Let's talk about the 2017 film War Machine.
It's quite a good film!
There, I let it out right here, at the very beginning. It served up a little seat-grabbingly intense action, a few wow-that-was-amazing-acting moments and got a LOT of laughs, all the while being firm in its identity of a "satirical film", as Wikipedia calls it. The one thing it didn't get from me is the feeling that I'd watched a mediocre film. Because it's a pretty damn good one.
There are a ton of reviews out there, like this one, and this. They say stuff like "A caricature of a military leader, but not an insightful one", and that the film is trying to portray the actions of said leader but its buried under "fluff".
Dude, seriously? Whoever wrote such a review doesn't understand film, or satire, or perhaps reviews. War Machine's caricature of General Glen McMahon is deliberate, and Brad Pitt does quite a good job (in a scene towards the end, Pitt almost challenges Tom Hanks after the latter's character is rescued in Captain Phillips. Yeah, it's that good!).
And War Machine is certainly insightful, since we get to see all kinds of glimpses of the man, from his military career, his attitude towards everything from his entourage to Washington politicians to the media to insurgents and collateral damage. Hell, the dynamic between McMahon and his wife is a thing of beauty, in a fantastic performance by Meg Tilly. In a scene that's less than a minute long, the movie shows you what it's like being the wife of a decorated armyman! If you think that's not masterfully done and insightful, go watch Bergman and Godard and Ray and Kurosawa and nothing else, because you don't understand cinema at all.
And then another review says the War Machine "never earns the sentimental respect we are presumably expected to pay to its hero." No shit, Sherlock! If you thought the film expected you to pay respect to McMahon's character, you missed the point completely! War Machine has a surprising number of layers for its audience to delve through, and if anyone's stuck at the topmost, shallowest one, that can hardly be the film's fault, right?
And of course, at the cost of perhaps angering any American out there who stumbles across this blog (however unlikely that might be), this film is a satire! It was always going to mock any and all saintly good intentions of an invading army, because an invasion is hardly benevolent, is it? So why go red in the face and call it a badly made, confused movie? Because trust me, as someone not from the fabled "West" and who's not read Michael Hastings's The Operators but knew the background going into the movie, the one thing War Machine wasn't, was "confused". Unlike what a lot of people might tell you, this movie was never supposed to be about McMahon, or even one man. It's a commentary, that's what a satire is, people!
Maybe Netflix isn't meant to succeed as a big budget, movie making, star hiring entity. To big production houses like Fox and Disney and Universal and so many more, Netflix is probably the new kid on the block who's trying to be cool and new, but isn't really worth paying much attention to. So yeah, it got a few successful shows under its belt, but can it ever really get a full fledged, mass market, commercially successful movie out there? Perish the thought! Maybe the big established houses think so, and maybe the critics are also playing (read pandering) to the gallery. Let the underdog remain just that, an underdog. Because as we all know, the underdog always wins, but that's only in the movies. Reality's different. Reality's a bitch.
Okay, here's another thing. What's with all the typecasting and categorising? War Machine suffers from what I'd like to call the "critics' need to categorise". Is there really any need to classify a film as a war movie or a dark comedy or even a satire, for that matter? Why can't it be a mishmash of several things, as long as it makes sense? And it does make sense, because rarely have I seen a movie that has soooo many actors and subplots give almost all of it — characters and stories — quite an appreciable amount of background, and that too with very little screen time! And all of it does come together to make a nice, appreciable whole.
There's some really good acting that's gone into this film, apart from a few surprise oh-hey-look-it's-her/him cameo moments (watch out for the last scene, that cameo's a doozy!). Apart from Brad Pitt's Inglourious Basterd-esque performance (which quite suits McMahon), you have some genuinely amazing performances from underrated actors, including Keith Stanfield, Scoot McNairy and John Magaro. And of course, if there's something Pitt has perfected over the years, it's his comic timing, be it the Ocean's series or his bout with the Coen brothers for Burn After Reading.
If you haven't gotten around to watching War Machine, you should. If you haven't watched it because others have told you that it's not good, bollocks to them. Watch it (without prejudice) and decide for yourself. That's generally relevant for anything, really. Don't form an opinion about something based on someone else's. If you can, experience that something for yourself, and judge for yourself.
And if you've watched it and still not liked it, you're either
a) a firm believer in what the movie is "satiring" (if I can coin that word), or
b) you genuinely felt it wasn't good enough, or
c) some other reason I haven't thought of, because I'm not infallible.
Whatever may be the case, good for you. At least you've got your own mind, and not had it made up for you by someone else, including this blog.
It's quite a good film!
There, I let it out right here, at the very beginning. It served up a little seat-grabbingly intense action, a few wow-that-was-amazing-acting moments and got a LOT of laughs, all the while being firm in its identity of a "satirical film", as Wikipedia calls it. The one thing it didn't get from me is the feeling that I'd watched a mediocre film. Because it's a pretty damn good one.
There are a ton of reviews out there, like this one, and this. They say stuff like "A caricature of a military leader, but not an insightful one", and that the film is trying to portray the actions of said leader but its buried under "fluff".
Dude, seriously? Whoever wrote such a review doesn't understand film, or satire, or perhaps reviews. War Machine's caricature of General Glen McMahon is deliberate, and Brad Pitt does quite a good job (in a scene towards the end, Pitt almost challenges Tom Hanks after the latter's character is rescued in Captain Phillips. Yeah, it's that good!).
 |
| Surprise surprise! Who knew Brad Pitt (War Machine) could deliver as great a scene as the legendary Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) himself?! |
And War Machine is certainly insightful, since we get to see all kinds of glimpses of the man, from his military career, his attitude towards everything from his entourage to Washington politicians to the media to insurgents and collateral damage. Hell, the dynamic between McMahon and his wife is a thing of beauty, in a fantastic performance by Meg Tilly. In a scene that's less than a minute long, the movie shows you what it's like being the wife of a decorated armyman! If you think that's not masterfully done and insightful, go watch Bergman and Godard and Ray and Kurosawa and nothing else, because you don't understand cinema at all.
 |
| Meg Tilly in an understated but mindblowing performance in War Machine. |
And then another review says the War Machine "never earns the sentimental respect we are presumably expected to pay to its hero." No shit, Sherlock! If you thought the film expected you to pay respect to McMahon's character, you missed the point completely! War Machine has a surprising number of layers for its audience to delve through, and if anyone's stuck at the topmost, shallowest one, that can hardly be the film's fault, right?
And of course, at the cost of perhaps angering any American out there who stumbles across this blog (however unlikely that might be), this film is a satire! It was always going to mock any and all saintly good intentions of an invading army, because an invasion is hardly benevolent, is it? So why go red in the face and call it a badly made, confused movie? Because trust me, as someone not from the fabled "West" and who's not read Michael Hastings's The Operators but knew the background going into the movie, the one thing War Machine wasn't, was "confused". Unlike what a lot of people might tell you, this movie was never supposed to be about McMahon, or even one man. It's a commentary, that's what a satire is, people!
Maybe Netflix isn't meant to succeed as a big budget, movie making, star hiring entity. To big production houses like Fox and Disney and Universal and so many more, Netflix is probably the new kid on the block who's trying to be cool and new, but isn't really worth paying much attention to. So yeah, it got a few successful shows under its belt, but can it ever really get a full fledged, mass market, commercially successful movie out there? Perish the thought! Maybe the big established houses think so, and maybe the critics are also playing (read pandering) to the gallery. Let the underdog remain just that, an underdog. Because as we all know, the underdog always wins, but that's only in the movies. Reality's different. Reality's a bitch.
 |
| Is it a satire? Is it a war movie? Is it a tragicomedy? Forget it. Watch for yourself and judge. |
There's some really good acting that's gone into this film, apart from a few surprise oh-hey-look-it's-her/him cameo moments (watch out for the last scene, that cameo's a doozy!). Apart from Brad Pitt's Inglourious Basterd-esque performance (which quite suits McMahon), you have some genuinely amazing performances from underrated actors, including Keith Stanfield, Scoot McNairy and John Magaro. And of course, if there's something Pitt has perfected over the years, it's his comic timing, be it the Ocean's series or his bout with the Coen brothers for Burn After Reading.
If you haven't gotten around to watching War Machine, you should. If you haven't watched it because others have told you that it's not good, bollocks to them. Watch it (without prejudice) and decide for yourself. That's generally relevant for anything, really. Don't form an opinion about something based on someone else's. If you can, experience that something for yourself, and judge for yourself.
And if you've watched it and still not liked it, you're either
a) a firm believer in what the movie is "satiring" (if I can coin that word), or
b) you genuinely felt it wasn't good enough, or
c) some other reason I haven't thought of, because I'm not infallible.
Whatever may be the case, good for you. At least you've got your own mind, and not had it made up for you by someone else, including this blog.
Comments
Post a Comment