Battle for Haditha

It wasn't until very recently that I'd heard of Nick Broomfield and realised he made a couple of documentaries in the early 1980s that I still vividly remember namely SOLDIER GIRLS and THE CHICKEN RANCH . Knowing this I then made a point of catching his recent docudrama GHOSTS about the drowning of 23 illegal Chinese immigrants at Morcombe Bay . I was expecting it to be one of those " blame whitey " polemics , but this is not how it turned out at all with the Chinese gang master being one the most despicable and immoral villains I've seen on the screen in a long time . With this I mind I made a point of buying a ticket for Broomfield's next dramatic venture THE BATTLE OF HADITHA which was being shown at the Edinburgh filmhouse with a Q & A session being held after the showing . Despite the filmhouse brochure proclaiming that this was an even handed film with the marine characters exclusively played by former marines , there was a slight doubt at the back of my mind that we'd be watching guardinista / Michael Moore inspired anti military , anti American rubbish where the Americans are goose stepping Nazis while the Iraqis are entirely peace loving pacifists

I needn't have worried because Broomfield has made a film that will be remembered as being the moral and artistic yardstick as to how other films dealing with the conflict will be judged . Whatever your opinion of the invasion of Iraq ( I like the vast majority of Brits was against it ) there is no way you can heap criticism on TBOH for being pro or anti propaganda for either side . Sure it's anti war but does point out the dangers and frustration faced by both serving soldiers and innocent civilians in a war zone . If there is any type of villain it's probably Al Qaeda itself . Certainly Broomfield deserves congratulations for making a very subtle point that there's a difference between indigenous secular Sunni insurgents who are fighting for their country and those outsiders who want to turn Iraq in to an Islamic theocracy . This probably works best in the scene where the Iraqi insurgent breaks down in tears saying he wished he'd never planted the bomb that leads to the massacre while the sheik rejoices with barely concealed glee that this is a wonderful propaganda coup for Iraq , the more civilians killed by the occupation forces means more recruits for Al Qaeda

If I do have any artistic problems with the mis-en-scene it's that some of the acting is different from what an avid cinema goer is used to . This is in no way a criticism because much of the acting is powerful especially Elliot Ruiz as Cpl Rameirez , even more amazing when you consider there's very few professional actors cast . It's just that when you're very used to life long lighter than life or larger than life performances by ( Insert well regarded big name actor here ) you are slighter aware how different the acting is from what you usually see . Let me repeat though that it's not a real criticism

Respect too to Mr Broomfield for giving a very informative Q & A session after the showing where he was once again very even handed . He did talk a lot of sense where he said that in his humble opinion it should be Bush and Blair who should be on trial instead of the marines which led me to start a round of applause and that peace is coming to Iraq down to the fact that foreign Jihidists are murdering many Iraqis just for the sake of it . He did trip himself up later during the session when he claimed that " Britain and America spent several years arming both sides during the Iran - Iraq war " which led to me shouting " RUBBISH " but there were no hard feelings on either side and I genuinely look forward to Nick's next contribution to narrative cinema . Come to think of it if a Brit can make something so even handed why do we have to endure offensive Anglophobic garbage coming out of Hollywood studios like THE PATRIOT and THE DEVIL'S OWN ?

Made me cry.

Only issues I noticed are: That the translation of the spoken Arabic is sometimes misleading and has no relation with what they actually said.

Some of the actors' accents are not Iraqi (Palestian, Egyptian, and others...), but most are Iraqis.

It's still a great movie that shows what happens in Iraq, and that war is ugly.

It's one of the rare movies that show the issue from the other side.

The acting is great, so is the scenery (it does look a lot like Iraq).

I say it again, it made me cry, a lot.

I'm afraid I can't agree with all the gushing praise being heaped onto this film. It really didn't cut it for me. The way the story was presented made it unbelievable and for a war film there were way too many technical errors to believe the director even consulted the military before or during filming. On top of this, the suddenness of the atrocity which I assume was the core of the film, beggars belief.

I won't list all of the technical errors I spotted because after a career in the military which spans more than 40 years and three major conflicts I spotted quite a lot. But the following were the most obvious and, for all serving and former military personnel, quite laughable: The casual way the soldiers patrolled both in vehicles and on foot, the .50 Cal machine guns that are never loaded, the extras who appear at the IED site with weapons but no webbing, the Humvees parked in nice little rows along the side of the road with no protection, armour or weapons. And as for anyone standing directly in front of a metal gate and firing a burst into the lock in order to gain entrance, well if he hadn't shot himself or his team with ricochets the first time he did it he certainly would have on subsequent occasions.

I assume these were errors because if they reflect the current tactics and drills of the US Marines then the quality has really deteriorated seriously since I served alongside them in Vietnam.

I can't fault the acting and I think this is the only thing which saves this film. However, the continuity and story left a lot to be desired. For example, in the film Ramirez didn't order the executions - he ordered his teams to clear the houses which is a normal action when in contact with insurgents. The marines took it upon themselves to throw grenades and fire indiscriminately into the rooms. That is what the film showed. But if he did order the massacre then the things he'd been through must have been progressively leading him to this time and place, but we don't see any of that in the film beyond a short dialogue about him having frightening dreams. So the big question that we are left with is why did he allegedly give the orders which, as I said, it isn't really all that clear in the film that he did so? Why were all of the NCOs charged with murder? Where was the investigation?

I thought it was a good idea to include their perspective but the dialogue amongst the civilians was almost too much to bear. I know the film was unscripted but they must have been instructed to say whatever they want but make sure it makes American audiences feel that their presence in Iraq is welcomed, albeit an unnecessary evil that the civilians must put up with. But did they have to be so effusive about it?

And as for the men who planted the IED and fired the first shots on the troops - why should they have an excuse for doing so that would gel with western audiences? Why couldn't they do it, for example, just because they wanted to hurt the occupying forces? But they, like the Americans, were 'just following orders' weren't they? They, like the solders, were pawns in a game being played out by loonies with power but no intention of doing the dirty work themselves. But we need these kind of explanations don't we so that we don't leave the cinema wondering why things happen. But not everything has a tangible and logical reason. We had a wonderful saying in Vietnam - s**t happens so just get over it and move on. Why couldn't the insurgents have, as their reason for planting the IED and firing on the troops, that they are who they are and we are who we are and that is there is to it? It seems to work so well for other mujahadeen.

I know that this film is based on actual events but I'm afraid that the whole thing was trivialised by poor script (well, there was none and this shows), poor casting (am I the only one who noticed a likeness between the marine captain and the imam?), poor technical direction, and poor directing.

Sorry - a big thumbs down from me.

I just saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival, and it's going to create much controversy as the weeks pass until this film finally opens. I think those who are against a movie before they even see it are saying something about themselves, not the film. Watch it, and then make up your mind. This movie, like United 93 or Bloody Sunday, is told moment to moment, keeps it's head down and just moves forward without judgment or commentary. The movie isn't aware of the past or future, it only knows what it knows through the characters we follow, some of whom are American soldiers, some are innocent Iraqi families, others are terrorists. This movie does a wise thing by simply showing things from all points of view. I can't wait until it's released because it needs to be talked about.

At the premiere for the film, we learn that many of the actors on the American front are actually soldiers who fought in Iraq. The head of the platoon is especially good, and could go on and have a career as an actor.

i personally never heard of Mr. Bloomfield, so i had no real intention of watching this film till i saw it mentioned in the message boards for other films. that said, i must say this was the best in the recent slew of Iraq war films (like Redacted, Home of the Brave, etc.) i half expected it to be like Redacted and was pleasantly surprised to find it much better. i think it really brought out the fact that there are multiple sides to a story, and did so without too much bias. being a Muslim myself i must admit that it seemed a little inclined towards Iraqis, with Marines portrayed as undisciplined and emotionless (though one of the protagonists feels guilt and in reality this incident caused an uproar). there are no A-list actors, which in a sense, actually made the movie better because you almost see the actors as the characters themselves (especially since a lot of the dialog is improvised). i think it was well made, and well thought out. better than expected. i wonder what the US reaction would if/when it has a release there? unlike Moore's work (as stated by another user here) neither party is shown as completely innocent or completely evil. i'm not sure if this is exactly how the incident took place, but if it is, then there is certainly some food for thought in this movie.