By George & Josh Bate
Few filmmakers challenge and provoke thought in the manner that Alex Garland does. After making his name in the movie industry writing the zombie horror film 28 Days Later, Garland charted a directorial career, which, in 11 years and now across 5 films, has yet to include a poor outing. While the director has a number of commendable qualities in his filmmaking arsenal, perhaps the most impressive is his ability to create tension – not just suspense, but true, immersive tension. This extreme, heart-pounding, blood-boiling intensity was present in the conclusions of Men and Annihilation, much of last year’s Civil War, and now takes centerstage in Garland’s latest film Warfare.
Distributed by A24, Warfare sees Garland share directorial and writing credits with Iraq War Veteran Ray Mendoza. The film is based on Mendoza’s real life experience as a U.S. Navy SEAL, specifically during a surveillance mission gone wrong during the Iraq War. Embedding the audience with Mendoza and his fellow servicemembers, Warfare takes an immersive and visceral approach to a war film as it unfolds in real time and is based solely on the corroborated memories of those who lived through the mission.
Warfare is not a horror film, but the physiological reactions it will elicit in audiences could make you easily mistake it for one. Garland and Mendoza craft a masterful exercise in tension, one intended to mirror (to the best of their ability) the lived experiences of U.S. Navy SEALS in combat. Even before guns start firing, the film possesses a calculated, unnerving quality about it, much like the anticipatory dread leading up to a big jump scare in a horror movie. Once the action starts, there is no relief to be found though. Rather than relieve the audience of this pressure and tension now that we know the action has kicked off, Garland and Mendoza choose to keep you right in the center of the pressure and don’t loosen their grip until the credits roll.
It is not hyperbole to say that Warfare may be the most intense moviegoing experience we’ve ever had. The way in which Garland and Mendoza shoot the film makes it akin to a found footage movie or even a documentary in the feelings it evokes and the authenticity it showcases. The camera replicates the lived experiences of Mendoza and his Navy SEAL colleagues, providing a visual language for Mendoza to tell a story words could never alone tell. The camera shakes and is unsteady at times. There are uncomfortable close-ups to people in distress. Extreme violence lingers in frame. Explosions hit hard and create a disorienting effect. All of this is compounded by the fact that, after a brief introduction, Warfare takes place entirely in real time. Again, there is no reprieve from the tension, even before the action starts.
In this sense, Warfare breaks convention of typical cinematic storytelling by being a primarily sensory experience. Garland and Mendoza are not interested in telling an intricate narrative or providing much context about why the Navy SEALs are fighting with the insurgents (for better or worse). The filmmakers are solely focused on cultivating an authentic understanding of combat through sound design, cinematography, and performances. And, with this goal in mind, Warfare succeeds undoubtedly. Any romanticism of warfare or Hollywood hero moments are nowhere to be found, enabling the film to be more akin to ride or an exhibit at times. Such a characterization further evidences just how pulse-pounding and lived-in the film feels.
With a desire to intricately reconstruct a real life combat mission in real time, Garland and Mendoza risk having characters the audience knows little about and, in turn, cares little about. Through powerful performances across a strong ensemble, this is thankfully not the case. The film begins with a brief and unexpectedly humorous introduction to the team of Navy SEALS. When the A24 logo comes up and a specific song from the era in which the film takes place begins to play, one could easily be mistaken that they’ve walked into the wrong theater and are not watching a movie about the Iraq war. In this introduction though, the servicemembers are depicted with a humanity and youthfulness that remains in the back of one’s mind throughout. It is easy to forget that the men undertaking such a perilous mission are young adults, largely in their mid-20s. And, even more so, it is easy to view military members in a film like this as cold and unfeeling. But the introduction counters both of these potential preconceptions right off the bat.
As the film progresses and after overcoming a bit of a disorienting beginning in which added context for the mission feels missing, it becomes clear that the audience will never learn about the details or backgrounds of these characters’ lives. Emphasizing this is the fact that every character is never seen in civilian clothing, always wearing their military uniform from start to finish. The movie is simply dedicated to depicting this specific mission and nothing else. However, sometimes more can be gleaned about a person in life-or-death scenarios than in any other type of situation, something Warfare takes to heart and runs with. Amazing performances across the ensemble, without a single performance faltering or lagging behind the others, allow each of the servicemembers to have distinctive personalities, quirks, and even interests. We may not know their life story, but we know what they are like at a more fundamental level. The brotherhood shared between the Navy SEALS becomes contagious in a way and attachment to them grows immensely from moment to moment. The most apt comparison to how Warfare fosters investment in its characters while simultaneously keeping them more obscure is Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk. The World War II film from 2017 similarly reveals little of its collection of young soldiers, but earns the audience’s care as the characters’ true values and personalities become evident during an unimaginably difficult situation. Like Dunkirk, Warfare achieves a rare feat in deftly couching human qualities to his characters through largely experiential and sensory depictions of war.
As mentioned, Warfare bolsters a strong ensemble, who prove essential to selling the visceral intensity Garland and Mendoza aspired to convey. Given the nature of the film, no actor is given an opportunity to explore much range of emotion, other than fear and panic. Nonetheless, the rawness and authenticity of this fear and panic are palpable. Audience members’ mirror neurons will fire repeatedly while viewing these actors demonstrate immense mental turmoil and physical anguish, further contributing to how immersive Warfare is. Out of a universally impressive ensemble without a single actor faltering, Joseph Quinn stands out with a truly harrowing performance. Quinn has made a name for himself recently, impressing in projects like Stranger Things and A Quiet Place: Day One. The English actor will soon make his debut in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with this summer’s The Fantastic Four: First Steps, but, before that, produces a performance that will rattle you and stay with you in Warfare. If it wasn’t blatantly clear already, Quinn is a genuine movie star with the seldom seen ability of delivering a variety of performances that make an impression into one’s psyche long after the film or show has concluded.
Garland’s previous movie Civil War earned largely positive reception, although some viewers found the film’s apolitical stance to be both surprising and disappointing. With Warfare, and as revealed by Garland and Mendoza during a Q&A we were present for after the screening, there is again a motivation to make an inherently political topic as apolitical as possible. The directors are uninterested in making a strong and novel statement about war, other than to simply convey its horrors (which some may consider to be an anti-war message). Viewers seeking more substantive messaging about the Iraq War or war more in general may come away disappointed due to this apoliticality, although we found it to be appropriate given the filmmakers’ central aim. While this does make the movie a tad one note (that note being a portrayal of how intense war combat is), it renders Warfare to be a face valid, straightforward movie. That is to say, the film unfolds exactly how Garland and Mendoza envisioned without any subliminal messaging or interpretation required. The emotions it evokes are universal, yet essential and powerful. The physiological reactivity it yields is striking. Warfare is a primal movie, intended to evoke some of our most basic human emotions, and, in that regard, excels unreservedly.
VERDICT: 8.5/10
Visionary director Alex Garland and Iraq War Veteran Ray Mendoza create one of the most intense moviegoing experiences of all time with Warfare. Disinterested in making strong political statements and liberated from traditional Hollywood romanticism of war, the film plummets audiences into immersive, disorienting chaos for 90+ minutes and never loosens its grip. Through exceptional sound design, cinematography, and performances, the filmmakers meticulously reconstruct a real life combat mission that fosters palpable anxiety and tension in their audience. A testament to the performances, in particular that of Joseph Quinn, emotional investment in the characters comes naturally and easily, which is particularly noteworthy given how little is revealed about each of the servicemembers. While the movie is a tad one note and more exposition on the frontend would have provided greater grounding in the story, Warfare excels as a primal movie, one that evokes universal, yet essential and powerful, emotions, and a striking physiological reactivity we have never experienced in a movie before. As Alex Garland’s impressive filmography continues to grow, his uncanny ability to create tension through cinema and have viewers feel this tension through every cell in their bodies remains unrivaled.