Lebanon - Tödliche Mission

Yes, it's true, I will not call this film a masterpiece but it most definitely does catch the emotions and fears of a young soldier. It must be remembered that unlike most countries, Israelis must serve in the army after high school/when they turn 18. This means that not every soldier is prepared emotionally for what is about to come especially at a time of war. Finally there is a movie that portrays the soldiers as what they really are - human beings. I believe the comment left by the person who was disappointed by the movie comes from a very naive place. It is very easy to think that all soldiers are robotic with one aim - to shoot the enemy but to understand the complexity and the mixed emotions a 19 year old boy, who just finished high school and was thrown into this situation with no warning, feels as he begins the first day of a war is virtually impossible unless you see it through the eyes of someone who has actually witnessed the horrors of war in this situation. The acting was very good and gave a real feeling of Israeli persona and brotherhood. It is realistic and unbiased - shows both left and right wing behaviors. It is not an easy movie and it really captures the feelings of the characters in a way you can not escape.

The film presents a concentrated and specific indictment of war through presenting innocent and unwilling young men who are unquestionably brave under fire, but virtually helpless in a dicey and deteriorating situation. Such an anti-war arc is more effectively used in Bernard Wicki's extraordinary 1959 German anti-war film Die Brucke, also about a doomed squad of young men, because the latter provides fuller backstories for each man. Maoz's young actors are vivid and believable. Shmulik (Yuav Donat), Assi (Itay Tiran), Hertzel (Oshri Cohen) and Yigal (Michael Moshonov), the crew; Jamil (Zohar Staruss), their arrogant (and hitherto unfamiliar) superior officer; or their Syrian captive (Dudu Tassa); and the several others are all good. But they only appear to us in the tank as the operation begins; it all takes place in a few hours, and there is no time to provide back-stories; they are appealing but somewhat generic.

Despite his personal experience (25 years ago) in the 1982 war, some of Maoz's writing falls prey to clichés of the oversensitive rookie, the brusque superior officer, the insistence of bodily needs, and so on. A lot of the dialogue seems stagy, even though this staging trumps anything you could do in a theater.

'Lebanon' is nonetheless a superb piece of film-making and no mere tour de force, because it all takes place within a tank, but DP Giora Bejach, as Maoz puts it, was "two photographers," depicting the events inside but also shooting through the tank's sights so we see the world outside as the crew sees it, including several devastating scenes in which Lebanese civilians are ravaged, humiliated and killed -- in particular a mother (Raymonde Ansellem) keening over her dead little daughter whose dress catches fire, leaving her naked. This is far more shocking than any of the provocations in Lars von Trier's 'Antichrist,' which seem contrived and calculated in comparison. Lebanon is very fine in its resolution of the problem of the claustrophobic setting.

The film exposes the Israeli violation of international law. The tank crew is told that a town has been bombed, and their job is to accompany troops who are going in to wipe out anyone left alive in it. The commander repeatedly orders the bomber to use white phosphorus bombs, but says they're illegal so they will call them "flaming smoke."

Action in the tank is specific and compelling. These guys are little more than boys. The newest member is the gunner. He admits he's shot only at "barrels" before this, and when the time comes to shoot, he can't pull the trigger, with disastrous results. What happens when you're in a tank and can't leave it, but it becomes disabled in enemy territory? In 'Lebanon' you find out.

I differ with Derek Elley's view (in VARIETY) that this film is superior to 'Beaufort' and 'Waltz with Bashir.' Both provide a a larger context on the war; the "visceral" vividness of the young men's experience doesn't compensate for this lack. I'm also surprised VARIETY says this film "has the least to do with Lebanon per se," and "could be set in any tank, any country." Mr. Elley seems to have forgotten about the Lebanese civilians as well as Arabic-speaking "terrorists" (the IDF term for the enemy) who are very vividly seen in this film, and not in the two others, both of which, however, are excellent films. They're all good, and all have severe shortcomings as views of the Lebanese war.

Maoz won the Golden Lion in Venice for this directorial debut. Sony will distribute the film in the US. Seen as a part of the New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center 2009.

Writer/director Samuel Maoz has created in his film LEBANON a statement about war we are not likely to forget. Based on his own experiences, this film about the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon in June of 1982 (the first Lebanon war) internalizes the responses of young soldiers sent on a mission that should have seemed simple but became anything but simple. The reason the film's message is so strong is that it forces four young, virginal soldiers in a tiny enclosed atmosphere where they must by proximity depend on each other to confront the whole question of the validity of war. It is exceptionally powerful.

A solitary army tank and a small platoon of paratroopers are sent to assure that a hostile Lebanese town bombed by the Israelis is secure. In the tank are four soldiers - Shmulik (Yoav Donat), Assi (Itay Tiran), Hertzel (the exceptionally handsome and brilliant Oshri Cohen), and Yigal (Michael Moshonov). They are not seasoned soldiers and what lies outside their protective tank is terrifying to them. Inside the tank is a claustrophobic, filthy, smoky, and foul smelling space where the four soldiers are able to view the effects of war and their tenuous grasp on reality through only the periscope of the tank. Occasionally the lid of the tank is opened to drop in a casualty along with a moment of fresh air to breathe, but basically these four men must grapple with the horrors of killing and destruction outside their tank. The aspects of human frailty that war exposes appear like autopsies on the minds and gradual mental deterioration that overtakes each of these vulnerable and emotionally unprepared young men. They may attempt humor but it is thwarted by the gore outside their iron shield of the tank where Lebanese soldiers attack and mothers suffer the loss of their children in the bombings and shootings of the little village. Maoz wisely places enough of the battle scenes outside the confines of the tank, making the audience as shocked by the atrocities of war as viewed from the exterior as the restricted glimpses of that war available to the tank crew.

This is most assuredly an anti-war film but rather than waving flags of attack and endless scenes of gore, Maoz keeps it distilled and in doing so makes it even more horrific. The cast is brilliant, delivering performances so well crafted that they linger in the minds eye long after the film is over. The haunting musical score is by Nicolas Becker and Benoît Delbecq and the almost impossible cinematography is by Giora Bejach . In Hebrew, Arabic, French and English with subtitles. Highly recommended.

Grady Harp

It's only so so. As mentioned before, there is no character development, the dialogue and plot is unrealistic, the movie plods, and builds to no climax or resolution. Yes, war is hell, and some people are unprepared for the human face of killing. it's all been done before. And the novelty of he entire film taking place in the tank gets old after the first 20 min. It's just not a very good movie on any terms. It starts with a lot of potential, and then goes nowhere; you never care about the characters, so you never care what happens to them. It's fine for a foreign rental, but best war movie ever? Hardly. Might want to watch Glory or Black Hawk Down again...

"Man is steel, the tank is only iron." Sign inside the Israeli tank.

Lebanon is a claustrophobic cinema verite about an Israeli tank patrolling the First Lebanon War in 1982. On its way with paratroopers to survey a leveled, hostile town, the tank encounters enemies, and the inconvenience, boredom, and terror of living inside an iron box with not even enough room to pee. The above sign is amply ironic about the decidedly unsteel-like humans. The voice of Central Command coming over the communication network reminds me of Pinter or Beckett, ominous and remote, not anyone's idea of a benevolent god.

Comparisons have been made between this film and Das Boot (1981), the memorable submarine movie, also mostly shot inside the warship. However, Das Boot seems like a 4000 square foot condo next to Lebanon's 600 square apartment, so much more room does the sub seem to have with walking and just standing upright. Comparisons also have been made with last year's Oscar winner, The Hurt Locker. Their minimalism has much in common, but Hurt Locker gives richer characters and more breathing space.

The conflicts in Lebanon besides the grubby, grueling tank interior include the choice of shooting the enemy or not. The Solomon choices of blasting or not a car with passengers, a farmer's truck, and a young boy are dramatically intense. Also, when a Syrian prisoner is taken, the choice of how to treat him is not so easy because a supposedly helpful but devious Phalangist (Christian Arab) may want to torture him, unbeknownst to the Israelis.

The close up camera work is expertly done as it invites the audience to look while being repulsed at the same time, not an easy cinematic feat. The first and last shots of a sunflower field are another ironic touch.

This is a film to help us understand the harrowing life of soldiers and the ambiguous morality of war.