warfare may lack traditional narrative elements, it excels in its realistic and intense portrayal of combat. The performances are harrowing and believable, drawing the audience into the heart of the action. The film is a relentless onslaught of adrenaline-pumping sequences, showcasing the bravery and camaraderie of the soldiers in the face of overwhelming odds.
However, Garland’s insistence on portraying an objective and unfiltered view of war ultimately backfires. By stripping away context, character development, and political commentary, Warfare inadvertently glorifies the violence and chaos of war without critically examining its implications. The film presents a narrow and one-sided view of the conflict, reinforcing a simplistic and uncritical view of American military might.
In the end, Warfare falls short of its ambitious goal to present the truth of war without bias or interpretation. While the film is undeniably gripping and intense, its refusal to engage with the complexities and moral ambiguities of warfare ultimately undermines its impact. Garland’s attempt to capture the raw reality of combat may have resulted in a technically impressive film, but it ultimately fails to offer a meaningful or nuanced perspective on the human cost of war.
