Rec | THOUGHTS ON WARFARE

📽️

recently watched “Warfare” directed by Mendoza and Garland. first hearing abt it, i had a similarly appalled reaction to most people on film-social media; not to mention, i’m already not the biggest A24 fan, though i groove w a lot of their splish. i decided i wanted to come to my own conclusion, here it is!!!: idrk. it obviously aims to do no more than portray exactly what mendoza remembers, but every story lives in context. it feels cheap, in a sense, to simply say that you can only speak purely based on what you’ve seen. it kinda lobs the civilian perspective every once-in-a-while, and i’m sure the directors actually want the audience to question the actions of the soldiers. im on the fence, cuz there’s obviously enough to come to your own conclusion, but does the movie have the complexity and forethought to deserve credit for the audience’s ponderings? needa learn more. thoughts?

@mansaMusi

1d ago

see likes

Comments (4)

Make an account to reply.

@mansaMusi

great stuff here @ALLNATURAL. i think mendoza probably felt like he had experiences worth showing— sometimes when i have an idea in mind, i just wanna put pen to paper; i don’t wanna lose it. he may have felt that preserving his memories on film was an adequate way to pay testament to his experiences, and my guess is that Garland interpreted said experiences as an example of the cruelty of war and the direct effect of american imperialism. however, while interesting in concept, i agree that it was at least a bit ignorant to only show the perspective of the soldiers. maybe it was the creative direction, actually, as this felt like it was marketed as a realistic war movie, which might have unintentionally (or intentionally) brought in audiences who thought they were there for a cool action flick. this could have a positive effect, as these audiences may be forced to digest the very cruel nature of war instead of the glamorized spectacle which they hoped to see, but even then the message seems to simply be “man war is pretty gruesome” without much else substance unless u think really hard. if they had marketed and shot it more in the style of a sobering, small glimpse of just one of the results of america’s treacherous foreign policy— something a la The Bridge (Die Brücke)— then maybe it would have made more sense.

1d ago

@allnatural

@MANSAMUSI The idea of the marketing being intentional to draw that audience super interesting actually, kinda shifts how i perceive the direction this film was taken. On the point regarding artistic expression , completely agree w that process of just getting ideas out but doing that outside of real-world considerations , esp on the stage A24 provides, comes w consequences. In a time of heightened militarism and global resistance, I see a lack luster showing on the part of mendoza/garland within this space as a misstep. U really summed up my feelings w the The Bridge comparison though lol, so much more could’ve been done here.

1d ago

@mansaMusi

@ALLNATURAL couldn’t agree more

1d ago

@allnatural

(disclaimer haven’t watched yet ⚠️) W what’s happening rn too , I think A24 should’ve seen the environment this work was being released into . Whatever unique* message or perspective mendoza attempted to portray feels rooted in ignorance and/or bias instead. * Isnt this the american dude ? lol

1d ago

Related Recs

⭐

MOVie Review: 20 Days in Mariupol

When Russia launched its attack on Ukraine in 2022, it was rightfully met with near-universal condemnation, which lead to an onslaught of aid from around the world. As the war has dragged on though, it has become more and more politicized, with some beginning to speak out against offering any further support to the embattled nation. As the alarming images of the first days, weeks, and months of the siege began to fade from the public’s consciousness, it became easier for those who had no personal stake in the matter to simply stop caring. Documentary filmmaker Mstyslav Chernov’s Oscar-nominated film 20 Days in Mariupol aims to fix that by offering up a stark reminder of just how cruel Putin’s Russia has been towards their neighbor. Chernov shows us the footage he captured when he and other journalists decided to stay in the city of Mariupol long after others had fled due to the increasing closeness of Russian troops. Shelling can be heard from the nearby countryside and very quickly escalates to bombs landing on the city’s residential neighborhoods, to the shock and horror of everyone involved. Chaos and despair take over as some residents begin to flee and others with nowhere to go wander around the city in a daze. Mere minutes into the film we encounter a young girl, crying while huddled in a basement to hide from the bombs, who expresses aloud that she “doesn’t want to die.” Things only get bleaker from there. When Mstyslav comes to a hospital, we meet the harried staff, who are scrambling to save as many victims as they can, but with dwindling supplies are severely limited in what they can do. A doctor, angry at Putin for ordering the bombing, directs the filmmaker to another room to have him film the bloody results, and it is near impossible not to feel both rage and sorrow along with him. Graphic imagery of the injured and the dead appears throughout, emphasizing the true horror of war in ways that are rarely seen in documentary films, and it will haunt viewers long after seeing it. Harsher still are the wails of parents as they learn that their children couldn’t be saved. Eventually Mstyslav leaves the hospital to try and get his footage out for the world to see and he is confronted with a city in ruin. The images of collapsed buildings lose some of the power in comparison to what preceded them, however when he comes upon another hospital, this one with a maternity ward, that had just been bombed, the downward spiral continues anew, as soldiers and emergency workers scramble to rescue as many as possible from the ruined building. At a minimum, 20 Days in Mariupol should rekindle support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia while reminding anyone who might be confused on the matter that Putin is not a figure to be revered. It will hopefully also serve as a demonstration that war as a whole is a contemptible undertaking in which there are only losers, so that others will strive to avoid it entirely (naïve, I know, given current global events). I’ve never seen a movie like this, and the part of me that has its imagery now permanently imprinted upon it wishes that perhaps I never had, but it is important to see, to fully understand what’s happening in the world. This harrowing journey through a devastated city will always serve as a reminder of humanity’s capacity for cruelty and will hopefully inspire more of us to stand against it when we see it. ★★★★★ NOT RATED. CONTAINS GRAPHIC AND DISTRESSING IMAGES OF REAL VICTIMS, INCLUDING CHILDREN, AND STRONG LANGUAGE.

@seanf

Feb 2, 2024

🇺

Civil war

Very good, very disturbing. Kirsten Dunst is excellent. I think the marketing material misrepresents the film. Also I only just clicked that it’s by the same Alex Garland who wrote The Beach.

@emmagleason

Apr 4, 2024

🦌

the killing of a sacred deer (2017)

i have such a hard time getting through movies, its brutal and unfortunate. i am fully aware im missing out on some critical pieces of art in consequence, but if isnt both predominantly psychological thriller and as quickly paced as oppenheimer, its super hard to keep me engaged. i will talk about this movie until the end of time. despite minimal dialogue and the most clinical atmosphere to be captured by means of cinematography, the lack of information and consequential unpredictability kept me thoroughly enticed and fully unnerved for the full two hours. minimalism weaponized for max intensity with no certain direction; epitomization of surrealist thriller. watching it for the first time without context nor any expectations is an invaluable experience.

@slut

Nov 26, 2024

Top Recs from @mansaMusi

🎨

ANTI-REC: MY THOUGHTS ON COLOR GRADING

wanted to know if anybody felt the same way as me. as i’ve learned more about filmmaking, mostly through youtube and reel scrolling (as is traditional), i have in turn become more and more fascinated by color grading. watching a favorite movie and noticing how the hues vibrate, playing around on lightroom w/ stills, and sharing all of this with friends. i actually liked being bombarded with those “the reason your footage doesn’t look cinematic is because you don’t know how to use davinci/err ever heard of teal and orange/my new favorite LUT pack changed everything i am now actually wong kar wai” reels. with this new movement to tickle that saturation slide, i have been noticing the heavier color grading in more recent movies, especially those put out by A24, and it’s starting to feel off. i’m aware that disenchantment is at least partially because of my own overconsumption and resultant annoyance with instagram content, but i was wondering if anyone else has felt the same way. something about the colors in movies like Sing Sing and Past Lives just feels kinda unnatural, like it sets off that same thing mentally for me that AI content does- a buzzer that says “this is weird, and maybe not real.” idk, i know this comes across like an uneducated, nagging rant, but what do yall think? is it the digital, incredibly crisp cinematography? is it my #1 opp the ARRI Alexa line? is it lighting trends, instead? am i going crazy? overall, is coloring just getting to be a bit to much in artsy/indie cinema of the past few years? i apologize for the poor writing, hope u can comprehend what im tryna articulate.

@mansaMusi

1d ago