So this guy is responsible for 11 innocent civilians getting killed. His culpability is never in question. Yet we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he might get a max sentence of four years in a Danish prison.
Really?
It sounds like you understood part of what the movie's about, but not the other parts. Are you supposed to feel sorry for him? Is the movie trying to make you feel one way or the other? Or are you bringing that to the movie?
shareThe court had a pretty high threshold of guilt - something about certainty rather than reasonable doubt. Butcher's testimony could not be proven perjury, so he had to be let off. A US court would have done the same if the matter had even gone to court - US drones have killed up in the hundreds of civilians; no court.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff
He did little to put up any fight prior to court and seemed quite resigned to prison at one point. I didnt realise we were "supposed" to feel one way or the other. The numerous reviews all seem to have missed that point too, as they mostly chew over an officer trying his best in quite a few different ways including arguing for a medevac for a soldier who would die otherwise.
Yes, Claus is guilty.
BUT, the movie isn't really a simple "Yes"/"No" proposition. That's what makes it interesting and provocative. It is quite clear that The Butcher lies on the stand to clear his commander.
However, the movie isn't about that guilt or innocence. It sets up a complex situation where a commander is trying to save the life of one of his wounded soldiers. The troops ARE under fire. Also importantly, the commander had just found out that an Afghani family was just slaughtered by the Taliban because of his inaction. It's all of a piece.
It is up to the viewer whether they believe that Claus should be punished by the law for what actions he did. It makes it a much richer experience than most war movies which paint these situations in a black & white manner.
It's not a movie on whether it is OK to kill civilians.
The movie shows how war is *beep* there are no absolute heroes, no winners. Claus is a good man, he never wanted to hurt anyone, quite the opposite, yet the results are a disaster. First one family killed because he could not protect them, then another killed because he wanted to save his men. His own family in danger of breaking apart. The real villains are the Talibans, but they are not even on trial.
War always starts out good, there is an aggressor, and someone defending, but in all the action, noise, confusion, fear, anger and despair, everyone is affected and people make lots of mistakes. The military cannot be allowed to act without rules, but then it becomes so difficult to prosecute someone who is putting his own life in danger just to protect others, but was not thinking clearly enough when bombs were falling all about him. And at the end, your best friend accuses you, and someone you never expected anything from actually saves you. It's never fair.
It's easy to blame people, but it is near impossible to fight a war without, here and there, losing it all.
I think the film was good at showing some of the difficult issues, and why returning soldiers have such a hard time. it is not easy to accept that you made mistakes, when society would consider you a villain, if only they knew what you have done or what you have witnessed.
+1
share+1 as well. The movie deals with similar dilemmas regarding civilian deaths as "Eye in the Sky", although "Eye in the Sky" is about drones.
share+1
I wondered why the words "collateral damage" never have been mentioned in the movie. I thought that was the case but I am no military expert.
For myself was disappointed that Claus lied in the court. I hoped that he would break out with the truth, but when Slagter came up with his false story to clear Claus I was sure Claus would stick with the lie, because he wouldn't have wanted to get Slagter accused for false testifys.
The real villains are the Talibans
So what's your solution, let the Taliban continue allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for committing terrorist atrocities? There's an honourable case to be made that the intervention in Iraq was a bad idea, but none whatsoever regarding the war in Afghanistan.
shareDude,Taliban was created by the CIA in the first place. Bin Laden was a CIA operative who was used to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.the USA claimed to have killed him?show us his body!no body.
Just like ISIS is a USA & western invention.
I'm not at all sure he was guilty. Had I been defending Claus, my argument would have run thus:
"They were being shot up. Then they bombed the compound. Then they were no longer being shot up. QED."
The deaths of the civilians was of course bitterly regrettable, but for Taliban fighters the use of civilians as human shields is standard operating procedure. The fact that the assault on the Danes' position ceased immediately upon the airstrike makes it obvious that the action was successful and correct.
The fact that the assault on the Danes' position ceased immediately upon the airstrike makes it obvious that the action was successful and correct.
It does help to pay attention when you are watching a film, it will prevent you making idiotic statements like that.
I think one important factor they never mentioned in the movie was whether or not there were enemies in the compound. They never mention it so, in my opinion, you can't say he's guilty or not.
shareYet we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he might get a max sentence of four years in a Danish prison.
And all the pieces matter (The Wire)share
It looked to me that he showed remorse when he broke down, crying. Being pragmatic, what would prison have accomplished? He wasn't going back to be able to make the same mistakes. The villagers would still be dead and his family DID need a good father/husband and that, he was. Seems like for a man like that, he'd be "punished" for the rest of his life, knowing he was responsible for their deaths.
share