💾 Archived View for sdf.org › icemanfr › 2024 › c01.gmi captured on 2024-05-12 at 15:14:35. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-05-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Once again, this film is betrayed by its trailer, which should have given us a better understanding of the title... which has a lot of «drawers». For an American, it conjures up images of the Civil War, otherwise known as the American Civil War. Younger viewers may also see in it the Manicheanism of a struggle between superheroes (Marvel 2006-2007 Iron Man vs Captain America), which can sometimes be translated as a struggle between patriotism and the power of money. Wrong, you had to understand something else.
The director, Alex Garland, is British, a screenwriter and then director of genre films (SF, horror), and has even worked for the video game industry. This is a Hollywood film d'auteur: the story is commercial enough, but the author's desire is also reflected in the script. And this story is with the background of a civil war in the USA, with a dictatorial president seeking a third term (!!?) and the states seceding to depose the villain. I'm summarizing, but in fact we know nothing about the beginning of the Civil War. Here we are, thrown into the conflict with Lee (!?), a war photo journalist covering a conflict in her own country. The shocking introductory scene is a bombing that brings Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and Jessie (Cailee Spenny) to meet, a novice photographer who we suspect that it's the only way for her to live.
Jessie is ambitious, and if she says she's a fan of Lee's, it may also by opportunism. But in this business, you have to be ambitious and you have to force fate. Lee and his print journalist sidekick Joel (Wagner Moura) think they're doing the right thing when they head to Washington DC to interview the President. An old journalist friend, Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), tries to dissuade them but borrows their big SUV anyway to drive from New York to the Charlottesville front. Jessie manages to accompany them despite Lee's opposition. So the film is a road movie... not a war film. But we soon realize that through the eyes of these journalists, who are intended to be neutral, we are invited into a film that disregards the political situation.
Garland's choices are not insignificant, however, starting with the course of the war, which bears a striking resemblance to the first few months of the American Civil War, in reverse in terms of ideals, with the secessionists having the military power and know-how to advance fairly quickly towards the federal capital. We also understand that the "story telling" of the authorities is unable to mask the reality of the situation, precisely because there are eyewitnesses in the form of journalists. In this fusion of historical periods, Garland includes the treatment of the Gulf War and the army's attempt to control images, as well as more recent conflicts with nightmarish images. He also includes other films such as The Fall of the Black Hawk, for example, and perhaps also his videogame experience. The main subject is going to be that journalists find themselves in a conflict that touches them to the core and they can't detach themselves as they do in other conflicts. This time there's more affect.
How do you testify the horror of war? How do you bear witness without wanting to intervene? How far can you show the barbarity? Does one emerge normal from such a series of horrors? And when a journalist is shot dead? These are just some of the questions addressed by the film, with answers that are familiar to anyone interested in the subject : suicide of photojournalists, debates around photos that have become cult hits? Should journalists be sent to risk their lives? Alex Garland tries to put a bit of all this into his film and his story. But it has to be Hollywood-standard, which means there has to be action as well as the inherent tension. There are moments when we cross beautiful deserted landscapes with no sound other than nature. And yet the spectator in us will think that this is the calm before the storm. Garland plays with these codes inscribed in us so that the story goes all the way with twists and turns. It's beautifully shot and directed, with photography by Rob Hardy that doesn't feel like a war film, apart from the final scene. Garland retains his usual technical team. The soundtrack is varied enough to make you forget when you need to and to be lighter in other respects.
The problem with this film is that it breaks promises. With the title and the trailer, we're stuck on a scenario of political anticipation, along the lines of Trump's America in 10 or 15 years' time. But it's more a tribute to photojournalism and war journalism. That's fine by me personally and I saw quite a few interesting references. But by concentrating too much on the image, Garland forgets the credibility of his script, especially in the final scene. War film purists will inevitably cringe at the way it unfolds, where even a recent film with Gerard Butler seems more credible. In the end, it shows that the heart of the subject is not necessarily the country but the link between the war and .... the civilians who are the journalists who accompany the combatants at close quarters. These are the same journalists who report less barbaric or lighter news, using the pen and the camera as their tools. In questioning this, is Garland aiming to question what we think of the same person in different contexts? The film is globally successful, but fails to go far enough on this complex subject. Having seen French war reporters get involved in national politics, I saw my own reaction when I discovered that the neutrality displayed in a conflict was no longer the same in such a subject, and when I looked at the war images in a different light afterwards.
I recently wrote about Stanley Greene (1), a complex character among war photographers. He spoke of the links he sometimes forged with the belligerents, of the partiality of his testimony and of what undermined him. There is a little of this in the character of Lee, very well played by Kirsten Dunst, but also in Joel. There's also something of the young Stanley and so many other young photographers in Jessie's character. In the end, I prefer to keep this aspect of the film, which is likely to escape viewers, rather than action scenes that reveal the monster hidden in humanity.
2Dɛ
or by a reply on your blog