Aaron's Thoughts
There are certain movies where the filmmaking team behind the movie is almost just as interesting to me as the movie itself. Warfare is certainly one of those – you have a first-time director who served in the military (Mendoza) paired with one of the best screenwriters/directors of the last decade (Garland) who also happens to be staunchly anti-war. It is really neat listening to these guys talk about the film on the press tour because it is so clear that they are making the movie for completely different reasons.
Mendoza is doing it as an exercise to help his military brothers remember everything they experienced that day while Garland is doing it as a technical exercise in filmmaking & accurately depicting the horrors of modern war on screen. Mendoza isn’t concerned at all about whether the film is anti-war or not, in fact he has gone so far to almost suggest that it isn’t (because he is so laser focused on helping his friend remember everything he forgot about that day). While Garland has almost exclusively agreed to do the project because he sees the film as an anti-war movie. Same with actor Will Poulter who was beyond excited about getting a call because he wanted to work with Garland for years. That changed when he learned it was a war film. As a pacifist, he had no interest in portraying a war on screen. At least until he met with Garland and heard the pitch of the film & what it was going for.
What is so cool about this team all coming together to make this movie for different reasons & from differing views is that the film really works for each of their individual goals. It works as a way for those involved to remember the details of that day, but it also works as a portrait for why war shouldn’t be a first resort – both for the invading nation and the nation being invaded.
Since both directors are approaching it from such technical angles, it is a film much more focused on the “what” of war than the “why”, which seems to have many people flustered (just like they got flustered of Civil War). The irony about people saying this is military propaganda is that if you truly portray the “what” of war accurately, honestly, and without narrative compromise (like done in Warfare) you get a pretty good picture of why war shouldn’t exist. That is exactly what Warfare is doing. Anyone who says this glamorizes war hasn’t actually seen the movie. Anyone who says this makes the military out to be heroes hasn’t seen the moments where they try to use the translators as bait. The answer shouldn’t be no depiction, it should be proper depiction. Which is exactly what Warfare does.
One of the best moments of the film is when Will Poulter’s character is confronted inside the local house the US military took over. The screaming mother aggressively yells “Why” over and over. There is never an answer given because there isn’t one. At least not a good one. The pointlessness of the whole conflict is on display throughout the whole film in small moments like that. After the soldiers leave, we are left with the family & what remains of their house, their neighborhood, and their city. Maybe if the film were a short 30 second Tik Tok clip our society would actually have the attention span to get what the film is about instead of yelling propaganda because someone told them to.
On a technical level the film is astonishing from top to bottom. The sound design is rightfully getting high praise from many throughout Hollywood & I would love to see that praise carry all the way to an Oscar nomination. I am going to go back and see it again in theaters this weekend because it is so impressive technically that I am not sure I will be able to watch it again at home without the full experience.
Go see this movie in theaters. Give yourself over to this piece of art for an hour and a half & I promise you will feel things. It isn’t a fun watch, but it is important. And if you are one of the few people left who can make it 90 minutes without letting your phone distract you, heck, you may even have a new perspective on war itself.
