Lebanon

I've been surfing in IMDb for a long time, but this is the first time I've ever felt the need to post a comment for a movie. I guess it really startled me. Anyway, it's probably the best war picture I've ever seen, as I already hinted in the title.

You see, the problem with war pictures is that many times they're just not good enough, but when they're too good, they reach a level of entertainment that makes me, as a viewer, "enjoy" the war and find it pleasurable, even if it wasn't the director's intention. Take "Apocalypse Now", for example, or "Full Metal Jacket" - Those movies show the Vietnam War as some sort of a spectacle, which makes the viewer enjoy the war when he should despise it.

What makes "Lebanon" so unique is that the movie is impressive and beautiful as a work of art, but in the same time it succeeds in featuring war as so horrible, that you feel disgusted and amazed in the same time.

I don't know. Maybe the fact that I served in the Israely Artillery Corps affects my judgment. When you serve inside a cannon which resembles too much the tank shown in the movie, with all the claustrophobia and disorientation involved, it might be much easier to relate to such a movie.

Anyway, this movie is not perfect. It falls to some clichés sometimes, and the acting of Oshri Cohen tends to get on my nerves, but the camera work is flawless, and the direction, mostly, is superb.

I saw another comment here which said that movies like "Bofor" and "Waltz With Bashir", which deal with the Lebanon War as well, were much better because they show the background stories of the characters shown, but I don't thing "Lebanon" needed such stories. It was good enough to show the traumatic reactions of scared young soldiers who just want to go home in the face of war.

This movie is not trying to say what is right or wrong. It simply gives you the sour taste of war as it is. I generally dislike films that feel me with anger, sadness, nausea or grief, but in this case, the movie was so good and important I feel proud I saw it.

I think everyone should see this movie. Really. It's not an easy one, and it's not perfect, but it's REAL. Too close to reality, I might add. But still. Strong and magnificent cinema.

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...

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.

"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.