Yes, it's true, I will not call this film a masterpiece but it most definitely does catch the emotions and fears of a young soldier. It must be remembered that unlike most countries, Israelis must serve in the army after high school/when they turn 18. This means that not every soldier is prepared emotionally for what is about to come especially at a time of war. Finally there is a movie that portrays the soldiers as what they really are - human beings. I believe the comment left by the person who was disappointed by the movie comes from a very naive place. It is very easy to think that all soldiers are robotic with one aim - to shoot the enemy but to understand the complexity and the mixed emotions a 19 year old boy, who just finished high school and was thrown into this situation with no warning, feels as he begins the first day of a war is virtually impossible unless you see it through the eyes of someone who has actually witnessed the horrors of war in this situation. The acting was very good and gave a real feeling of Israeli persona and brotherhood. It is realistic and unbiased - shows both left and right wing behaviors. It is not an easy movie and it really captures the feelings of the characters in a way you can not escape.
64 Reviews
Potent, claustrophobic depiction of war inside a tank
derekrankine28 March 2010
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.
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.
Vivid and visceral, but not the best of the Lebanese war films
Chris Knipp23 September 2009
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.
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.
Artful claustrophobia
JohnDeSando7 October 2010
"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.
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.
war and claustrophobia
dromasca2 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
'Lebanon' starts in a beautiful endless sunflower filed, under a scorching sun. It is the last time we see open space and sunlight until the very end of the film.
The rest of the action happens in the close space of a tank, in the first days of Israel's war in Lebanon in 1982. A team of four soldiers is sent in action with a paratroopers company and we soon realize that they are not really heroes stuff. The commanding officer lacks experience and he will crack psychologically under the stress. The driver dreams only to his parents and how to return home, and does not really master his mechanical devices. The gunner never saw action before and he freezes at the first encounter with the enemy causing the death of a paratrooper. The most experienced soldier is the gun loader, he is two weeks before discharge, but we know that he will spend many more months and maybe years in the army, as this war lasted long.
Soon things go wrong. The company officer is the typical army brute, speaking in slogans, hiding information, giving controversial orders. They soon lose completely their sense of orientation and find themselves in enemy controlled territory. The tank is hit, they hardly escape death, and the only meaningful order they get is 'you can improvise'.
The film is a beautiful exercise of cinema and this is the main reason it got the Golden Lion in Venice and may gather more trophies in the future. The whole action happens in the claustrophobic environment of the tank, which somehow resembles the fortification in another Israeli film inspired by the Lebanon war - 'Beaufort' but is more sordid, dirty, unbearable. The outer world is permanently seen through the lens of the targeting optical device, it looks like a target and is indeed a world of destruction, ruins and death, but the balance of forces is not clear, as the the threat comes for the soldiers in the tank from outside, so to some extent they are also a target in a game that can turn deadly at any moment.
In the original aesthetics of the film lies its quality but more was needed to make this film a full and consistent work of cinema. What is missing is a more clear delimitation of the psychology of the characters. The director and the actors intended to show a team of normal young men put in impossible situations, in a place where they do not want to be and where no normal human beings want to be. However, they could not fill appropriately the 90 screen minutes that our heroes spend in the enclosure, and they resorted sometimes to clichés dialog and character stereotypes that do not match the expressiveness of the few good minutes of wonderful camera work.
I liked less 'Lebanon' in comparison with the other two Israeli films made in the previous years about the war. It certainly does not have the novelty of language and genre of 'Waltz with Bashir' and not even the crisp quality of the cinema and characters building in 'Beaufort'. It has a powerful anti-war message, which can be read as not only opposing a specific war but any war that obliges people face impossible situations. The concept and cinema language are original, but characters development does not completely fit the ambitions.
At the end of the film the tank finds somehow its way out of the encirclement. For the first time we see the tank filmed from outside, all over the film we saw only the interior. One of the soldiers rises out in the light of the sun. He finds himself in the sunflower field that we saw in the first sequence of the movie. The cinema exercise is over.
The rest of the action happens in the close space of a tank, in the first days of Israel's war in Lebanon in 1982. A team of four soldiers is sent in action with a paratroopers company and we soon realize that they are not really heroes stuff. The commanding officer lacks experience and he will crack psychologically under the stress. The driver dreams only to his parents and how to return home, and does not really master his mechanical devices. The gunner never saw action before and he freezes at the first encounter with the enemy causing the death of a paratrooper. The most experienced soldier is the gun loader, he is two weeks before discharge, but we know that he will spend many more months and maybe years in the army, as this war lasted long.
Soon things go wrong. The company officer is the typical army brute, speaking in slogans, hiding information, giving controversial orders. They soon lose completely their sense of orientation and find themselves in enemy controlled territory. The tank is hit, they hardly escape death, and the only meaningful order they get is 'you can improvise'.
The film is a beautiful exercise of cinema and this is the main reason it got the Golden Lion in Venice and may gather more trophies in the future. The whole action happens in the claustrophobic environment of the tank, which somehow resembles the fortification in another Israeli film inspired by the Lebanon war - 'Beaufort' but is more sordid, dirty, unbearable. The outer world is permanently seen through the lens of the targeting optical device, it looks like a target and is indeed a world of destruction, ruins and death, but the balance of forces is not clear, as the the threat comes for the soldiers in the tank from outside, so to some extent they are also a target in a game that can turn deadly at any moment.
In the original aesthetics of the film lies its quality but more was needed to make this film a full and consistent work of cinema. What is missing is a more clear delimitation of the psychology of the characters. The director and the actors intended to show a team of normal young men put in impossible situations, in a place where they do not want to be and where no normal human beings want to be. However, they could not fill appropriately the 90 screen minutes that our heroes spend in the enclosure, and they resorted sometimes to clichés dialog and character stereotypes that do not match the expressiveness of the few good minutes of wonderful camera work.
I liked less 'Lebanon' in comparison with the other two Israeli films made in the previous years about the war. It certainly does not have the novelty of language and genre of 'Waltz with Bashir' and not even the crisp quality of the cinema and characters building in 'Beaufort'. It has a powerful anti-war message, which can be read as not only opposing a specific war but any war that obliges people face impossible situations. The concept and cinema language are original, but characters development does not completely fit the ambitions.
At the end of the film the tank finds somehow its way out of the encirclement. For the first time we see the tank filmed from outside, all over the film we saw only the interior. One of the soldiers rises out in the light of the sun. He finds himself in the sunflower field that we saw in the first sequence of the movie. The cinema exercise is over.
A film that will leave a mark!
technofunkie4 September 2010
The true sign of a great film is the emotional mark it leaves once the credits finish their upwards scroll. It is easy to make you laugh or cry during a film but most will not leave you with a lasting emotional change. Samuel Maoz' autobiographical Israeli war film Lebanon not only affects you during the film but even more so after, which is what makes this film a great accomplishment.
The film tells the story of Shmulik, based on the director's own experiences as a tank gunner in the Israel/Lebanon war. With most war films you are expecting something bleak, but unless you've seen another Israeli war film, it is hard to be prepared for just how bleak it will be.
What Maoz does, instead of giving us a direct story, is create a mood, which grounds the film. While this mood is consistent throughout, it grows and intensifies, keeping the audience engaged. Moaz is a first-time director and while that is apparent, it is in no way a bad thing. The direction is experimental, yet grounded and straight-forward. With the exception of two shots, the film takes place entirely within the tank. Although we do get frequent glimpses of the outside world, it is, however, exclusively through the crosshairs of the tank.
This gives us a very specific view of the war, one of self-hate and uncertainty. This film in no way glorifies war. Unlike American war films, which often are so caught up in patriotism to do any real self-reflection, Lebanon, is a film that questions the war they are forced to take part in. Like last year's part doc, part animated war film, Waltz with Bashir, the film is self- reflective, a way for the director to deal with his experiences.
In some ways, it condemns Israel, but at the same time condemns war in general. It is hard for the audience to make a concrete decision on the politics of the film, as we don't know why any of this is happening. The film is purposely confusing, at no time do we know where these soldiers are going or why. It desperately wants us to be in the same shoes as the characters and it does this effectively. If this were not the case, the film would easily fail, due to its lack of story.
As tension rises and claustrophobia sets in, you begin to feel uneasy. Just as the film becomes too much to handle, a strikingly effective ending hits us by surprise and let's the tension valves go. While the tension may be lifted, as the credits roll, the haunting feeling of depression and uncertainty lingers. It is a strange feeling, one I have only felt after my first viewing of Children of Men.
This is a film that will leave a mark on you, and while it may be great, I don't know if I could ever watch it again. It is an experience, a film that film fans should see. It is however, very difficult to describe it as enjoyable.
The film tells the story of Shmulik, based on the director's own experiences as a tank gunner in the Israel/Lebanon war. With most war films you are expecting something bleak, but unless you've seen another Israeli war film, it is hard to be prepared for just how bleak it will be.
What Maoz does, instead of giving us a direct story, is create a mood, which grounds the film. While this mood is consistent throughout, it grows and intensifies, keeping the audience engaged. Moaz is a first-time director and while that is apparent, it is in no way a bad thing. The direction is experimental, yet grounded and straight-forward. With the exception of two shots, the film takes place entirely within the tank. Although we do get frequent glimpses of the outside world, it is, however, exclusively through the crosshairs of the tank.
This gives us a very specific view of the war, one of self-hate and uncertainty. This film in no way glorifies war. Unlike American war films, which often are so caught up in patriotism to do any real self-reflection, Lebanon, is a film that questions the war they are forced to take part in. Like last year's part doc, part animated war film, Waltz with Bashir, the film is self- reflective, a way for the director to deal with his experiences.
In some ways, it condemns Israel, but at the same time condemns war in general. It is hard for the audience to make a concrete decision on the politics of the film, as we don't know why any of this is happening. The film is purposely confusing, at no time do we know where these soldiers are going or why. It desperately wants us to be in the same shoes as the characters and it does this effectively. If this were not the case, the film would easily fail, due to its lack of story.
As tension rises and claustrophobia sets in, you begin to feel uneasy. Just as the film becomes too much to handle, a strikingly effective ending hits us by surprise and let's the tension valves go. While the tension may be lifted, as the credits roll, the haunting feeling of depression and uncertainty lingers. It is a strange feeling, one I have only felt after my first viewing of Children of Men.
This is a film that will leave a mark on you, and while it may be great, I don't know if I could ever watch it again. It is an experience, a film that film fans should see. It is however, very difficult to describe it as enjoyable.
Best War Film I've Ever Seen.
demaoza1 October 2009
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.
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.
Super thrilling 7/10
saadanathan14 November 2020
Lebanon is a thrilling movie, many movies that criticize the first Lebanon war have been made before but on a personal note. I haven't seen a movie like this before. First of all, the cinematography is genius, the entire movie is from the perspective of the soldiers inside the tank and everything is shot from inside. Everything else happening outside the tank is seen from the reed of it. Which is perfectly shot. The characters are also a great advantage of the film: the crew of the tank are traumatized, sloppy and not active. They are unable to perform simple tasks and are among pressure from all sides until finally they make a stand and arrive to safety. A true thrilling film with great performances.
Deeply affecting and really well manoeuvred war film about dank and unpleasant experiences a group of tank-set soldiers must wade through.
johnnyboyz20 March 2011
One should savour the opening shot of Samuel Maoz's film Lebanon, a shot of rather long proportions encompassing a big, blue sky and a field of sunflowers which stretch back as far as we can see. Maoz prolongs the composition to an length which is unbearable and yet is in no way so at the exact time of its happening; by the time the crux of this, his 2010 war film zeroing in on those fighting in The First Lebanon War, has arrived and we realise precisely what it is the approach to the material that Maoz is taking on, we are left begging for a shot both as colourful and as roomy as the opening one of the vast sky and aforementioned posy. No such luck, the film coming to form a brutally effective and agonising in all-the-right-ways piece forming a snapshot of warfare involving the Isreali troops marching on into Lebanon, the unique selling point here being the events are unfolded from the viewpoint of a tank crew steadily rumbling on through the decrepit and war-torn streets.
The film tells the tale of four Israeli troops, a crew simply consisting of a driver; loader, the gunner, and the tank's commander whom clashes with the rest of them over his figure of authority; the predominant spectator of whom is the gunner named Shmulik (Donat), a rookie to proceedings. Shmulik comes complete with the benefit of seeing everything first hand through the tank's scope; the film distilling Shmulik's experience of war through the audience's own, with reverse shot techniques of his exasperated gaze applied throughout. Maoz shoots Scmulik's nervous, energetic and frisky swaying around of the turret so as to garner better viewings of the surroundings through the first person perspective, it carrying with it an effective sensation of dread as we fear mass destruction of an item in relatively close proximity could very well happen at any point through the result of a slip of the hand given these controls are mastered by such an established rookie.
The life of a soldier inside a tank is as ugly and loathsome as a ground trooper; where we've all seen tanks in previous war films firing off and doing their bit, very rarely do they come across as anything more than lonely, anonymous heaps of metal seemingly invincible to all return fire as they follow through with their tasks. The notion is explored and somewhat deconstructed here, the tank very much a vulnerable item and those within it given ample attention. Those inside have the added comfort of all the protection that comes with its armour, and yet it is often the unenviable situation of being able to see the whites of the eyes of those whom you are about to engage that greets these men; much unlike a ground troop engaging in manoeuvres and whatnot, Shmulik here has the insufferable luxury of seeing the full facial features of those whom he's about to blow away. Like a solider during intense close quarters combat, mostly every assault born out of calculated orders and relatively calm histrionics for him is practically a driving of a proverbial mêlée weapon into the enemy. The film wastes no time in capturing what it is to be in Shmulik's role. When he is first called into action, his delaying costs the lives of his own men: he is beside himself; and like a temperamental golfer looking to over compensate for a previous putt which was well short, the man makes sure he does not bottle it the following time despite the fact it is not the enemy he then gazes upon by blowing everything away without thought. It is an early, harrowing scene setting the perfect tone.
The rest of the film carries that dank and unpleasant atmosphere ultimately going a long way to painting a negative and grotesque image of war. Lebanon is a grimy, grotty, greasy watch; a superb observation on the mindset of a solider distilled through a group of tank dwelling troops looking out at the world through magnified scopes. We begin on the day of the war beginning, the sixth day of June in 1982; the opening shot painting a beautiful image of where it is we are, a purer and unadulterated image of Lebanon rich in colour, sky and space; the resulting descent into mucky, filthy, scummy Hell a proverbial spoiling of the image as war tears the place apart. Maoz inserts the shot again at the very end, to not so much suggest a cleansed outcome to proceedings but instead, to suggest a disturbing and oddly circular framework to proceedings; that the ending up at precisely where it was they began goes some distance in highlighting an apparent pointlessness of war as everybody ends up where they began only with added psychological baggage and a wake of death behind them.
The film's rich imagery is backed up by its needling ability to instill angst into the audience; take an instance that sees the four crew members have to patter and amble about on the greasy, slimy floor full of muck belonging to the tank so as to find the plastic drip belonging to an enemy prisoner of war whom they've inadvertently acquired, and must calm down with morphine. Along the way is the film's stark, unrelenting palette of imagery including, but not limited to: a disturbing altercation between an Isreali solider and a neurotic Lebanese women in the street; a dying donkey appearing to 'cry' as it lays there adjacent to the road, tanks and troops rumbling on by, as well as an odd mirroring of one of the crew in a puddle of fluid, as he tosses his cigarette down into the muck so as to extinguish it. It is a remarkable piece of work, at once thrilling and unpredictable but gut wrenching and bold.
The film tells the tale of four Israeli troops, a crew simply consisting of a driver; loader, the gunner, and the tank's commander whom clashes with the rest of them over his figure of authority; the predominant spectator of whom is the gunner named Shmulik (Donat), a rookie to proceedings. Shmulik comes complete with the benefit of seeing everything first hand through the tank's scope; the film distilling Shmulik's experience of war through the audience's own, with reverse shot techniques of his exasperated gaze applied throughout. Maoz shoots Scmulik's nervous, energetic and frisky swaying around of the turret so as to garner better viewings of the surroundings through the first person perspective, it carrying with it an effective sensation of dread as we fear mass destruction of an item in relatively close proximity could very well happen at any point through the result of a slip of the hand given these controls are mastered by such an established rookie.
The life of a soldier inside a tank is as ugly and loathsome as a ground trooper; where we've all seen tanks in previous war films firing off and doing their bit, very rarely do they come across as anything more than lonely, anonymous heaps of metal seemingly invincible to all return fire as they follow through with their tasks. The notion is explored and somewhat deconstructed here, the tank very much a vulnerable item and those within it given ample attention. Those inside have the added comfort of all the protection that comes with its armour, and yet it is often the unenviable situation of being able to see the whites of the eyes of those whom you are about to engage that greets these men; much unlike a ground troop engaging in manoeuvres and whatnot, Shmulik here has the insufferable luxury of seeing the full facial features of those whom he's about to blow away. Like a solider during intense close quarters combat, mostly every assault born out of calculated orders and relatively calm histrionics for him is practically a driving of a proverbial mêlée weapon into the enemy. The film wastes no time in capturing what it is to be in Shmulik's role. When he is first called into action, his delaying costs the lives of his own men: he is beside himself; and like a temperamental golfer looking to over compensate for a previous putt which was well short, the man makes sure he does not bottle it the following time despite the fact it is not the enemy he then gazes upon by blowing everything away without thought. It is an early, harrowing scene setting the perfect tone.
The rest of the film carries that dank and unpleasant atmosphere ultimately going a long way to painting a negative and grotesque image of war. Lebanon is a grimy, grotty, greasy watch; a superb observation on the mindset of a solider distilled through a group of tank dwelling troops looking out at the world through magnified scopes. We begin on the day of the war beginning, the sixth day of June in 1982; the opening shot painting a beautiful image of where it is we are, a purer and unadulterated image of Lebanon rich in colour, sky and space; the resulting descent into mucky, filthy, scummy Hell a proverbial spoiling of the image as war tears the place apart. Maoz inserts the shot again at the very end, to not so much suggest a cleansed outcome to proceedings but instead, to suggest a disturbing and oddly circular framework to proceedings; that the ending up at precisely where it was they began goes some distance in highlighting an apparent pointlessness of war as everybody ends up where they began only with added psychological baggage and a wake of death behind them.
The film's rich imagery is backed up by its needling ability to instill angst into the audience; take an instance that sees the four crew members have to patter and amble about on the greasy, slimy floor full of muck belonging to the tank so as to find the plastic drip belonging to an enemy prisoner of war whom they've inadvertently acquired, and must calm down with morphine. Along the way is the film's stark, unrelenting palette of imagery including, but not limited to: a disturbing altercation between an Isreali solider and a neurotic Lebanese women in the street; a dying donkey appearing to 'cry' as it lays there adjacent to the road, tanks and troops rumbling on by, as well as an odd mirroring of one of the crew in a puddle of fluid, as he tosses his cigarette down into the muck so as to extinguish it. It is a remarkable piece of work, at once thrilling and unpredictable but gut wrenching and bold.
Hurt Locker in a Tank....but then again not really
tombrookes200715 September 2010
My Movie MOT from: http://moviemot.wordpress.com/ PLOT - Lebanon is about a lone tank platoon in the 1980′s first Lebanon war.
REVIEW – The film has bags of tension, lots of shouting and combat scenes (usually hostage) and follows a team in a tank. There are lots of shots through the tank's gun target and the film is impressively unique, creepy and somewhat dark.
This is Hurt Locker in a tank, but not. It is more low budget, real, bloody and low-key when in comparison. But, this is what has won it critical acclaim and for it's uniqueness I would tend to agree.
There is a nice use of colors, close-ups and realism (focusing on surroundings) and the ample tension helps builds up suspense and puts you into the gunman's position.
MOT - I have never had to MOT a Tank before! A unique and weird vehicle that passes its own MOT. Like a tank it is slow and can feel sluggish but what it represents and the weapons it does have are pleasingly unique and acceptable.
REVIEW – The film has bags of tension, lots of shouting and combat scenes (usually hostage) and follows a team in a tank. There are lots of shots through the tank's gun target and the film is impressively unique, creepy and somewhat dark.
This is Hurt Locker in a tank, but not. It is more low budget, real, bloody and low-key when in comparison. But, this is what has won it critical acclaim and for it's uniqueness I would tend to agree.
There is a nice use of colors, close-ups and realism (focusing on surroundings) and the ample tension helps builds up suspense and puts you into the gunman's position.
MOT - I have never had to MOT a Tank before! A unique and weird vehicle that passes its own MOT. Like a tank it is slow and can feel sluggish but what it represents and the weapons it does have are pleasingly unique and acceptable.
How did this win Venice?
jeromefink-607-40653817 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As a human relationship movie it is very standard, the usual war is hell BS, standard, predictable, nothing noteworthy. The dilemma of killing, the crew cracking up, its over the top, and all been done before and better. It reeks of Israeli propaganda, 'the human face' of the Israeli soldier, under the guise of the directors own 'traumatic' experiences in Lebanon.
As a war movie it is beyond unrealistic (but lacking suspension of disbelief). I can understand the theatrical requirement to increase the size of the interior of the turret, but the lack of helmets worn by the tank crew, I don't get (probably the actors agents demanding that we see their pretty faces), they would be dead after half an hour of driving off road, nor could they communicate with each other.
The lack of chain of command, team work and camaraderie in the tank is not credible. Tankers do not and cannot work this way. The only realistic moment is when Herzel (Oshri Cohen) shouts at the rest of the crew that they are going to get him killed because of their inability to function.
And for those that thought that peeing in the ammo box was shockingly realistic, not so. In a Centurion tank, you use a used canon shell casing, so that you can throw it out though the shell loading portal, without the need to open a hatch.
I also served in Lebanon, from 1985-1987, in an IDF tank.
As a war movie it is beyond unrealistic (but lacking suspension of disbelief). I can understand the theatrical requirement to increase the size of the interior of the turret, but the lack of helmets worn by the tank crew, I don't get (probably the actors agents demanding that we see their pretty faces), they would be dead after half an hour of driving off road, nor could they communicate with each other.
The lack of chain of command, team work and camaraderie in the tank is not credible. Tankers do not and cannot work this way. The only realistic moment is when Herzel (Oshri Cohen) shouts at the rest of the crew that they are going to get him killed because of their inability to function.
And for those that thought that peeing in the ammo box was shockingly realistic, not so. In a Centurion tank, you use a used canon shell casing, so that you can throw it out though the shell loading portal, without the need to open a hatch.
I also served in Lebanon, from 1985-1987, in an IDF tank.
Amazing, Breathtaking, Shocking realistic!
kompats18 November 2009
It is an amazing film! Without making any clear, explicit political statement, it fully uncovers the brutality, irrationality and usefulness of any war and army. This is through a very interesting and very well directed story connecting personal feelings, characters, relations with shocking pictures, action and anxiety. Actually, the most shocking and unforgettable part for me was after the film: I watched it during the Thessaloniki Film Festival and the director was there for a Q&A session. The first question was whether there are any autobiographic elements in the film and the very simple, modest and direct answer was that the director was itself part of the tank crew, the gunner, maybe the most tragic figure in the film!
Good not Great
Calaverasgrande6 March 2024
It has a few decent parts. There are some scenes that are effective and memorable. But overall, the storytelling is kind of hard to follow and not really compelling.
There is also the hard to ignore racism. The Arabs are portrayed as nothing more than cardboard cutout bad guys. And every single stereotype is employed.
It's a shame because it almost manages to have a redemptive arc.
This movie would have been 90% better if there had been some bootcamp or before the army scenes. Something where you get introduced to the characters outside of the tank. And maybe get some backstory, motivations etc.
Because when it comes down to it, it's just a story of a couple guys you see at odd angles in a tank. And a few things you see through a periscope.
Well that and the corny racism ruined it for me.
There is also the hard to ignore racism. The Arabs are portrayed as nothing more than cardboard cutout bad guys. And every single stereotype is employed.
It's a shame because it almost manages to have a redemptive arc.
This movie would have been 90% better if there had been some bootcamp or before the army scenes. Something where you get introduced to the characters outside of the tank. And maybe get some backstory, motivations etc.
Because when it comes down to it, it's just a story of a couple guys you see at odd angles in a tank. And a few things you see through a periscope.
Well that and the corny racism ruined it for me.
One dimensional
poc-11 September 2010
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.
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.
Great Intense Movie
jimel9821 July 2011
ihrtfilms did a lovely job reviewing this film and I agree with every word. MY additional comments are based on the fact that I am a VERY nit-picky person when watching a film. I drive people nuts when I point out faults in this or that. With that being said, I can SEE where some might find fault with some of the particular errors in this film (i.e. the lack of helmets) but to be truthful, though I am ONE OF THEM, I was so caught up in the intensity of this film, I didn't even notice the irregularities.
This film IS intense and very well acted. I literally was on the edge of the couch I usually lay back on while watching movies and it takes a fair amount to get me on that edge.
Lebanon may not be perfect, but it's perfectly good. I could find no fault with it and didn't even try. It sucks you in from the minute it starts. The very fact that you NEVER LEAVE THE TANK is amazing. If you are even remotely claustrophobic, maybe you shouldn't watch this movie. You might be in your own home in a spacious room with windows and everything, but once you get into this movie, you feel like you're with the crew and they won't let you out until the end.
I won't say more primarily because, as simple as the story line is, it's a complex movie and to say much, would say TOO much.
This film IS intense and very well acted. I literally was on the edge of the couch I usually lay back on while watching movies and it takes a fair amount to get me on that edge.
Lebanon may not be perfect, but it's perfectly good. I could find no fault with it and didn't even try. It sucks you in from the minute it starts. The very fact that you NEVER LEAVE THE TANK is amazing. If you are even remotely claustrophobic, maybe you shouldn't watch this movie. You might be in your own home in a spacious room with windows and everything, but once you get into this movie, you feel like you're with the crew and they won't let you out until the end.
I won't say more primarily because, as simple as the story line is, it's a complex movie and to say much, would say TOO much.
Claustrophobic tank movie
deloudelouvain28 January 2016
I am normally not really big on war movies. Wars are just stupid. It doesn't matter which one, they are all stupid to me. Like most humans are stupid also. We're just the parasites of our planet. Destroying everything for stupid reasons. Knowing we are doing it but still continue doing it. Like stupid imbeciles that we are. But nevertheless the movie is well made. It reflects perfectly what it must be to be in the middle of the chaos of war. I'm not going take sides of whom is right or wrong because to me they are all wrong. Lebanon is mostly shot inside the tank, and you can feel the despair of the soldiers, the claustrophobia, the fear, the caused arguments about right or wrong. I base my ratings for this movie purely on the fact that I could feel their pain and misery. But I will say it again, wars are stupid and useless.
Nice Lebanon Movie
bunnynu5 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is my first Lebanese movie .And being a war movie enthusiast i really liked this movie. The Protagonist of movie has really acted well. He shows his war fear in the initial part of movie and eventually wins over it. War is hell and This movie paints a hellish picture of WAR inside a Tank. A Scene where the woman walks on the middle of road naked - is so touching. War can't be depicted more accurate than that. In one scene the old man sitting beside road untouched by the enormity of ongoing violence - the Scene is epic. The eyes of old man at that scene are to be cherished. Movie is 'i think' the first attempt to show a war inside a tank - which makes this a unique piece of work. Movie is more of people involved in war rather than the violence itself. I'm Going 6 out of 10.
A gripping film!
KrisNederland17 March 2010
I have seen this film at the International Film Festival in Rotterdam a couple of weeks ago. Now it starts playing at my local cinema and I realize that the film hasn't really left my mind yet after all those weeks. It is such a gripping film! The story 'an sich' is nothing new, young men, boys even, have to go to war. It shows the insanity of every war. But the way it does is very different. The film sucks you right in the tank with the soldiers. You can almost smell the sweat, urine and oil, it's completely claustrophobic! Every time somebody opened the 'door' of the tank I took a deep breath, because I was so relieved that some fresh air was coming in. This film really sticked with me, and I recommend everybody to go and see it!
Gripping in places, but limited
paul2001sw-116 February 2013
A low budget Israeli war movie, 'Lebanon' tells the story of a tank crew, but we hardly ever see the outside of the tank. At times, the continual world-view-by-periscope seems a bit gimmicky, although one suspects the main rationale for the narrow focus is not artistic but financial. It does help maintain the claustrophobic atmosphere, and the central section of the film fizzes with tension. But the most horrific moments derive from the presence of a cartoonish villain, and the centrepiece of the story - about ordinary men conscripted into the role of soldier for which they are ill-prepared psychologically - lacks the subtlety, context and heart of the sublime 'Waltz with Bashir', which of course bypassed the costs of recreating a war by the use of animation as a medium. That film is great - this one has some merit, but won't really tell you anything you don't already know.
The horrors of war from the confines of a tank.
ihrtfilms6 December 2010
The glorious and vivid yellow and green of a field of sunflowers set against a blue sky is a beautiful image and one that is in stark comparison to the grime, dirt and destruction that follow the opening shot.
Lebanon follows four Israeli soldiers who operate a tank in a war ravaged and hostile area during the 1982 Lebanon war. The film is unflinching in it's portrayal of the horrors of war and because we are very much inside this tank for the duration of the film we too, like these men are caught up in the harrowing nature of what they have to do. Almost from the outset there is fear, panic and desperation among the men, who are accompanied outside by foot soldiers and are on a mission which is far from clear. The men fight the outside world as well as each other and gradually the their world becomes more and more desperate as the situation outside becomes more dire, surrounded by insurgents. Inside the men start to loose it, with the tank commander bordering on a breakdown. The stress of the film is palpable throughout.
The horrors of war and what is occurring outside from the tank is brought to the men and the audience through the tanks viewfinder which the men use to survey the outside world, which gives us a graphic and horrid point of view, from dead bodies and bombed buildings to insurgents taking hostages and a woman desperate to know where her child is. Inside their metal home, the men should feel safe, but not only are they at risk, but there is also no escape; from what is happening outside, the horrors surround them, but there is also no escape from each other.
The film has been both praised, but there is also negative comments because many feel it's not a realistic portrayal of inside a tank - it's too big, the soldiers don't wear helmets, they aren't focused, there are rules for letting people through the hatch etc. Perhaps that is true, but to make a film of this style, one that rarely leaves the confine of small space, it is maybe impossible not to take a little artistic license. These points that others have do not bother me and nor do they take away from the story, which is a powerful, emotional war film.
More of my reviews at iheartfilms.weebly.com
Lebanon follows four Israeli soldiers who operate a tank in a war ravaged and hostile area during the 1982 Lebanon war. The film is unflinching in it's portrayal of the horrors of war and because we are very much inside this tank for the duration of the film we too, like these men are caught up in the harrowing nature of what they have to do. Almost from the outset there is fear, panic and desperation among the men, who are accompanied outside by foot soldiers and are on a mission which is far from clear. The men fight the outside world as well as each other and gradually the their world becomes more and more desperate as the situation outside becomes more dire, surrounded by insurgents. Inside the men start to loose it, with the tank commander bordering on a breakdown. The stress of the film is palpable throughout.
The horrors of war and what is occurring outside from the tank is brought to the men and the audience through the tanks viewfinder which the men use to survey the outside world, which gives us a graphic and horrid point of view, from dead bodies and bombed buildings to insurgents taking hostages and a woman desperate to know where her child is. Inside their metal home, the men should feel safe, but not only are they at risk, but there is also no escape; from what is happening outside, the horrors surround them, but there is also no escape from each other.
The film has been both praised, but there is also negative comments because many feel it's not a realistic portrayal of inside a tank - it's too big, the soldiers don't wear helmets, they aren't focused, there are rules for letting people through the hatch etc. Perhaps that is true, but to make a film of this style, one that rarely leaves the confine of small space, it is maybe impossible not to take a little artistic license. These points that others have do not bother me and nor do they take away from the story, which is a powerful, emotional war film.
More of my reviews at iheartfilms.weebly.com
Gross, sweaty and distressing.
juhovuoppola7 May 2021
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.
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.
Ambition and ideas are not enough...
Enchorde7 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Recap: A tank crew is on the frontline in the 1982 war in Lebanon. Almost instantly they end up in hostilities and from that point almost everything goes bad. Confronted with the horrors of war the crew quickly loses their moral and start bickering. Confined from the outside world by their armor, their (and ours) only point of view is the tank viewfinder. As the crew continues to lose moral, things turn worse both inside and outside the tank. Outside they find themselves out of reach of their own army in hostile territory, and inside, after taking damage to the tank, they lose all training and organization among themselves. Will they survive?
Comments: A movie that has gotten a lot of praise and good reviews. I can't see why. There is no real coherent story, no real understanding of what is happening in the bigger picture, but that's not really the point anyway. The point, if I might guess, is to show that everyone is a victim in a war, both (and this might sound bad, but bear with me) those who get shot at, and those who shoots at them. In Lebanon we get to see the latter's point of view.
The point is to show a crew under extreme pressure and finally cracking under it. But as the movie is rather short and the director is too impatient to get to his point, there is no real time to build any pressure to speak of. So when the crew is instantly breaking down mentally, without much pressure, instead of showing the horror of war, it just gets annoying. At best the crew seem poorly trained, at worst I won't say. I can't sympathize with the, or the movie.
Unfortunately there are some annoying details as well. One is the water inside the tank. They must ration water, but the tank is almost flooding at the same time. Also, am I really to believe that the grenade that heavily mutilated the driver left all his chickens undamaged? And their tank seem easier to get into than checking into an hotel , and that is in a supposed war.
Unfortunately, the final verdict is that I just don't buy it. The ambition is commendable, the idea is good. But ideas are not enough.
Rating: Four damaged tanks out of ten.
Comments: A movie that has gotten a lot of praise and good reviews. I can't see why. There is no real coherent story, no real understanding of what is happening in the bigger picture, but that's not really the point anyway. The point, if I might guess, is to show that everyone is a victim in a war, both (and this might sound bad, but bear with me) those who get shot at, and those who shoots at them. In Lebanon we get to see the latter's point of view.
The point is to show a crew under extreme pressure and finally cracking under it. But as the movie is rather short and the director is too impatient to get to his point, there is no real time to build any pressure to speak of. So when the crew is instantly breaking down mentally, without much pressure, instead of showing the horror of war, it just gets annoying. At best the crew seem poorly trained, at worst I won't say. I can't sympathize with the, or the movie.
Unfortunately there are some annoying details as well. One is the water inside the tank. They must ration water, but the tank is almost flooding at the same time. Also, am I really to believe that the grenade that heavily mutilated the driver left all his chickens undamaged? And their tank seem easier to get into than checking into an hotel , and that is in a supposed war.
Unfortunately, the final verdict is that I just don't buy it. The ambition is commendable, the idea is good. But ideas are not enough.
Rating: Four damaged tanks out of ten.
Young Israeli soldiers trapped in tank in 1982 invasion of Lebanon
maurice_yacowar3 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
As the 2009 Israeli film Lebanon reminds us, the best historic film finds a nugget of truth in its subject event that applies to the wider historical arc. It makes that moment in human history a reflection of a truth beyond itself. The incident itself becomes a metaphor of greater resonance. In Aristotle's terms, that's where a history achieves the validity of poetry.
Wrier/director Samuel Moaz based the film on his own experience in the Lebanon war of 1982. He was the gunner in a four-man tank unit. As if his psychological wounds were not enough to work out through this project, lingering pieces of shrapnel fell out of his skin during the film-making. That's not in the film.
Shot almost entirely within the overheated, suffocating, cramped, smelly and swampy tank, the film focuses exclusively on the visceral engagement in the war, not on any political issues. And yet....
The film is framed with shots of a brilliant field of blowing sunflowers. The first reads as an emblem of the garden that the Jews transformed the desert into when they planted the Jewish state in 1948. In the last the tank appears at the back of that field, bogged down, unable to move. The garden has become a quagmire. Another Eden is being lost.
The Israeli tank soldiers are of course civilians. At first they exude an impressive efficiency and strength. But the stress takes its toll. One dies. The gunner freezes, unable to shoot, causing unnecessary deaths. The captain crumbles into paralysis. The irascible maverick holds together the best.
As the tank lumbers into the ruins of a town on the first day of the 1982 invasion, it becomes a metaphor for the Jewish state, forced to constant military self-defence since its very inception. Though the tank is invading, its soldiers seem the real prisoners, encased in the attack, helpless to break out of its path, mission and fate.
The smashed town and the scattering of murdered and dismembered Lebanese citizens form half the film's argument against the war. The other half is the militarism forced upon the Jewish state's defenders.
These Israelis show compassion to their enemies. One one soldier covers the naked Lebanese woman with a blanket, her clothes having born away ablaze. The Israelis refuse the Christian Falangist's demand to be given over the Syrian prisoner for his sadistic abuse. The victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre were not thus protected.
One of the film's most dramatic motifs is the shot of a numbed victim staring wide-eyed and accusing at the gunner. In the Israeli theatres that heart-rending stare was at the Israeli audience the gunner was defending.
That battle is over and in history but that war goes on. Israel invaded to attack the PLO, but other animosities erupted as well, tensions that continue in Lebanon unabated. Indeed they percolate anew as Iran spurs Hezballah to wage its proxy war against Israel.
And there is Israel, perpetually besieged however powerful. Its every defensive move is assailed as aggression in the global agora. It's still that impenetrable tank that can't quite move out of the blossoming field that is the state's miracle, that continues to need that defence.
Movie is not as deep as intended, but excellent work by some actors
zeev-lieber1 November 2013
Some things are a bit artificial and take away from the experience in a bid to make it more "fine art" sort of film - overly long shots of sunflower fields, close-ups on actors' eyes, etc.
The story and characters are a bit typical like the weak commander, mistakes and poor judgement in battle or death of a character in a specially tragic or sensitive moment. There is essentially no story or character development. The little there is, was already done in "Beaufort" two years prior.
One should abstract oneself from any political context when viewing this film and judge it for what it is. However, the sensitivity of the topic has obviously contributed to the film's acclaim.
Great work by virtually all of the actors should be noted though. This could have been a much better film if the actors were given more space (in terms of plot and characters) to really shine.
The story and characters are a bit typical like the weak commander, mistakes and poor judgement in battle or death of a character in a specially tragic or sensitive moment. There is essentially no story or character development. The little there is, was already done in "Beaufort" two years prior.
One should abstract oneself from any political context when viewing this film and judge it for what it is. However, the sensitivity of the topic has obviously contributed to the film's acclaim.
Great work by virtually all of the actors should be noted though. This could have been a much better film if the actors were given more space (in terms of plot and characters) to really shine.
Does Not Live Up to the Hype
slackr00222 September 2010
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...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
