Eyes of War

Being a fan of Danis Tanovic's films, I couldn't wait to see his third movie „Triage". I finally watched it last night, of course, a pirated copy of the film, which still did not spoil the film for me, not even one bit. The reason why I mention these technicalities is basically just to say that not even poor sound quality compounded by a frustrating inability to appreciate fully the whole atmospheric environment that Danovic creates for the viewers with much finesse and eye for detail, takes away from the fact that this is simply a film worth watching. I tend to think that movie aficionado from the third world, being forced to choose between watching pirated copies of films that never make it to the local cinemas and not watching them at all, are actually watching these films stripped of all their non-essential elements. If the movie passes this test, I think it can be safely said that everyone's time, the film crew's time and the audience's time has been used to a good effect.

Before seeing it, I knew that the movie was about a photographer going to the war zone. That alone would have been enough for me to decide against spending 99 minutes of my otherwise super exciting life on it had someone else directed it. I say this because I myself watched them take photos of people running for their lives in the streets of Sarajevo. I vividly remember one of them taking a photo of a woman running over the stretch of the road that was exposed to sniper fire with canisters in her hands unsuspecting that having reached safety she would start hitting him full force with those canisters out of sheer frustration. On the one hand, it's not like he could have asked for her consent to be photographed in not too dignified a pose. On the other hand, one may say that being too preoccupied with survival she is not even remotely thinking at that moment about how this and no other photo may turn out to be the most symbolic of her plight. Not to digress too far, Colin Farrel's character in the movie and his best friend are off to Kurdistan to capture with their cameras yet another offensive in the two centuries long history of warfare in that country. This is the land where the situation spinned out of control long time ago. These are the people who live out their existence stripped of any real choices. It is this lack of choice and the bravery with which ordinary men like Dr Talzani and Cristopher Lee's character face it that form important aspects of this anti-war film that is so much more than that. As for Mark Walsh (Colin Farrel), his drama is taken to the extreme, probably the extremest I've seen on film recently. I will stop here in order not to spoil the film for those of you who may read this and haven't seen it yet.

Finally, let me briefly respond to some of the criticism leveled against „Triage". In some comments it is said that it should have been shot in Kurdistan with more Kurds in it to add to its authenticity. Well, production-dictated requirements aside, „No Man's Land" was shot in Slovenia and it does not take away from the movie's authenticity. Besides, he wants his movies to be universal, hence the references to different places across the globe in this movie. As for the comment about the relationship between characters being strained and used solely for the purpose of delivering big lines, I must say that I did not detect that strain while watching the movie and though it may be because of the poor sound quality of the pirated copy, I'm more inclined to attribute it to Tanovic's habit of using dialogue as if he was staging a play and not directing a film. To those who call him an amateur, Tanovic so far worked with Katrin Cartlidge, Miki Manojlovic, Emannuele Beart, Branko Djuric, Colin Farrel, is friends with great film-makers such as Mike Leigh, made his three feature films in three different languages and won positive acclaim at big international film festivals. I rest my case.

This movie is basically about how even a photojournalist(Colin Farrell) who is a vet at taking pictures of war and death can be traumatized. The story starts off with a very ambitious journalist and photographer that sees the horrors of war with his partner and best friend. The thing is at first I just didn't think the stuff he went through in the beginning section of the movie would be enough to traumatize a person like the photojournalist in the movie. But there is enough flashbacks later on to show the reason why. I personally thought it should have put more emphasis on the horrors of war and the part about the photojournalist's wife figuring out the change in her husband seemed to drag. Also some of the situation just isn't all that believable, and believability is a key factor for a movie like this. And most of the story revolve around digging into the photojournalist's mind because of his change in character and the change in his character isn't anything all that terrible. It starts to pick up and get a bit interesting when Christopher Lee who is basically a psychologist in this is put into the equation. And the digging of the mind got interesting and this movie has some good parts. But the direction and everything else isn't all that well made in a professional manner and just seemed like a work done by a novice. Now not all movies should look professional in order for it to be better, but this is the type of film that would have been better if it went that direction.

5.5/10

As a teenager, Elena (Paz Vega) hated her grandfather (Christopher Lee) because he was a "fascist." He treated the fascist leaders after the Spanish War. His explanation of why he did so was most interesting, and showed him to possibly be a great psychiatrist.

She called upon him to treat her war photographer boyfriend (Colin Farrell) after he returned from Kurdistan and was undergoing leg paralysis that was psychosomatic. Their exchanges as Mark (Farrell) relived his war experiences were fascinating, as were Dr. Morales' soliloquies.

The film was excellent in showing the cost of war is far higher than the dollars and cents we spend to fight them. Without adequate treatment, those who return will suffer the rest of their lives for their experiences. Farrell was excellent as was Lee.

If you like this movie, you should go out and buy/rent "No man's land" from the same director. I haven't seen "L'Enfer" yet, but I'm sure that one is good too. At first I was amazed by the actors at hand here, but the script proves to have been a big part in their involvement. The dialogue and the delivery is just spot on.

And when you watch Christopher Lee going one-on-one with Colin Farrell, you just wish there could have been more scenes, with those two together. There is a great chemistry surrounding them and when they grace the screen together it's almost like magic. There is this constant pushing and delivering, that makes those scenes special.

But of course, the rest of the movie is not lacking in tension and/or good performances. Quite the contrary. Especially the doctor and the others involved all have there scenes. The editing does the rest and makes this more than above average.

Firstly, let me just say that the TIFF audience did seem to like it and they responded well to it. There were quite a few moments of light humour that were enjoyed and the Q&A session revealed that a lot of people truly were touched by the movie.

Next, let me say that the story was quite powerful. The character played by Farrel was developed and real. It would be hard not to be emotionally effected by this film, and it would be hard not to leave with something to think about.

Unfortunately, a great story and a great character don't make for a great movie. While many of the scenes were spectacular and a lot of the dialogue worked quite well, on a whole the film didn't do its story justice. It actually felt, much of the time, as if I were watching the subplot of another film. In fact, if you've watched enough war films you'll probably find that this movie WAS the subplot to many of those films. That alone doesn't equal a bad film, but it does make it more challenging for the film to hold its own. That didn't happen. Farrel's character--due to his acting as well as the writer/director's desire to explore that type of character--was fine through and through, but the characters around him all tended to speak their lines solely for the purposes of advancing Farrel's character, or to push out a philosophy of war. To illustrate this, just pay attention to the scene in which we're introduced to the grandfather, Christopher Lee's character. That scene introduces a whole back story and turbulent relationship that has nothing to do with anything... it was just pinned on the story awkwardly so as to justify a powerful speech in which he defended his questionable actions in a long-ago war. Well, that's pretty much what the rest of the story felt like. And the payoff wasn't great. It ended mostly how you expect it will end, and gives a message we've heard from a thousand other films.

So, again, if I had the option, I'd give this story a 9/10. The execution of the story remains a 6.