Warfare Is Hell at the Movies: A Critical Examination
The highly talked-about film Warfare has begun to make waves among moviegoers and critics alike, despite falling short of the box-office success experienced by Civil War (2024), the previous collaboration between renowned filmmaker Alex Garland and veteran producer Ray Mendoza. With A Minecraft Movie still reigning supreme at the box office, it seems that the audience’s appetite for escapism remains undeterred.
A Personal Viewpoint on War Films
As someone who has always found the war film genre to be its own kind of torment, I must admit that Warfare incited feelings of frustration unlike any I’ve experienced before. While there are occasional gems in this genre—such as Fires on the Plain (Japan, 1959), The Battle of Algiers (Italy and Algeria, 1966), and Come and See (USSR, 1985)—most American war films follow a predictable and jingoistic formula that often dilutes the serious subject matter they aim to represent.
The Jingoistic Formula: A Writing Crutch
The archetypal narratives in American war films tend to revolve around unit cohesion—depicting soldiers from diverse backgrounds coming together as a cohesive fighting force. While this formula could potentially explore deeper themes of brotherhood, what usually plays out instead is a clichéd adventure, where the honorable pursuit of camaraderie overshadows the scars—both physical and emotional—that soldiers endure along the way.
Rethinking the Antiwar Perspective
Warfare cleverly sidesteps the tedious “building of cohesiveness” phase, introducing us to a group of Navy SEALs who have already formed unbreakable bonds. The film kicks off with an absurd opening scene featuring the SEALs huddled around a grainy 1980s music video of "Call on Me," which features scantily clad women shaking and shimmying. This blatant rock-hard heterosexuality coupled with laughter is perhaps the film’s most memorable moment, serving as a stark contrast to the violence that unfolds later on.
A Connection to Reality: Tethered Yet Detached
What sets Warfare apart is its effort to base the narrative on true events, with contributions from Ray Mendoza, who served as a SEAL in the Iraq War. This approach, however, sidesteps the profound and contentious realities of the war, glossing over the grim statistics—nearly 4,500 American lives lost, and Iraqi casualties believed to range from 200,000 to 600,000. It’s this very detachment that leaves a sour taste, as the film glorifies heroism without critically engaging with its moral implications.
The "Battle" Sequence: An Unfair Fight
In an attempt to inject tension into the narrative, the SEALs capture an apartment building in Ramadi, coercing a family to vacate their home. This leads to an engagement with enemy forces that quickly ascends into chaos. Ironically, the camera pulls back during these tense moments, distancing the audience from the "enemy," who are portrayed as nameless and faceless despite being vastly outgunned.
The Absence of Satire and Realism
While some might hope for Warfare to evolve into a sobering critique of modern warfare—akin to Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)—it ultimately chooses a more earnest route. The lack of irony or humor lends itself to an almost hollow narrative, trading genuine insights for thrilling explosions and high-octane tension.
Critical Reception: Is It Truly Anti-War?
Warfare has garnered notable acclaim, with glowing reviews from major outlets like the New York Times, which describes it as a “tough” portrayal of life and death in battle. Yet, one cannot help but address the inherent contradictions; while the film promises to reject the entertainment of war, it continuously draws the audience into the grippingly immersive spectacle that has become a staple of military films over the years. Audiences might find themselves teetering on the edge of their seats, yet it begs the question: at what cost?
A Reflection on the Genre
Legendary director Samuel Fuller once expressed that to understand the true horrors of war, audiences would need to feel the sting of battle firsthand. Warfare may have ambitious aspirations, yet it ultimately falls short, trapped in the very structures it aims to critique. As I leave the theater, disheartened and pensive, the realization strikes me: Warfare is just one more addition to a long list of American war films that glorify violence rather than interrogate it.
Conclusion: The Hell of War on Screen
In the end, while Warfare attempts to depict the grim realities of combat, it undeniably settles into the familiar grooves of action-packed entertainment. As long as these narratives persist, I fear we’ll continue lining up for another round of war at the movies, each promise of authenticity dissolving into the thrill of explosions. Perhaps the next installment in this genre will genuinely challenge the conventions that have held us captive for so long—but I’m not holding my breath.
In the world of cinema, the truth remains glaringly clear: war is hell, especially when viewed through the lens of movie magic.
