May 23, 2010
Samuel Maoz’s first feature revolves around four soldiers, trapped inside a tank during the early stages of the Lebanese conflict in 1982. Their seemingly simple mission to search a deserted town quickly turns into a nightmarish fight for survival amid chaos. The main characters are easy to identify with: they are naïve, disillusioned and, understandably, scared. Yet they also have a degree of Everyman anonymity – such is the forward march of the film’s narrative, and the nature of the crisis, that we do not have much time for back-story. What we learn of these men is through their actions under extreme pressure.
Apart from the opening shot of a field of sunflowers, the film is set entirely within the confines of a tank. What this film conveys, therefore, is the relentless claustrophobia of these soldiers’ situation. At times, the camera veers wildly from side to side, failing to find a focus point, which is utterly disorienting. But then, that’s the point. As one of the senior officers comments, “This is war. War is dangerous”. War is confusing, and horrific, and arbitrary. Lebanon offers none of the light relief afforded by films such as Three Kings, or The Hurt Locker. Comparisons to other war films are inevitable, particularly to the latter (in terms of its style), or to Waltz with Bashir (in that they both seek to portray the same conflict, albeit in very different ways). At times, Lebanon is hard to watch, such as when the tank-eye-view zooms in on a dying donkey, its pain reflected in its flaring nostrils and blinking eye – a close-up reminiscent of an Eisenstein montage.
This is not a film you enjoy. It’s tense and harrowing. Yet it is also beautifully shot and thought-provoking; a brave piece of filmmaking that takes chances. And, whilst most audiences will probably never have been to war, an incredible sense of realism pervades.
Apart from the opening shot of a field of sunflowers, the film is set entirely within the confines of a tank. What this film conveys, therefore, is the relentless claustrophobia of these soldiers’ situation. At times, the camera veers wildly from side to side, failing to find a focus point, which is utterly disorienting. But then, that’s the point. As one of the senior officers comments, “This is war. War is dangerous”. War is confusing, and horrific, and arbitrary. Lebanon offers none of the light relief afforded by films such as Three Kings, or The Hurt Locker. Comparisons to other war films are inevitable, particularly to the latter (in terms of its style), or to Waltz with Bashir (in that they both seek to portray the same conflict, albeit in very different ways). At times, Lebanon is hard to watch, such as when the tank-eye-view zooms in on a dying donkey, its pain reflected in its flaring nostrils and blinking eye – a close-up reminiscent of an Eisenstein montage.
This is not a film you enjoy. It’s tense and harrowing. Yet it is also beautifully shot and thought-provoking; a brave piece of filmmaking that takes chances. And, whilst most audiences will probably never have been to war, an incredible sense of realism pervades.