A Meandering Messenger, Yet Another Iraq War Film
Will isn’t so sure. He wants to comfort the families, to connect with them on some level to assuage their pain. He’s especially interested in one widow in particular, played with quiet dignity by Samantha Morton. She’s the only person shown here to take the news without becoming hysterical, and something about her demeanor draws Will in.
Director and co-writer Oren Moverman isn’t interested in mocking soldiers or the war effort. The film takes a nonpartisan view of the Iraq war, although the film’s agonizing sequences where families learn their son or daughter has been killed reveals a uniquely pacifistic stance.
And, frankly, even those who take an aggressive posture on military action will be rendered temporarily mute watching people crumple in pain at the sight of Will and Tony on their front porch. Those sequences, and particularly the way Tony approaches his assignments, hint at a movie ready to question how the modern military operates.
Yet The Messenger isn’t that easy to pigeonhole.
The film’s meandering focus makes it ideologically imprecise, but it also robs the story of a central theme. The romance between Will and Morton’s suddenly single mother takes up plenty of screen time, but never gels into a subplot of any real significance. And a scene where Will and Tony drop in on Will’s girlfriend stops the film cold.
Tony’s hoorah mentality suggests a single-minded soul in need of some humanity, but the character reveals shades of himself audiences won’t see coming. It helps that Harrelson, suddenly white-hot again after taking some time off from acting, refuses to let Tony become a stereotype.
Foster is just as compelling, especially with how tempting it must have been to portray every ounce of rage swirling within Will. The actor is making a name for himself with his flamboyant portrayals, particularly his sinister turn in the recent 3:10 to Yuma remake.
Here, he conveys just as much information with smaller gestures, showing just how much pressure is building around him. His attempt to woo a war widow also makes us question our initial assessment of his character.
Will and Tony wrestle with some sizable demons here, with each given a realistic forum to work through the suffering. But isn’t it possible for a film to show battle-tested soldiers who don’t return from the battlefield without finding ways to self-destruct?
The Messenger has trouble finding its focus all the way up to the its final sequence, but the sterling acting and consistent tone help prevent the film from collapsing under its lack of vision.
Your conviction that some films are ideological while others aren’t, disqualifies you as a serious film commenter. All films are constructed from and transmit an ideology. Ignorant people like you are unaware of this fact as long as the ideology mirrors the one that you are most comfortable with. Its only those ideologies that stray from the script that stand out to you as ideology. Clown.
Moho: Your self-righteous pomposity and totally uncalled-for rudeness disqualify you as a serious commenter. What an unpleasant character your comment reveals.
henryflower: “Totally uncalled for rudeness”. Ha, I practically imagined you honking your runny nose into a tear-soaked hanky while writing that.
I have to agree with henryflower, Maho is a pretty rude person. Certainly uncivil. While he may be correct about all movies being ideolgocial, he is unable to restrain himself from being rude instead of stating the fact.
All of you are wrong. I am the one who is correct.[about what?]
oh, I know![no you do not!] yeah, i know. [Do not fear, for they
do not understand] well that is obvious. [insert vitriol now]
Methinks Moho doth protest too much. The intensely ad hominem nature of his critique of Toto’s review leads me to conclude that he shares the same ideological slant of the makers of the whole series of movies about the Iraq war which appeals to dozens of movie-goers nationwide.
Stergeye;
The intensely ad hominem nature of his critique of Toto’s review leads me to conclude that he shares the same ideological slant of the makers of the whole series of movies about the Iraq war which appeals to dozens of movie-goers nationwide.
This is because you’re illiterate.
This movie’s less ad nauseum than ‘Brothers’. The preview is a blatant theft, modern spin of ‘Coming Home’ with a minor tweak here and there..
Originality be damned!
Moho, though obviously an ass, is correct, in that no film, or pice of art, can be produced without the insertion of ideology – it is impossible to reject one’s life experiences in the process of subjective expression. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it simply is the state of things.
Personally, I clearly see a liberal bias in this film: a characterisation of soldiers being physically, mentally, and emotionally crippled and tainted, though statistics show that soldiers, regardless of whether or not they have combat experience, are far less likely to have emotional and mental complications than their civilian counterparts by a factor of 1/100. Likewise, they are far less likely to engage in socially destructive behavior, such as criminal acts, by a similar factor).
Furthermore, the film seems to be yet another disparaging jab at the public in order to further erode their emotional support of ALL United States war fronts (The liberal population does not support the Afghan front – they were simply to cowardly to say so at the outset).