A War

Can a war criminal be a good person? This time Lindholm asks more such questions without any unambiguous answers. In fact, it seems to me that the main purpose of A War is not to present a character study of a man losing his moral integrity or an account of a war that has no winners or losers, but rather the creation of a complex situation without a simple solution, as the film was apparently shot in response to the increasingly frequent (and dangerous) translation of serious problems into emotional rants and simple slogans. As is his habit, Lindholm, for the purpose of maximum authenticity, first builds a believable setting (though the film was shot in Turkey, Jordan and Spain, most of the soldiers were played by men who had actually served in Afghanistan and the natives by Afghan refugees from Helmand province) and subsequently has the actors react to the situations that arise (based on actual events). The director and the rest of the professionals on the crew thus found themselves in the position of outsiders, which may have partly contributed to the humble approach to the theme. With the exception of a few scenes that attempt to convey basic information (showing how far Denmark is from Afghanistan on the map), Lindholm does not try to (overly) explain the world depicted in the film or to ascribe any kind of meaning to it from the outside so that it could easily fit into some sort of narrative template. Drama is thoroughly subordinated to the realistic effect. At the same time, the film manages to draw in the viewer with its focus on the course of events. We are constantly kept in a state of anticipation as to what the depicted trial will lead to. As the opening explosion indicates, banality can at any time turn into a fight for life. We feel these twists very intensely thanks also to the camera glued to the actors throughout the entire first half, crouching like war reporters at ground level during a firefight, for example. The camera maintains a greater distance from the characters in the second half, when viewers also find themselves in the role of the judge who is supposed to pass judgment on Claus based on the previously provided “evidentiary material”. We may or may not agree with the verdict reached in the film – with the way the scene is shot, Lindholm himself does not judge, but rather leaves the decision up to us. As with his earlier films, we are forced to reassess events in light of things that happen later. The juxtaposition of those events, presupposing our willingness to think beyond what is explicitly stated, gives the film an element of powerful ambiguity. 80% (28.04.2016)

An honest Scandinavian drama that pretends to be a war movie but in reality, is a prime example of Scandinavian depression in the lives of ordinary people. I am not giving it a full score only because the whole case seemed absurd to me. I would give the DA a few slaps and send her to the Taliban for a few weeks just so she would know what she was actually defending. She was so annoying during the whole movie that I was hoping for Clausʼs innocence. And when you don’t accept the main premise of the movie it’s hard to give it five stars. (22.12.2016)

What can an individual do in a world where the category of morality melts into a completely opaque web of emotions, power and subordination...? Lindholm once again captures the ambivalence of the contemporary world in all its nudity and with the utter creative coldness of an individual whom he consistently controls, all whilst not missing the finest nuances. After the moment when the key dialogue of the main characters occurs after the incredible tension of the first half, which is divided between the front and the background, which the director leaves in silence behind the glass, I had no doubt that I was watching Lindholm's best film. Incredibly complex, humble, and, in the best sense of the word, engaging. Beyond good and evil, beyond bad and correct... we live in a world where the greatest struggle can take place in the silence of the garden of a family home. An inconspicuous, all the more fundamental masterpiece. (27.04.2016)

Classical "Lindholm style movie" that is procedural, minimalist, faded in terms of acting, without unnecessary talking, and again about a topic that other screenwriters would hardly have captured without at least a hint of melodrama. Yet it is by no means slow, inaccessible, or cold. Only emotions are not expressed here by crying and loud yelling, but by the pensive lighting of a cigarette. The disadvantage is the division into two parts, because what the first one offers (daily routine on a mission in Afghanistan and family trouble at home) is something that has been seen/read several times in recent years, although not that civil and good in terms of quality. On the contrary, the trial scene is flawless in this respect, and it is unbelievable how the main character manages to convey moral dilemma between the lines without ever saying anything literally. Journalistic monsters, environmental impacts, etc. may have played a role in this, but nothing like that. It intimately focuses exclusively on the trial itself and the scenes from home (as in the Breakdown, it was purely about negotiating in the office and surviving in one cabin). Yes, the same theme can undoubtedly be imagined as a typical Oscar movie, and it might not be bad at all (see "Breakdown" versus "Captain Phillip"), but Lindholm's approach is more unique and much more interesting. And thanks to that, even with a greater unforced obvious emotional impact. (25.01.2016)

A War is not so much a movie about war, but rather about the collision of different cultures and the state of European society, which has become too comfortable, self-centered, and repeatedly fails in conflicts with other worlds because it stubbornly tries to give events in distant countries different meanings corresponding to our customs and ideals of morality nurtured in the safe ideological bubbles of European elites, which have not experienced a real crisis and uncertainty for a few decades and have permanently lost touch with reality. European society has lost in many ways the ability to improvise, relying on bureaucratic rules instead of faith and ideas. It is aging and weakening. It is no wonder that military missions have been showing at best minimal effectiveness for some time now and at worst a real disaster. The protagonist of the movie should not have stood before the court, but rather those who sent him on a senseless mission and tied the unit's hands with stupid rules. The director may have revealed more about the functioning of European society than he originally intended. Overall impression: 75%. (08.07.2021)

A well-made story about what the responsibility of soldiers actually is and what their decisions are, or rather, what the consequences of their decisions are. The film focuses quite well on how it's possible to connect conventional life with military life, that even those who are soldiers are really just people. It's a slightly different view, more intimate. (27.04.2017)

If I try to put myself in the situation of the main character played by the great Pilou Asbæk, I would fight the most brutal battle with my conscience. I have a feeling the same was true for him. This film raises a number of disturbing questions but provides no clear-cut answers to any of them. Perhaps it is because there is no clear answer to them. (70%) (29.04.2021)