'Warfare' Review

A realistic, violent depiction of modern warfare

(Content Advisory: Contains extended intense warfare scenes and depicts graphic injuries. The film opens with a suggestive music video viewed by the soldiers.)

The best stories in any medium teach virtue. These stories usually depict heroes overcoming the villains of evil people, society, nature, or one’s own vices. Sometimes stories are cautionary tales of those who chose vice over virtue. Film as a medium presents an opportunity to tells stories more realistically than books or poems, as one can display how something actually looked and craft how something actually sounded. But if a story is not told to engage the viewer and teach morality, then what is its purpose? There are many events that would be pointless to depict realistically – it would be at most a technical exercise. What does a hyper-realistic film purport to provide? What does dramatic realism offer that a documentary or non-fiction book cannot?

That brings us to the film: Warfare, described by its creators as a “reenactment” of the events of a Navy SEAL squadron on November 19th, 2006 during the battle of Ramadi in Iraq. The film is based on the memoirs of Ray Mendoza, who co-directed the film with Alex Garland. After the title drop, the rest of Warfare proceeds in real time reenacting across 90 minutes the actual incident as faithfully as possible. From a plot perspective, the story is simple: The squadron establishes a position in an Iraqi family’s home, and the next day a group of Iraqi fighters assault the house. The squad responds to the attack and cares for their injured, and problem solves to determine what to do next.

This exciting sounding premise is portrayed in a straightforward way without stylization This film is different than Lone Survivor or 13 Hours, which have character arcs, use the score and filmmaking to accentuate moments. Even if those moments stay true to the real story, the score and other filmmaking techniques craft a larger narrative for the viewer. Warfare eschews these tactics for realism. Case in point: an explosion occurs suddenly in the film. There is no score to warn the viewer. There are no flashbacks or cutaways outside the scene. The camera stays on the ground, with visibility often obscured. The sound which was clear a moment ago comes through muffled. The SEALs respond almost in slow motion, drag themselves to their feet and sluggishly follow protocol to attend to the wounded and secure their position. These events simply happen – the filmmaking language does not give them greater meaning. Yes, this is still a dramatic film, so there is still an authorial voice. The filmmakers decide where to place the camera and which characters to focus on in each moment. But every effort is made to simply depict the events.

Beyond the filmmaking language employed, large amounts of screen time focus on simple details. We observe Mendoza, the communicator, call in a rote list of observed activity to Command. Characters describe simple orders that are then followed. This is not high-octane action that rushes through an environment with an explosion or fight every minute. The movie is simple, human, and real. There are a couple minutes spent collecting gear that was left behind – in most other movies, you would not even have this scene – or the gear left behind would have been established as critical to the plot. In Warfare, – it is just a couple of guys’ gear - and protocol is to retrieve it. In another movie you would have a grand moment of self-sacrifice to allow the rest of the squad to escape – in Warfare you get a moment where soldier accidentally injects himself with morphine instead of his grievously injured teammate. It’s not plot important, nor played for laughs. It is a small moment that just happens.

The film is still engaging since it is told in real time and there are stakes for the characters. They are fighting for their lives and the lives of their squad-mates. The real time approach traps the viewer in this house with the squad. You are there with them for the duration. I also enjoyed watching the technical way military protocol is followed by characters who know it by heart.

Further, on the human level – there is something to be gained here despite the lack of characterization and a traditional 3 act structure. This is still a story about people. We observe the bond of brotherhood among the SEALS as they courageously confront their attackers and risk their lives. One man humbly admits he is no longer capable of leading. Multiple characters step up to fill in as leaders where others cannot. These are virtuous moments we can learn from. Warfare is not primarily about this, but these moments are still in the film.

Revisiting the opening question – what purpose does hyperrealism in this scenario serve? It experientially communicates what modern warfare is actually like. The movie does not clarify whether this is good or bad, but it shows the costs and allows the viewer to feel the emotions of those on screen. You observe the immediate impact of simple decisions made by the soldiers. We watch how they impact the community around them, such as how they arbitrarily choose an Iraqi family’s home to establish their position, how they attempt to follow orders, and how combat injure them. One could watch a documentary about a war and learn how many were killed and wounded, and learn the types of weapons and how they mutilate and kill. But that is nothing like being trapped in a real time movie, where you watch a character slowly, painfully bleed out while his squad-mates struggle to stabilize him. Warfare provides an American civilian a way to consider the real human cost of modern warfare. Even with advanced technology and the vast resources of the American military: war is still hell. It is brutal and traumatizing. Even the best soldiers have a breaking point. This film forces one to wonder: was this war worth the cost - and would future conflicts be worth it. I am not going to pretend to know enough to weigh in on the value of the Iraq war, nor can anyone pretend to assess the value of future conflict – but we can see here, viscerally, painfully, vividly, the costs on one side of the equation, and really think whether this was all worth it.

On a craft level the filmmaking is solid. There is not much to say about the cast as they are doing a reenactment and perform well to that end. There are a few recognizable faces (Joseph Quinn of Stranger Things 4, Will Poulter, and Charles Melton) but by design there are no standout roles. The craft is focused on keeping the conflict on the ground level. The cinematography only shows the event from the perspective of the American military. The camera never cuts away to the Iraqi assailants or bystanders. The enemies and bystanders are only viewed. One highlight is the sound design. In the quiet moments you hear every little movement. And then during the assaults sound overwhelms you. It creates an immersive experience.

A word on the violence – if you could not stomach movies like Hacksaw Ridge, Lone Survivor, or Saving Private Ryan – avoid this one. The violence here is not fetishized but it is horrific and portrayed with a commitment to realism. Other war movies have more horrific moments and injuries, but in Warfare, for what can seem like an endless amount of time, you stay with the squadron as struggles through every step of caring for severely wounded. Reader – I had to avert my eyes a few times. This film is not for the faint of heart.

If you have the stomach for the violence – Warfare is worth a watch. In a simple, well-crafted manner it communicates one aspect of the cost of war and as American civilians, it is important for us to take the time to understand these costs.