There’s no such thing as an anti-war war movie. The needs of the genre always make warfare thrilling; even though you may end up in tears and thinking about the tragic, senseless sacrifices of our boys, watching war Hollywood-style is a high. I ran out to play paintball after my first emotional screening of Saving Private Ryan.
War documentaries are another thing altogether. The reality of war is never as glamorous as it seems in big budget movies, and even when real combat is shown in a war documentary it’s always confusing and sudden and clumsy. Narrative cinema can get across the terror of being under fire, but it’s only in documentaries that I’ve understood the paralyzing storm of emotions that happens when a friend is killed in combat.
Restrepo has taken some heat for not being clearly anti-war enough, but I wonder if the people who say that really watched the film. The movie, co-directed by Tim Hetherington and hunky writer Sebastian Junger, never needs to have someone tell us that war is pointless because we see it, right there on screen. Documenting a year in the Korangal Valley, at one time the deadliest place in Afghanistan, Restrepo shows us soldiers whose only victory is the claiming of a tiny piece of ground, whose only attempt to get further into enemy territory ends up killing innocents, who can’t quite seem to find common ground with the locals and who can’t maintain security and will never get a promised road built. And who every day take fire. And who sometimes die. The pointlessness is burned into every frame of the film, culminating in a final title card that tells us the US military pulled out of the Korangal Valley in 2009.
But while the war is pointless and grinding Restrepo has great respect for the men. Or the boys, as is probably more correct. The men in the platoon are young, given to horseplay, foul mouthed and dreaming of home. They’re the same boys who have been fighting our wars for centuries, just with their own soundtrack. Restrepo opts to be about just those men, and is an almost exclusively experiential documentary. Junger and Hetherington’s cameras are always in Korangal Valley with the platoon, and the only talking heads are the soldiers themselves, talking about their deployment (and judging from context, they’re talking about it very soon after ending their tour). The film never tries to show us another POV – we never get to know the local Afghans, we never see what’s up with the brass, we never find out how the families at home are taking it. It’s just the soldiers, for 90 minutes.
It’s that feeling of truly being embedded that makes the documentary work so well. Adding to the up close nature of the film is the incredibly professional camerawork – a number of shots feel like they’re scenes from a narrative movie. You’ll be watching a scene of a flustered soldier talking during a firefight and you think you know where it’s going – he’s gonna catch a bullet in the face – because you’ve seen it so many times in the movie. Restrepo is remarkable in that it at once props up the visual cliches of war films while tearing down the narrative ones.
Restrepo is kind of a terrible title… until you’ve seen the movie. Then you realize what it means; PFC ‘Doc’ Restrepo was one of the most beloved men in the platoon, and he was one of the first to die. The new CO decides to advance the military presence in the Valley – there’s a specific line of death, the crossing of which brings out the full force of the local Taliban guerillas, and he wants to push that line back – the firebase they establish is named Restrepo. It’s the only victory the men have in the Valley, and its name is forever marked with the bitter tinge of their fallen friends’ name.
‘Doc’ Restrepo isn’t the only man to fall in the Valley. During the course of the year the film documents more men die, and the movie presents a particularly raw and unflinching view of the way the men handle it. I grew up understanding soldiers through the WWII generation – stoic, repressed and only willing to tell funny stories (but sometimes not clear on where the line separating funny from disturbing was) – so it was almost shocking to see the soldiers openly weeping during a firefight. It’s likely that’s how soldiers always reacted to the sudden, shocking death of their friends, but it’s never the way they told it, and narrative films seem to have bought it. In a war movie it’s the weak guy who breaks down when a friend dies; in Restrepo it’s everybody who is shaken to the core.
Restrepo is incredibly immersive and intriguing. 90 minutes feels too short, and at some point the slick editing made me realize that there’s a fuller dimension to this story we’re never seeing (I’m always troubled by docs like this, which wears the one year in the life badge proudly, doesn’t make clear when events are happening. Are the filmmakers mixing and matching events to get maximum impact?), which is too bad. Junger has a book out now about his time in the Valley, which I assume goes into more detail about the men and the year. The surface is only scratched, and I hate to be the kind of jerk who pretends to understand what these guys experienced thanks to a documentary I watched from my couch, but Restrepo does feel like it gives you more insight than any previous bit of media about Afghanistan.
8.5 out of 10
11 comments
thanks for the review, will check this out if I get the chance.
Was Saving Private Ryan an antiwar movie? It seemed resolutely a war/action film to me. I disagree about there being no such thing as an anti war movie. You're presuming everybody has the same reaction to the imagery, and I'd wager that's just not the case. Particularly for those who perhaps have lived through real war. With respect to Devin, I just think it's silly to overwrite the intent of an artist based on what a viewer's reaction might be. I never agreed with Truffaut.
I couldn't wait to shoot some germans after I watched Saving Private Ryan.
another title to add to the 'to-watch' list
COME AND SEE is an anti-war war movie. There's no possible way to come out of that film thinking war is thrilling or cool.
You wanted to play paintball after viewing Saving Private Ryan? This is the reason why this country's so fucked up and why we have continuous war. I volunteered for the Marines (dumb, I know), and I hardly found the realistic violence in that movie "fun." If everyone from eighteen to forty was forced to fucking go–everyone, every swinging dick, no medical waivers except for extreme cases, no loopholes for sons and daughters of rich fucks–all our wars would end in a month. This country, full of cock-smokers, liberal, conservative, all of you, everyone should fucking serve and see how fun it is to get blown up and shot at.
I served in the 3rd brigade, 1st infintry division in afghanistan. Altho i was not in Viper company i was in the korangal valley and i can tell you that it is the most deadly place in the afghan war. I am happy to see those boys getting thier due respect. I knew many of them as they were in my unit. Our unit took more casualties at that point in the war than any other so this movie for me is extremly important. If you are remotely interested, please see this film and pay respect to those young men who lost thier lives.
Devin, check out Michael Yon on Twitter. A good resource as well if you like to keep abreast of an independent journalist who has good insight on what is going on on the ground.
Grain of salt as with everything…
I have to disagree as well with your "no anti-war war movie" comment Devin. I think what may be more accurate to say is that Hollywood has trouble producing an anti-war war film. One commenter mentioned Come and See, which is an excellent example. Ivan's Childhood is another. Both are Russian. Joseph Vilsmaier's Stalingrad is an excellent anti-war war film. I think a strong argument could be made for Letters From Iwo Jima being anti-war. But that may be the Hollywood exception that proves the rule.
I like this review. I think there is a lot of bald, difficult truth in this film, and many scenes illustrate the quagmire that Afghanistan is becoming. For me, the scene that tells of the soldiers shooting a villager's cow, eating it, and then refusing to pay for it, speaks volumes. What will that villager do now? Pick up a rifle? If they do, that will require a few hundred thousand dollars worth of munitions to be dropped from the sky! Paying for the cow would have cost a few hundred dollars! Where's the logic? It's quickly becoming a Vietnam 'we had to destroy the village to save it' situation.
This is a shit review that does no justice to the film. It was not an anti-war film in anyway, it was intelligent enough to tell the truth and let the viewer decide. You, however, took out of the theater only that which you brought in with you. You want it to make the war seem pointless or senseless and you got what you wished for due to in your own mind. As someone who spent a year in each Afghanistan and Iraq I can say I did not get an antiwar message at all just an honest portrayal of this war.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.