For about as long as we have been observing human behaviour, there has been a focus on combat, whether physical or more theoretical. As a species, we tend to be predisposed to asserting our dominance and influence in one way or another, and it’s very common for these displays of strength to manifest in more violent ways. War is as much a part of human history as any other aspect of our existence, and while there have been countless fascinating attempts to explore the psychology of war, it’s not something that we can ever entirely comprehend, in much the same way that it will likely never entirely cease to exist. Cinema has had an equally complicated relationship with the subject, since while there are a select few who make films that celebrate and promote the concept of war, the vast majority of artists are vehemently against conflict, and use it as a means to explore the desperation that drives people into such states, whether on the individual level or on a much larger scale. One of the most interesting recent examples of this comes in the form of Warfare, in which Alex Garland, who has shown an interest in the subject (as recently as Civil War a year ago, a speculative action film set in the near-future and examining a potential scenario in which the United States succumbs to its internal conflicts) works closely with Ray Mendoza, an Iraq War veteran, to tell the story of a group of Navy SEAL operatives stationed in a suburban house in the city of Ramadi, tasked with a routine observation mission which goes off the rails once their targets become aware of their presence, leading to a violent showdown between the warring sides, during which time the squadron find themselves questioning everything as they look Death directly in the eyes and attempt to avoid meeting their demise. Asserting itself as being composed entirely out of the memories of these real-life soldiers, Warfare attempts to be the most authentic and direct approach to war that we could possibly encounter, and while some of its ideas may be slightly too unwieldy, there is a quality that keeps this film intriguing, even at its most intentionally enigmatic.

War films are a peculiar genre – they’re undeniably very popular and tend to be massively successful in many instances, but also have a reputation for being quite obvious, particularly in terms of their underlying messages, which tend to flirt around the same general sentiment. By this point, no viewer needs to walk away from a film with the sole statement of “war is bad” etched on their mind as the primary message, and any film that resorts to exclusively highlighting this point is hopelessly lazy in refusing to do more with this very obvious idea. Warfare does seem to be quite vague in terms of what it is trying to say, but this ambiguity is actually one of its core strengths, since it doesn’t lend itself to easy solutions by any means. Instead, we find that the film is focused not on portraying war as something binary, but rather a complex experience that anyone who has not experienced it will be extremely lucky to never have to endure. There is a tendency to use war, particularly those such as the Iraq War, as a means to hammer in the belief in the strength and superiority of the United States and its powerful military forces, which is objectively true if you focus on the resources allocated to these areas. However, Garland is not interested in creating a celebration of war, and even refuses to work around the sentiment by crafting a film that serves as a tribute to the brave individuals who put their lives on the line for their country. Neither of these is particularly effective or meaningful, and they’re becoming equally as obvious as narrative tropes. Instead, Warfare serves as an attempt to remove all metacommentary from the conversation, not making a statement on the morality of war, but rather an objective glimpse into the horrors of combat, and how these demonstrations of brute power and intense masculinity can yield very different results at a moment’s notice, and that the strength a soldier feels can quickly disappear once they are put in a position where it isn’t a matter of showcasing their strength, but rather the simple act of survival, which can become impossible in certain circumstances.

Despite the genre in which it exists, as well as the participation of certain real-life figures, we learn very quickly that Warfare is not intending to be a traditional film about war. The first moment of realisation is the opening scene, in which Eric Prydz “Call on Me” (perhaps the defining song of the era in which the film was set) starts the film, the sound slightly too loud and the camera intentionally moving across the room with the most jagged movement, reflecting not only the chaos of war, but also the raw, emotional masculinity that often factors in as its primary propellant. This is also the only instance in this entire film where we encounter even an ounce of levity, with the inherent humour of juxtaposing a fast-paced dance song with images of soldiers on the eve of what is likely going to be the defining moments of their adult lives (for better or worse) being one of the more bold decisions made by the directors, and something that ensures that we are aware that this is a film that’s going to handle its subject matter quite differently than we’d expect. It has become something of an unexpected cliche to refer to this film using the term “intense”, but the simplicity of this universal description is not a mistake – this is a film that begins with a high level of tension, and only becomes more harrowing as it progresses and we find ourselves accompanying these characters on this journey. The film is told in mostly real-time, taking place over roughly an hour as we see the characters attempting to carry out a mission, which quickly becomes a more violent affair when their targets prove to be just as dangerous as they expected (if not more), leading to a brutal showdown between the two sides. Garland and Mendoza work together to create a fast-paced, raw depiction of the horrors of war, removing as much emotion from the story as they can and focusing instead on the most visceral, authentic depiction of these circumstances as possible. The choice to focus on one particular event, and the recollections of multiple soldiers that were involved, gives the film some structure, and facilitates many complex moments in which we simply watch the terror and violence unfold in vivid, uncomfortable detail.

In a squadron of roughly a dozen soldiers, only a couple were willing to participate in terms of having their names credited or even simply being involved in providing their recollections. Warfare is an ensemble effort, and it is built around the memories these former soldiers had of this fateful day. Mendoza serving as co-director was an interesting choice, since it automatically lends the film some gravitas, and when we eventually see how the film approaches the subject, the concern that it was going to merely be a toothless, inappropriate celebration of the might of the American military does dull, since this is very clearly not a film that intends to provide a positive depiction in any way. The structure of the film lends itself to the ensemble, with the focus not being on one character over another (it even resists positioning Mendoza himself as the protagonist, despite his active role in creating this film), and instead being a sprawling depiction of a wide range of perspectives. The cast is quite effective, and is littered with some of the most promising young actors working today – it is the kind of film that acts as an unofficial audition for several of these actors to advance in the industry, and I can imagine this being one of those films that we look back on in a couple of decades, being amazed at the number of notable actors in the cast. D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Joseph Quinn, Kit Connor, Cosmo Jarvis, Will Poulter, Finn Bennett and Charles Melton are the core cast (with a few others having slightly smaller but still very effective roles), and while it isn’t a performance-based film – there simply isn’t enough time to develop the characters as more than what we’d expect to find when spending 90 minutes with them – there is a concerted effort to not simply rely on archetypes. Each actor is handed a character based on a real-life soldier, and tasked with curating their performance to be as authentic and meaningful as possible, showing how every member of this team played a vital role in facilitating their survival. It’s a strong cast, and one that certainly does what was expected, elevating this film beyond the more obvious narrative tropes which we usually anticipate finding in one of these films.

Warfare is not an easy film to unpack, which seems to be the entire purpose, with Garland once again indicating his complete rejection of providing the audience with straightforward answers or a clear set of ideas that guide our understanding of the narrative. We are plunged into this violent, brutally raw moment in the lives of these characters, and the intentional ambiguity in terms of their individual development is a fascinating approach to the genre. Garland is a filmmaker with bold ideas and a voice that he has grown to enjoy amplifying, and while this does mean that his directorial vision is still developing (and his work is intentionally quite polarising), it does lend itself to a lot of ambitious choices, many of which underpin this film and make it such an effective, complex examination of the horror of war. Warfare is best described as a mood piece, a film in which the atmosphere is the primary narrative propellant, the aspect that guides the story and makes for such incredibly enigmatic, complex viewing that stirs a range of emotions in the viewer, while never forcing us to develop one opinion over another. It’s bold, audacious and shocking, and it seems likely that even the most cynical of viewers will walk away at least partially rattled, with the brutality and violence on display being one of the film’s defining features – it skirts around becoming excessive on so many occasions, showing just the right amount of restraint to take the viewer to the very threshold, and making sure that we feel the smallest fraction of the terror and intensity of war, even for just a few minutes. Most of us are lucky in that we will never see combat, and whether you view this film as a cautionary tale against war, or a haunting tribute to the people who are nothing more than pawns in the geo-political machinations that dictate our lives, its an undeniably effective and harrowing film, and one that will be very difficult to forget, for better or worse.