Tag Archives: documentary

Review of “Under the Bombs”

1 Dec

Basic Plot

Under The Bombs follows the story of a woman named Zeina (Nada Abou Farhat) who returns to the south of Lebanon after the 33-day Israeli bombing campaign in search of her son, who has gone missing along with her sister during the bombardment. Upon her arrival in Lebanon, she meets a cab driver named Tony (Georges Khabbaz) who is the only person willing to drive her south through the ruins to reach her son. Together, they must travel across the ruins of Lebanon in order to find what remains of her family.

A Drama Set in The Real Ruins of Lebanon

The film begins with footage of the actual Israeli bombings in Lebanon. From the get-go, we are made to see the utter hell that the IDF visited upon the Lebanese people, and how civilians were made a direct target of these attacks. The story itself takes place largely after the month-long siege, and is shot on location in Lebanon (in fact, part of the filming was done while the massacre was still taking place). While the main protagonists and some of the supporting cast were actors following a loosely defined script, most of the characters we see in this film were real-life people.

Having the film take place only days after the butchery of Lebanese civilians took place makes this the most engrossing and realistic war film I have ever seen. Scenes were improvised in which the protagonists interacted with actual Lebanese victims of the Israeli bombardment. Seeing the scarred terrain, the mounds of rubble and the faces of the actual victims of Israeli imperialism lends to the atmosphere of devastation that such a film requires. We are made to identify with the plight of these people as they sift through the rubble to recover the bodies of loved ones. As the protagonists embark on their own quest, to find Zeina’s son, the reality of the disregard of Israeli cluster-bombings and artillery strikes for the civilian population and infrastructure. Zeina and Tony are frequently impeded by ruined bridges and roads, homes that have been gutted by explosions and services that are hard to come by thanks to the destruction. Characters Are Interesting, But Not Distracting

In addition to the compelling atmosphere of the film, our protagonists do an excellent job of creating an engrossing character-driven plot without their performances distracting from the backdrop of the story. Both characters are dynamic, and overtime come together with a chemistry that seems almost entirely authentic. Farhat’s character runs through a range of emotions, from grief to anger, hopelessness to a resilient strength and resolve as she searches for her sister and child, yet all without it ever seeming out of place or forced. The drama of this character’s personal experiences blends seamlessly with the emotions and attitudes that this real-life backdrop evokes in the viewer.

At the same time, Khabbaz plays a character who serves exceptionally well as a balancing force in this character dynamic. Although at first he seems to be an opportunist, who is willing to help Zeina only if he is sufficiently compensated, he evolves into being a sympathetic and downright likable character. Throughout their time together, we see him become more and more personally involved in Zeina’s search, to the point of giving back the money she had paid him to demonstrate his sincerity. Additionally, he employs humor during particularly somber moments in order to cheer her up, and makes many sacrifices (including his car and his personal safety) to facilitate her reunion with her son. We are given insight into his own personal trauma, as one whose hopes of immigrating out of the country to start a new life with his brother and uncle have been shattered by the blockade imposed by the Israeli government, yet this back story is presented in such a way to allow the character to become more developed while not distracting from the central plot and the atmosphere of destruction and despair created by the bombings. Anti-Imperialism As An Important Theme

The film’s message is generally anti-war, with dialogue that seeks to condemn war in general rather than choose a side it seeks to condemn. Yet, the film is unable to remain entirely morally ambiguous in regards to the one-sided massacre of Lebanese civilians at the hands of the IDF. Just as the Lebanese civilians who were the victims of Israeli imperialism are conscious of who had visited this atrocity upon them, and say as much in their encounters with the protagonists, the audience is made to understand who was in the wrong.

In depicting the forces resisting Israeli imperialism, the attempt is made to perceive these actors in a neutral light as well. There is one scene involving a funeral procession in which Hezbollah flags were waved and slogans challenging the United States and Israel are chanted by the mourners. We also have occasion to see posters and signs that advertise Hezbollah as a force for unifying the Lebanese people and rebuilding Lebanon. While no overt statements supporting Hezbollah’s particular views, tactics or politics are made, the presence of such groups in the context of the destruction of Lebanon helps the viewer to understand how imperialist violence naturally breeds resentment and builds within colonized peoples the desire for an effective means at resistance.

Additionally, the film touches on the issue of collaboration in the face of imperialism through the example of Tony’s brother who, although is never depicted in the film, is an important element to understanding his back-story and his convictions in regards to the conflict. We eventually find out that Tony’s brother Joseph was a part of the South Lebanon Army that collaborated with the IDF against the PLO and Hezbollah during the Lebanese Civil War. As a result, his brother lives in exile from Lebanon.

When Tony and Zeina stay at the home of Tony’s family friends, who are Lebanese Christians (like himself) talk of utilizing their Israeli citizenship to flee Lebanon, Tony makes an impassioned statement: “These bastards bomb you, destroy your houses and bridges. Take your children, send you to prison, and you, you work for them?… You think my brother Joseph is happy? In his emails he dreams of coming back. All this, for what? For a stupid thing he did when he was 18.” Tony, while not necessarily condemning his brother for collaborating with the Israelis, makes the point that it isn’t a solution for those who are made victim to imperialism to work with them.

Should It Have Been a Documentary?

At times, this film is so realistic that one is made to believe that they are watching an actual documentary, and not a feature film with a script and actors. This gritty realism serves to enhance the dramatic power of the piece, but at the same time begs the question “Which should this film have been: a documentary or a fictional drama?” In the opinion of this viewer, the director made the correct decision in blending his story into the fabric of current events. In his desire to present war in a new way, director Philippe Aractingi set his film in the heart of demolished Lebanon and communicated the essential drama of real world events both through his chosen setting and through his characters. Aractingi’s characters and plot do not obscure the essential truth in this conflict; rather, they serve to compliment it by giving us dynamic and interesting characters that serve as a bridge between the viewer and the Lebanese people. It is one thing to show footage of bodies buried in rubble and another thing entirely to have a character we identify with think that her children and loved ones could be buried in that rubble itself.

Conclusion: An Essential Film

Philippe Aractingi directed this film in hopes of giving a voice to the victims of Israeli bombardment during the 33 day siege of Lebanon by the IDF. We at the APL would like to commend the director for his efforts and believe that everyone who concerns themselves with current events (particularly those involving Israel and neighboring countries) should watch this film. Its lessons about imperialism, about overcoming hardships and working together to right the wrongs in this world are essential.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review of “Severe Clear (This is War)”

26 Nov

Severe Clear, or This is War, is a documentary made from footage shot by First Lieutenant Mike Scotti on his own personal camera as he is deployed in Iraq as part of the invasion force sent in to capture the city of Baghdad. The story follows him and his platoon from Lieutenant Scotti’s living quarters to his being sent back to the United States after the capture and occupation of the Iraqi capital. The documentary contains scenes from the every day life of the soldiers as they advance through the country and of frenetic combat during the march to Baghdad and in the capture of the city itself.

Soldierism as Boyhood

In the daily lives of the soldiers, beginning with them being ferried to the Middle East via warship, the troops themselves appear to act in ways similar to adolescent boys. They swear, rough-house, drink, tell raunchy stories and otherwise behave in a manner that reminds the viewer of something between a high school locker room and a college frathouse. One scene has a soldier wearing a chain around his neck as a leash, being led around by another soldier, acting as if he were a rabid dog. Other scenes show the soldiers engaging in actions that can only be described as homoerotic. This happens while the soldiers jest in a homophobic manner, saying “you guys are so gay.”

As he narrates such scenes, Lieutenant Scotti argues that the press does “PR work” rather than actually capturing the “real life” of soldiers. Ironically, however, the result of Scotti’s filming and narration does its own “PR work” by re-articulating the age-old propaganda paradigm as a country’s soldiers being “their boys.”

When one is encouraged to view their military as consisting of rough-housing and juvenile man-children, who are also patriotic and selfless soldiers whose sole aim is protecting their parents and loved ones from dangers abroad, one is compelled to support their efforts no matter what situation they are in. From the laughing bugle boys and playful soldiers in Triumph of the Will to the marines in Severe Clear, pro-imperialist propaganda efforts have tried to emphasize “boyhood” as a virtue of their armed forces. This serves to put soldiers on a level above criticism, being that to criticize them is to criticize the children of a nation who only have their nation’s best interests at heart. Bloodlust as Sincere Motivation

A frequently repeated line of commentary from Scotti’s narration is that the soldier’s purpose is to kill other soldiers. “Our job is to kill — pure and simple,” he says, and in his commentary he asserts that the hardest part about being a soldier isn’t actual combat, but the waiting in between bouts of fighting. As Scotti’s artillery unit is called in to launch ordinance at an enemy position for the first time, soldiers make jovial comments such as “it’s like training with live targets!” and “this is the coolest fucking thing ever!” As well, when Scotti encounters the dead bodies left behind from the efforts of him and his fellow marines, he claims that “all I see is a job well done.”

While Scotti and his fellows lament over the occasional civilian who stumbles into their line of fire, the attitude towards those perceived to be the “enemy” can be summed up in the phrase “fuck ‘em,” which is frequently used in reference to the butchered corpses and flaming vehicles that the marines leave in their wake.

At the same time, even when the presence of WMDs is uncertain and the whole purpose for the occupation is in doubt, Scotti insists that “it doesn’t matter.” Even when the capture and occupation of Baghdad has the Iraqi people resisting US forces, Scotti narrates “Do they really want us here? Do they really want democracy? It doesn’t matter.” He then goes on to harp more on about a soldier’s “duty” and how they have “a job to do.” This was a particularly revealing quote in that it wipes away all of the excuses and pretenses surrounding their activity.

US imperialism was never bringing the Iraqi people “freedom” or “democracy” in the first place and, as such, the soldier’s actions are not bogged down by this pretense. Even though “revenge” is a major theme and motivation early on, with Scotti carrying around a picture of a victim of the September 11th World Trade Center attacks, the notion that he feels it “doesn’t matter” whether there was any reason to invade Iraq or not. They were there to kill, to carry out the orders they were given faithfully and to enjoy combat. The Soldier is Never Wrong

One important aspect of this documentary is that it seeks to place any conceivable blame on those other than the soldiers. The idea is that a soldier is merely “doing his job” and “looking out for his buddies.” If there is any wrong-doing in the chaos of battle, the blame can be left at the doorstep of “politicians.” When civilians are killed in the crossfire, including one particularly gruesome account of a father and his young daughter being blown apart by 50 caliber rounds when they ran a checkpoint, Scotti provides the excuse that “we weren’t trained to be police.”

Such excuses and the assertion that U.S. soldiers are only “doing their job the best they know how” speaks to a Nuremberg-esque dodging of any fault in carrying out the orders that they are given. To Scotti, soldiers are above guilt or blame because they don’t make the larger decisions in the war effort. It is almost as if this rhetoric would seem to dehumanize the soldiers themselves in the same way they must dehumanize the enemy, in that they merely see themselves as tools for the purposes of carrying out the orders they are given.

This situation translates into Scotti’s biggest criticisms revolving around the inadequacy of the supplies soldiers are given, including the lack of body-armor and other necessities that would help facilitate the carrying out of their mission. There is no real criticism of the war effort itself, of the geopolitics of an imperialist invasion of a country with no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and certainly no criticism whatsoever of his fellow soldiers. Soldiers are never wrong, only their commanding officers and the politicians are culpable. “Gritty” Propaganda Replaces the Idealized Soldier

This film is a propaganda film to its very core. It does not try to make its point by providing an idealized image of combat; instead it tries to espouse sympathy for invading forces by showing a “gritty” first-person perspective that shows soldiers photographing corpses, vomiting, drinking, cursing and any number of things that would seem counter to the fetishized “citizen soldier” perception that the military hawks in their recruitment efforts. These boyish, patriotic ruffians are to represent a “real face” of war that, while not being idealistic, does have an appeal. Military service is made out to be a unique, exotic experience that, while posing challenges, provides young men with brotherly bonds and an unparalleled adrenaline rush.

In addition, there is a disturbing “reality show” quality to this documentary. The footage is genuine, capturing scenes of both the mundane and of camera-jolting combat, yet the circumstances of the filming and editing of this documentary ensure that a good deal of the experience is lost. For one, the knowledge that they are being filmed by one of their fellow soldiers has a bearing on how a solder behaves. For two, this footage that inevitably contained then-classified information about the war effort would have had to be handled by military authority at some point.

Would any of these soldiers, say, utter a racial epitaph in reference to his enemy if he knew this footage may end up being made public? Would any number of compromising actions be allowed to be recorded in the first place and, if they were, what are the chances they wouldn’t be edited out? For those who have seen the testimonies at the Winter Soldier Investigation of 2008 it would seem that a good deal of the sort of things that veterans have reported, such as casual racism and trigger-happy attitudes towards civilians, do not rear their head in this documentary. Is that because they were edited out, were concealed under the pressure of a camera lens, or was it the case that none of these things happened among this particular group of soldiers? Many questions arise to the surface which leave the credibility of this kind of documentary in question as well.

Conclusion: Avoid

This film isn’t particularly enlightening, entertaining or useful. It demonstrates a propaganda effort that, while operating under the pretense of being “real” only uses its gritty content to reinforce the “support the troops” rhetoric. There is no concrete criticism provided for the invasion, occupation and violence that has been committed against the Iraqi people and no criticism for the soldiers themselves who volunteered to invade someone else’s country and kill their people. The most this film does is speak in retrospect about the regretability of the Iraq War, yet never ceases to drone on about “honor” and “duty” as if these words could wash away the blood of imperialist war from the hands of those made to be its perpetrators. The story of the soldiers themselves, their triumphs and hardships in the context of this invasion and occupation, is prioritized over the story of the Iraqi people, which makes this documentary all too typical.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: