Warfare is an immersive war story, more of an experience than a story actually.

5 out of 5

It is difficult to convey what Warfare is although most entering into a theatre will get quite the experience. The film recreates a conflict a Navy SEAL team experienced in 2006, after they got pinned down inside a house in Ramadi, Iraq. One of the SEALs is severely injured by an insurgent, and in the process of evacuating him an armoured personnel carrier (APC) is struck by an improvised explosive device, an IED.

During the making of Civil War, Ray Mendoza, an ex-SEAL and military advisor on the production, told director Alex Garland this story, his story. Once filming wrapped, Garland decided to make Warfare his next project (and partner with Mendoza as co-director) before taking a sabbatical from helming features.

At the very beginning, a title card appears acknowledging the film is based on the memories of Mendoza and his fellow comrades. Memory can be complicated but accuracy matters. So much so, the actions depicted are numbing and clinical by design. What we feel emotionally while watching is tangential to the immersive experience Garland and Mendoza create. The film has no soundtrack. The dialogue is military jargon and terminology foremost. Warfare doesn’t glorify war, nor does it promote American jingoism. The film exists primarily to be a visual recollection of events to help Navy SEAL Elliott Miller (portrayed by Cosmo Jarvis in the film), severely injured by a frag grenade, remember what happened.

In doing so, Warfare assaults the viewers with blood, smoke, and chaos. The film forgoes leaning into war movie characterization tricks. There is no singular lead or identifiable qualities of the SEALs to single them out. At a tight 95 minutes, including credits, there is neither the time nor the inclination to engage with characters on an emotional level.

The opening act is surveillance. Under the cover of nightfall, the SEALs infiltrate a house and take control after waking a family and putting them in a room on the ground level. As day breaks, the men remain inside as the lead sniper notes possible insurgents and Al-Qaeda forces in a marketplace a few blocks away. It’s a slow build to what ultimately turns sideways as the SEALs are bombarded with gunfire and a rescue tank destroyed by an explosive device. Top military brass don’t want to risk the loss of another expensive piece of equipment, and with no air cover the men are left to defend until defence turns to breaking rules in an effort to come home alive.

The moment the film turns from surveillance to engagement you are whiplashed. The sounds of the neighbourhood are dialed up as sound designer Glenn Freemantle and his team disorient you after the IED explosion. For five minutes, you feel as if you are wading through water as smoke stings your eyes and you struggle to breathe. The effect is very harrowing and recalls the disorientation felt with the opening minutes of Saving Private Ryan or the Somali incursion in Black Hawk Down.

By breaking from the traditional mould of combat movies, particularly those of modern warfare, Garland and Mendoza deliver a measured account of what happens and what has happened hundreds of times without reportage. For that, Warfare succeeds on how it is told. You admire it for its technical merits and attention to detail. No explanation to operation directives or emotional resonance to the soldiers are drawbacks, for sure, but again Mendoza’s intention was to have the film be a visual record for his comrade in arms, Elliot. It may not be the best of tribulations, and you may question if Garland had other intentions with making the film. Regardless, after this film, Hollywood should refrain from making war films for quite a while.