Lebanon

To be sure, this movie is innovative. The point of view of the tank commander, the claustrophobic interior of the tank. But really thats all. There is no meaningful character development and no change of scene. The basic message is war is hell, but that has been done so many times before.

Essentially it is 90 minutes of various shots of dirty unshaven men complaining, tank interior rumbling, oil and blood. periscope views of the outside where civilians get killed.

To call it Das Boot in a tank is an insult to that fine film, which has great characters, proper character development, genuine suspense and a crippling emotional climax. This movie has none of those.

Added to this is a long list of inaccuracies about tanks and tank warfare that have been written about elsewhere.

There are a few token allusions to the Lebanese war, evil Phalagists and the murder of civilians. Perhaps that's why it got a prize. I am no supporter of the Israeli Defence Force, but I prefer my movies to have more depth and nuance.

Lebanon is based on director Samuel Maoz's own experiences as a soldier in the 1982 Israel- Lebanon conflict. The film focuses exclusively on the experiences of the four young Israelis that are responsible for operating a tank that rolls into Lebanese territory at the start of the war.

For almost the entire duration, the characters and the audience are trapped inside the vehicle; we can see only what they can externally through the narrow tunnel vision of a gun turret periscope. With no wider political context and little character background, this viewpoint successfully creates a claustrophobic, tense atmosphere and provides originality and intrigue to what might have been overlooked as 'another war film'.

The soldiers, confined to the tank, are inexperienced, tired, hungry, thirsty, scared, homesick, dirty, feverish and unable to work competently as a team. In the opening scene, their collective callowness leads to the deaths of a fellow soldier and an innocent civilian. From here, difficulty after difficulty presents itself in the form of hostile forces, indignant superior officers, technological issues and internal disputes.

The way the characters respond, the powerful use of imagery - and the contrast between the constant mechanical noise and darkness inside the tank, and the bright environment and varied action outside - combine to shape a potent viewing experience.

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...

It sure is way better than Fury. It is also rather immersive since its been spoken in a local language. It is about men in war, not heroes, men. There is not much in the characters, but since the performances are great, you can really see that no one of them is having a nice time inside that hot, sweaty and terrifying steel box, and the fact that the whole movie is shot inside the tank and only view outside is the tanks gun sight.

Sure there are some things that aren't right, for example the tank looks too big from inside and the guys should definitely wear something in theyre head.

Anyway it sure is a very distressing, gross and terrifying war movie that isnt enjoyable to watch, that doesnt mean that it wouldnt keep me on the edge of my seat for the whole short runtime.

"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.