I think when Marcus Luttrell complains that he doesn’t
understand how people could possibly say Lone
Survivor, the movie based on his memoir, glorifies war because “there is
nothing glorious about war,” he is missing the point. Due respect to Luttrell –
he’s been to Afghanistan, watched his friends die, and was incredibly lucky to
come out alive, but saying that a Hollywood movie glorifies something is not
the same as saying that that something is glorious. No doubt being in war is
terrible beyond words. That’s why veterans tend not to talk about the
experience of war outside the context of the buddies they made and the stories
they told and created. But a movie can make that experience seem, to the
uninitiated, sexy, desirable, exciting, fulfilling, and yes, glorious. There’s an extent to which all films that depict war are
inherently pro-war. You can’t show an image of something without tacitly
endorsing what it represents. Whether or not Lone Survivor goes out of its way to glorify war or whether it is a
form of war porn I’m not sure. Does the level of realism make it more or less
responsible?
Peter Berg wrote and directed the movie after fulfilling
a contractual obligation to Universal by filming the odious Battleship so that they would finance
this pet project. He read Luttrell’s memoir, which covers his first days in the
military all the way through an Afghanistan mission gone awry in which three
comrades were killed after the four of them were cornered on a mountain by
overwhelming enemy forces. By all accounts, it’s about as factually accurate a
portrayal of what happened to those four men, all Navy SEALS out to capture and
kill a Taliban leader in the mountains.
During the mission, they come into contact with three
goat herders (an old man and two teenagers) whom the rules of engagement
dictate they can’t kill. A brief debate among the men serves up three
possibilities: turn them loose so they can inform the Taliban at the base of
the mountain; tie them up leaving them exposed to wolves and freezing overnight
temperatures; kill them. No option is appealing, but they do what they think is
right and, sure as you know, the four SEALS are eventually overrun and
outgunned. The three SEALS who lost their lives are played by Ben Foster, Emile
Hirsch, and Tailor Kitsch. Mark Wahlberg is the face of the movie as Luttrell
and Eric Bana adds some additional star power as their commanding officer at
base.
What follows is just about the most harrowing and
tension-filled battle sequence since Steven Spielberg restaged the Normandy
invasion in Saving Private Ryan.
Bullets whiz by, some finding their marks, and they take tumble after tumble
down rock-lined mountainsides, breaking bones and twisting joints along the
way. The situation seems hopeless. And they know it is. But taking Luttrell’s
own memoir as the basis for the story, Berg’s screenplay insists on following
the through line of the never-say-die attitude of the SEALS. This is less a
story of war than of soldiers as brothers who fight, not against any tribal
group or national army, but for one another, defending each other to the death.
Even as we know, and they must recognize, that survival is not remotely
possible, Luttrell and his comrades talk
and fight as if escape is not only possible, but inevitable.
The jingoistic patriotism is laid on a little
unreasonably thick at times, especially early on. Granted, this is a movie
specifically designed to honor the brotherhood of the military. But listening
to speeches expressing the pride of being a SEAL and professions of sacrifice,
duty, and honor in the heat of battle wear thin and a little bit false. This is
Sands of Iwo Jima with more blood,
bullets, and explosions. Even if this movie may not be pro-war, it is fiercely
pro-American. I felt uncomfortable watching propaganda style images of the
Taliban beheading someone at the beginning of the film. Not that I think the
Taliban have gotten a bad rap in the West, but these images prime an audience
that is likely already ratcheted up to be even more protective of America and
unable to distinguish between an Afghan farmer and a Taliban militant. That
early scene is meant to set up an understanding for something that nearly
happens to Luttrell late in the film, but the close ups of the Taliban and
their maniacal eyes effectively serve one purpose: to make Americans grit their
teeth and mutter about the depravity and inhumanity.
However, the story takes an unexpected turn when Luttrell
is aided in his survival by a group of villagers. It all seems so cliché, so
unbelievable to the point of farce that I thought it must have been embellished
or even added for effect. But then the closing credits reveal a moving photo of
the real Marcus Luttrell meeting with his Afghan savior years after the fact.
Berg redeems himself by depicting Afghani villagers in this light, but I was
rather unimpressed with the monolithically brutal view of the enemy. Although
it’s easy to imagine American soldiers not having a very subtle or discerning
view of them. Perhaps I’m really complaining because those opening images are
from an omniscient point of view while the entirety of the story and the
particulars of the rest of the film are essentially Luttrell’s recollection. One
other exception, and a moment that took me right out of the film, was Berg’s
choice to subtitle a conversation between a Taliban and the villager who saved
Luttrell. No other Afghani dialogue is subtitled. If Luttrell doesn’t know what
they’re saying, neither should we.
Judging the movie on the merits of whether or not it
accomplishes what it sets out to do, you can hardly find a great deal of fault in
what is actually a well-executed film, even if it is lacking in significant
style. The screenplay could do more to flesh out who these guys are before they
go into hell, but was able to forgive it these minor issues so long as Berg
kept subverting war film conventions. Just when you think you’re settling in to
one of those action movie cliché conversations that make you wonder if the
enemy has taken a time out, Berg pulls the rug out from under us, reminding us
of the ever-present threat all around these guys. As the proverbial cavalry
comes rushing in with helicopters to save the day, we cheer along with Luttrell
and the others until tragedy strikes and we’re confronted with the direct
knowledge that our military – perhaps foolishly to some – sacrifices far too
much for the good of the few. The whole movie has that push pull, constantly
wanting to be the old classic war movie depicting how awesome America is, but
also wanting to fit the mold of the new millennium that presents are more
worldly view. It’s a dichotomy that Berg doesn’t always pull off successfully,
but the emotional core of the film is solid and engaging.
No comments:
Post a Comment