MovieChat Forums > The Patrol (2014) Discussion > What if They gave a War and Nobody Came?...

What if They gave a War and Nobody Came? (spoilers)


The film and video game industries of western imperialist powers usually do a sterling job of helping to convince young men (and women) to violate their universal evolved (some might say god-given) morality not to kill other people, to take money from the state to become trained killers, and to go overseas to kill the Johnny foreigners who defy being dictated to by said western imperialist powers. Generations of Yanks and Brits in particular have been suckered into killing in the name of $$$ and £££ by gung-ho jingoistic “war” films and games, where the greatest and most atrocious man-made obscenity – death and destruction on an industrial scale – is turned into “action” entertainments, for the purpose of thrilling and recruiting the masses to perpetuate imperialist military might. For a contemporary Afghan war example, see the truly dire 'Jarhead 2: Field of Fire'.

Trouble is, the real life of soldiers in real live warfare situations is NOT at all like it is in those “action” entertainments. So when an ex-British Army Officer writes and directs a realistic portrayal of a grass-roots small unit mutiny, set in a contemporary theatre of war, it’s no surprise (though depressingly predictable) that fanboys of said “action” entertainments feel moved to vent their disapproving spleens (as adjacent threads indicate). An anti-war film is hardly likely to satisfy “war” movie fanboys – but if it helps potential military recruits from the 99% to doubt the wisdom of becoming paid-for killers doing the 1%ers’ bidding, then it’s squarely on the side of the angels (of peace).

Modern indigenous armed insurgencies are made up men just as clever as the foreigners whom they’re fighting, so unsurprisingly they do not line up to be gunned down like cannon fodder within a few metres of the enemy (as in so many “action” entertainments) – they wisely make use of the tactical terrain advantage of attacking from hard cover, combined with the effective range of modern assault rifles, to engage occupation forces at a distance. As stated elsewhere, “98% boredom and 2% sheer bloody terror” may not make for much of an “action” entertainment, but it does graphically underpin the slow-burning and dramatic mutiny portrayed in ‘The Patrol’.

Congratulations to writer/director/producer Tom Petch and the cast and crew of ‘The Patrol’ for using a small budget to great effect in accurately illustrating the futility of attempting to settle conflict by military occupation. When we’ve learned how to cleverly solve our differences without resorting to industrial-scale death and destruction, we’ll have earned our (currently ironically inaccurate) species designator Homo sapiens – wise humanity. Till then, the more anti-war films, the better (IMHO, ’natch).

reply

90% of the best war films are anti war- apocalypse now, thin red line, platoon, jarhead- and, to more inconsistent levels, Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down which rationalises it as a sort of unnecessary evil based on good intentions. I really enjoy realistic war films like this, Restrepo and Korengal are fantastic. But i think the argument that not liking an uneventful war film simply because of a juvenile desire for a glorification of war, rather than simply a desire for "stuff to happen", is an unfair argument. I think a lot of film goers just want a complex, engaging film over a realistic depiction of war- which is, as you say, 99% "hurry up and wait". However, when people watch films with pilots or road trip films, they aren't subjected to hours of nothing but people sitting in chairs looking out windows. The idea is to condense the experience down into a btie sized chunk. The interesting thing is that human memory works very much like "action" type war films, though not crap like Jarhead 2- the long hours of bordem are not the recorded in our memory, the 2% of sheer terror is recollected over and over again in agonising slow motion. SO the idea of a war film that devotes 30% of it;s runtime to one or two intense fire-fights is somewhat reflective of that.
Regardless, the first Jarhead is a great example of a film that didn;t satisfy that action fix, yet was still constantly engaging (aside from some of the silly parts like the infamous bonfire scene near the end.

I think honest to god war films like this need to be careful fo the trap that a lot of bad historical films fall into- forgetting that they are a film first and foremost. Just because they appeal to realism does not mean they no longer need to satisfy basic filmaking and narrative qualities. Remember, you can never truly depict the experience of war on a television, it just can;t be done- out what you can try to do is try and synthesise a film to communicate the experience itself- e..g the surrealness of Apocalypse now- a film that was not objectively accurate (by a long god damn stretch), but tried to communicate the idea of a breakdown of ones humanity and the effects of PTSD, while a film like hamburger hill, which some Nam vets have told me was actually closest to their experience over there, come of as the exact kind of mindless violence you want to avoid. This may seem like a bad example, but Stallone wanted to try and communicate the impact that seeing a man shot with a high calibre weapon has, and so he exaggerated his violence to the extreme in Rambo 4- because a realistic impact looks anticlimactic and, funnily enough, unrealistic to most audience members- nothing compares to actually seeing it up close, and sometimes the only way to try and recreate that reaction in the audience is through hyperbole. Not to say it worked well in Rambo, most of the audience just thought the gore was really fun, but i understood what he meant when he explained what he was tryign to do with it.

In the end, a straight shot war film isn't necessarily the best way to try and communicate the experience of war, though that seams counter intuitive. I think Restrepo and Korengal work better because the solderers themselves explain what's going through their heads directly to the audience. This film was still good, a million times better than trash like Jarhead 2- but as a film, and it is a film, it's not for everyone and i don't have a problem with that. But any prospective army recruits should definitely check it out.

I can't really think of one good pro war film, except maybe starship troopers, but that's satirical and ultimately totally anti war.

"World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

reply

the only jingolism is your own.

Most war films are anti war. Many are very good.

This one is terrible. Terrible dialogue, terrible directing and some god awful acting.

reply