Was there any meaning to the War in Afghanistan, beyond what American military men and politicians gave it?
This is the kind of question that War Machine tries to raise, but the only thing that seems to shine through in this patchwork-like war film is Michôd's fear of going too far with his criticisms - at least until the third act. What results a film less about sending up the American military complex and more an absurdist satire that alternates between being dry, frustrating, playful and witty... and perhaps a little poignant.
We know from the get-go that Brad Pitt's General McMahon and his band of merry men will not succeed, but it's almost like the movie isn't sure how to sell the journey to that final payoff. Should it be satirical, or should it be absurdist? Not even the actors seem sure. For example, Pitt plays the General with a tongue-in-cheek pantomime style, but at the same time doesn't feel as extreme in his flaws as a satire would require until he's faced with the possibility of "not winning". On the other hand, the narration from critical journalist Sean Cullen (played by Scoot McNairy) feels extremely on-the-nose and constantly risks undermining the plot or any philosophical questions that may arise. Nick Cave and Warren Ellis' score is stunning, alternating between a sort of playfulness and dark reflection, but often leads to comedic scenes feeling more po-faced than farcical.
Perhaps this is all intentional, to parallel the absurd, confusing nature of wartime bureaucracy, but I do wonder if the movie would've benefited from a stronger absurdist tone or a stronger examination of what it seeks to satirise. It can sometimes feel like it's being too affectionate and humanising towards McMahon (and the war machine he represents) to be entirely satirical, especially in the first half.
The aforementioned first half plays out in a languishing slow dance (especially if you're not a fan of light ribbing at men-in-suits and militaristic machismo) but begins to gain greater focus in the second half. The third act is an almost nihilistic meditation of the horrors of war, and its in these final moments where Cave and Ellis' score really shines. It's also where the film begins to scratch the surface of the consequences of McMahon's "win-at-all-costs" mentality and the meaninglessness of his mission - and perhaps his existence. Even though McMahon comes out of his downfall seemingly unchanged, his unceremonious exit still leaves you pondering the nature of war, personal legacy, and American nationalism in a changing world. At least, it would... if Cullen's final monologue didn't bludgeon viewers over the head with its own ponderings.
Overall, War Machine is an interesting but flawed take on modern war satire. It shifts between absurdity and absurdism, and sometimes feels as disorienting as its subject matter - for better or for worse.
Review by JKBlockedParentSpoilers2021-10-12T12:28:44Z
Was there any meaning to the War in Afghanistan, beyond what American military men and politicians gave it?
This is the kind of question that War Machine tries to raise, but the only thing that seems to shine through in this patchwork-like war film is Michôd's fear of going too far with his criticisms - at least until the third act. What results a film less about sending up the American military complex and more an absurdist satire that alternates between being dry, frustrating, playful and witty... and perhaps a little poignant.
We know from the get-go that Brad Pitt's General McMahon and his band of merry men will not succeed, but it's almost like the movie isn't sure how to sell the journey to that final payoff. Should it be satirical, or should it be absurdist? Not even the actors seem sure. For example, Pitt plays the General with a tongue-in-cheek pantomime style, but at the same time doesn't feel as extreme in his flaws as a satire would require until he's faced with the possibility of "not winning". On the other hand, the narration from critical journalist Sean Cullen (played by Scoot McNairy) feels extremely on-the-nose and constantly risks undermining the plot or any philosophical questions that may arise. Nick Cave and Warren Ellis' score is stunning, alternating between a sort of playfulness and dark reflection, but often leads to comedic scenes feeling more po-faced than farcical.
Perhaps this is all intentional, to parallel the absurd, confusing nature of wartime bureaucracy, but I do wonder if the movie would've benefited from a stronger absurdist tone or a stronger examination of what it seeks to satirise. It can sometimes feel like it's being too affectionate and humanising towards McMahon (and the war machine he represents) to be entirely satirical, especially in the first half.
The aforementioned first half plays out in a languishing slow dance (especially if you're not a fan of light ribbing at men-in-suits and militaristic machismo) but begins to gain greater focus in the second half. The third act is an almost nihilistic meditation of the horrors of war, and its in these final moments where Cave and Ellis' score really shines. It's also where the film begins to scratch the surface of the consequences of McMahon's "win-at-all-costs" mentality and the meaninglessness of his mission - and perhaps his existence. Even though McMahon comes out of his downfall seemingly unchanged, his unceremonious exit still leaves you pondering the nature of war, personal legacy, and American nationalism in a changing world. At least, it would... if Cullen's final monologue didn't bludgeon viewers over the head with its own ponderings.
Overall, War Machine is an interesting but flawed take on modern war satire. It shifts between absurdity and absurdism, and sometimes feels as disorienting as its subject matter - for better or for worse.