Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

Cultural Capital

Reflections on books and the arts from the New Statesman culture desk

Syndicate contentRSS

Gilbey on Film: Agfhan story

Armadillo highlights the problems documentary makers have in conveying the truth about war.

Fictional films set in Iraq or Afghanistan have had a notoriously unfavourable commercial reception. Fortunately that hasn't deterred documentary makers from exploring the same territory, the budgets being so much smaller, the box-office expectations modest to negligible.

There's another reason why documentary is better suited to the subject: its immediacy, not just in visual terms, but in its capacity to reach the screen more quickly without the obstacle course of studio schedules and test screenings to negotiate. It would be foolhardy for any filmmaker to aim for a definitive portrait of an ongoing conflict, but the documentary form doesn't make the same promises of completion or containment that fiction does; we accept it more readily as a snapshot grabbed on the hoof.

The riveting new documentary Armadillo is an instructive example of a film which tries to have it both ways -- to evoke the unpredictability, anxiety and essential shapelessness of its subjects' lives but also to fashion the material into a rounded narrative more typical of a scripted project. Armadillo is named after a military base in Helmand Province that is home to 170 Danish and British soldiers. The director Janus Metz secured extraordinary access to the Danes on the base, and begins his film with a brace of scenes promising two different kinds of behind-the-scenes candour.

In one, a downbeat dinner-table conversation between Mads, a soldier about to leave for Helmand, and his family, who can't quite come to terms with what he's doing, establishes the film's intimate emotional texture. The second, showing Mads and his fellow recruits mauling a stripper during a raucous party the night before they leave, hints that the coverage will be no-holds-barred, no punches pulled. A deeply unsettling scene late in the movie, when soldiers strip Taliban casualties of their weapons in the aftermath of a ferocious battle and drag their bodies around while likening them to dead animals, confirms this for all time.

There has already been controversy surrounding the troops' behaviour in the film, particularly their shooting of injured Taliban fighters, which led to an inquiry in Denmark. But from a cinematic point of view, the picture is rather caught in a cleft stick. It wants the pell-mell, sand-in-the-eyes authenticity of reportage, which it achieves with its terrifying battlefield sequences, but it seeks also to frame that material within the reassuring arc of fiction cinema. The problem is that the latter can only compromise realism. Audiences are so alert to the significance of apparently trifling elisions and distortions in documentary that the tiniest hint of fraudulence or manipulation will unravel a lot of hard work.

I'm not casting any aspersions on Metz's motives, which I'm sure were beyond reproach. He has said:

The mission was to bring the war on Afghanistan back into people's living rooms and make them engaged. There was a feeling that nobody was really caring that there was a war in Afghanistan.

What better way to do that than to give documentary footage the viewer-friendly shape and rhythm of a movie? If only one form didn't risk cancelling out the other. I guess Metz made his job easier by following one group of men during one tour of duty. There's a narrative right there: some will make it home, others won't; even those that do will have experience etched into them. And as one of the soldiers who is about to leave when Mads and friends arrive tells the newcomers: "You won't be bored. You'll see action." That's Metz's promise to us too.

I just wish the film wasn't so tidy; it throws up so many questions that the neat structure seems inherently to disavow. It's giving nothing away about the body of the film to say that the final shot is a close-up of a soldier standing in the shower, his head bowed toward us as the water streams down his face. We are clearly meant to infer from this shot that he is damaged, seeking solace, cleansing himself, washing off the sins of combat. But he might equally be thinking: "Golly, this shower is refreshing. I do like a nice shower. Showers are so much better than baths."

I see that shot, stolen from a moment even more private than a family pow-wow or a macho shindig, and I think instantly of the director on the other side of the camera, negotiating with the subject to film him during his ablutions. Armadillo is a strong and disturbing piece of work. A small moment like this, though, can be enormously telling. Introduce an aesthetic contrivance into a documentary that purports to be gritty and you've given the audience licence to doubt.

"Armadillo" is released on Friday

Tags: Gilbey on Film  film

6 comments

Herbert's picture

It doesn't come naturally to most people to kill another human being, particularly one agains whom you have no personal grievance. For that reasons soldiers have to be trained and that training involves a certain amount of brutalisation. If we agree we need armies I cannot see how you can criticise the soldiers for what follows from their training.

Daniel T's picture

Two points:

1. Armadillo base has since been abandoned after the Danish soldiers were pushed back.

Metz hired the stripper, and THAT caused a stir in Denmark, not the soldiers executing injured Taliban(!) Something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark...

mbnk's picture

What is most striking in the movie is the soldiers _complete_ lack of empathy for the Afghani people they are supposedly there to protect.

We see how the soldiers purposefully wander across the cropfields ruining the villagers only source of food/income. We witness how they blow holes in building structures, kill their livestock, and call in airstrikes to level entire building complexes. At no point do we see the soldier repairing the holes, paying retribution, reparations, etc. for the damage they do. Instead we see a bizarre scene where a Danish officer tells the Afghans that "we are here to protect you" - and he apparently believes this himself!

Such ignorance and culturally backward soldiers are in no way capable of grasping what it entails to "protect" other people; to have their lives in your hands. Its such an immense responsibility that only few adults master - and non averaging the age and social composition of this group of soldiers.

It cannot come as a surprise that the nearby villagers quickly lost confidence in the Danish immature form of protection, and choose to side with the resistance.

Duncan Watson's picture

The only man (apart from Oliver Stone) who had the talent and the moral right to tackle war was the late Sam Fuller. But even his best effort---The Big Red Ome---had to pull its punches. Perhaps war---like sex---is ultimately unfilmable>

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets