Film: Armadillo
Year of production: 2010
UK Release date: 13th June 2011
Distributor: Soda
Certificate: 15
Running time: 105 mins
Director: Janus Metz Pedersen
Genre: Documentary
Format: DVD
Country of Production: Denmark
Language: Danish
Review by: Mary Igoe
Janus Metz Pedersen infiltrates dogmatic Danish army operations in Afghanistan in his latest documentary. Much to his expectation, the reception Armadillo got was one of huge uproar among Danish MPs after an incident he caught on camera resulted in national debate. Inevitably, such subject matter further asks the seemingly unanswerable question as to what can war ultimately achieve in Afghanistan, and how long can it go on for?
The film follows a group of Danish soldiers in 2009 on their first visit in operation at Helmand Province. Their final hours at home see a farewell party with a stripper, and then the sad goodbyes from friends and family at the airport.
On arrival at Armadillo, forward operating base home to around 170 British and Danish troops, they are shown the ropes by various commanding officers, and hear harrowing stories from other occupying soldiers. Much of their time from then on is spent drinking beer, playing combat computer games, watching porn, and waiting around at the barracks for something to happen.
On patrol, the soldiers are advised to give any unwanted food to Afghan civilians in order to soften relationships and get them to cooperate with the troops. Only it becomes more and more apparent Taliban influence in the area prevents this, and the Afghan people remain stuck in the middle - either getting killed themselves or losing their livelihood. At one point, an Afghan man comes to Armadillo for recompense on losing his mother, his daughter and his house during combat. He is given cash compensation and the assurance his mother has now “become a martyr.”
The group of soldiers get their chance to experience heavy combat in which two soldiers are wounded. After some confusing communication between the troops, the Taliban fighters are eventually defeated. A scene shows the Taliban fighters who lie dead in a ditch being de-armed by two soldiers, giving cause to the investigation into the breaching of the rules of engagement.
What follows is a somewhat uneasy few days left on camp, where the soldiers seem all the more pensive after what they’ve experienced. It’s a wonder if they’ll ever be able to really join in to normal civilian life in Denmark again...
It’s a shame the contention surrounding Armadillo threatens to overshadow what the film actually achieves. Yes, it’s good for marketing - the film even had to be released two months earlier than scheduled in Denmark due to the clamouring of the people - but there’s irony, as with a spectacle there’s always the danger of missing the bigger picture, and what is (or was) at the centre of dispute actually allows for a subtle psychological study of soldiers who witness some of the most horrific, almost unreal experiences a man can behold.
What has to be marvelled at, first and foremost, is the bravery of the filmmakers, as they shadow the soldiers on the frontline whilst bullets whistle past their ears and grenades fly overhead. This is commitment to filming in the highest, and it certainly pays off. At times, the film feels like a full-on production, with all the tension and suspense of a Hollywood action movie.
Despite the patriotic topic of ‘our men at war’, Pedersen manages to keep a diplomatic stance as much as possible; we get the feeling no lie is being told, especially with the inclusion of the disputed breaching of the rules of engagement scene. The choice to show the Afghan civilian point of view also helps to give a better understanding of the situation out there and the complex catch-22 circumstances faced by Western troops and the Afghan public alike.
The grim temptation to call the film team ‘lucky’ in what they caught on camera can’t be dismissed. Firstly, they were given a dynamic group of lads, fit with the joker, the mummy’s boy, the hell-raiser, and the like, to provide interesting characters. Then, the structure of action the soldiers experienced seems to fall in their hands, too; a lot of waiting around after high expectations gradually leads on to more and more combat, with a calamitous climax towards the end.
This ‘good luck’ may point the way to a further argument had by critics on the film, that the use of special effects and clever editing is not necessarily appreciated by all those expecting to see a documentary. The film needs no narration at all, as all the action plays out so smoothly - like a story. A grenade thrown in a combat computer game neatly turns in to a real life explosion on camera, and often evocative cello solos accompany reflective scenes of the soldiers.
However, you could argue that sometimes there’s a need to add another dimension to a documentary in order for the audience to get a truer experience of the action on screen. After all, all any filmmaker wants to do is engage the viewer as much as possible. And anyway, the diplomatic neutrality the film seems to exude in its material only renders any ‘artistic editing’ as decorative trimming.
Nevertheless, for all its positives, Armadillo lacks something in its subject matter.It won’t tell many people something that they might not already know. No revelations or big surprises lurk in camouflage; it’s not the first frontline documentary - and it won’t be the last.
You can see why Armadillo won the Grand Prix Semaine de la Critique at Cannes with its commitment to filming for the sake of a documentary. The way the filmmakers bring action to the screen in as much of a diplomatic, removed fashion as possible is commendable, and the action from the soldiers’ perspective is as exciting as it is interesting. MI
No comments:
Post a Comment