It’s been said that it’s next to impossible to make a true anti-war film because war itself is so cinematic that even the most harrowing portrayals of combat ultimately make it look exciting and, for those who survive, cool.

Now, I don’t quite believe that myself.  Stanley Kubrick made three of the most effective anti-war movies ever made, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, and Full Metal Jacket, though it should be noted that the first two of those films were more critical of the incompetence of those running the war than war itself.  Both Lewis Milestone and Edward Berger made strong anti-war statements by adapting All Quiet On The Western Front.  Both films featured battle scenes that were devoid of the personal heroics that tend to crop up in other war films.  (Platoon may have been firmly against the Vietnam War but it’s still hard not to cheer when a crazed Charlie Sheen takes on the entire VC on his own.)  Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H made an effective anti-war statement by focusing on what comes after the battle.  The scene where a geyser of blood suddenly erupts from a soldier’s neck shocks, terrifies, and ultimately outrages us.  That said, it is true that an effective battle scene, especially one that leaves the viewer feeling as if they are actually in the middle of combat themselves, does tend to get the heart pumping and the adrenaline surging, regardless of the politics of the person watching.  We tend to look up to those who have been tested by combat, those who have come under fire and who have survived.  One can be anti-war while still understanding why war itself has been a popular cinematic topic since the silent era.

I’m thinking about this because of the online reaction to Warfare, a film that came out in April of this year.  Based on actual skirmish that occurred in Iraq in 2007, the film plays out largely in real time and follows a platoon of Navy SEALs as they set up operations in a two-story house and then later try to escape when they come under fire from insurgents.  The film was written and co-directed by Ray Mendoza, who was one of the SEALs involved in the actual incident.  In the film, Mendoza is played by D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai while other SEALs are played by actors like Will Poulter, Michael Gandolfini, and Charles Melton.  The film itself doesn’t tell us much about the individual SEALs.  We don’t get any heart-breaking stories about anyone’s homelife.  No one takes the time to pull out a picture of their girlfriend back home or any of the other usual stuff that happens in war movies.  There’s really not time for that.  For over an hour, Warfare puts the viewers directly in the middle of the battle and it does a good job of it.  The bullets, the explosions, all of them seem far too real as we watch.

The online reaction to Warfare has definitely been a bit mixed.  There are quite a few people who are convinced that Warfare is a pro-war, “imperialist” film.  “Why did Alex Garland make this!?” cries one of the top reviews over on Letterboxd.  Myself, I disagree.  It’s not a political film.  It’s neither pro- nor anti-war.  Instead, it’s a film about a group of men who are fighting to survive.  And to me, it is an effective anti-war film because it shows exactly how much damage a bullet and a grenade can do to a human being.  When one of the SEALs is seriously wounded, there’s no glamour to it.  Instead, you feel his pain and you realize that it’s not even that clear what the mission was in the first place.  Warfare is a tough and gritty film.  It’s a combat film that makes me happy that I’ll probably never come under fire while also respecting the men who refused to leave anyone behind.

If peace could be achieved by didactic speeches and heavy-handed moralizing, it would have happened long before now.  Warfare presents what happened and leave it to the viewer to draw their own conclusion.