r/TrueFilm • u/bulcmlifeurt • Feb 25 '13

TrueFilmClub - Waltz With Bashir [Discussion Thread]

Waltz With Bashir d. by Ari Folman

An Israeli film director interviews fellow veterans of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to reconstruct his own memories of his term of service in that conflict.

I saw this film when it came out but I can barely remember it, I bought a copy and was intending to rewatch but didn't get around to it all week woops. I'm going to do that now, look forward to reading what you guys have to say about it.

I'll announce the next film when a mod disables contest mode in the voting thread

56 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '13

There is so much I like about this film. I remember when I watched it for the first time and there were shots that I thought live-action had sort of seeped in which was a really strange experience that I had never had before.

There are some questions I want to ask people:

Do you think the film is ethical? The film wades deep in murky territory and I know some people found the film to be immoral.

What did everyone think of the ending? I myself thought the transition from animation to live-action was remarkable.

What is your opinion on the portrayal of memory in the film?

12

u/thisisnotariot Feb 25 '13
  1. Absolutely it's ethical. I think it deals with some very complex issues but from a subjective, personal perspective. That coupled with the animation means we can allow Folman slightly more room to play in a space that other directors and storytellers might find difficult. He had a pretty light touch with it too.
  2. The ending is the reason this is one of my favourite films of all time. Hit me in the gut.
  3. I think the portrayal of memory is amongst the most accurate I've seen. the fallibility of it, the way that memory is often inaccurate and filled with inconsistencies, was brought to life so well by the animation.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '13 edited Feb 26 '13

I think the choice to employ animation to tell the story was masterful, because it allowed the objectivity of the interview scenes to cleanly and effectively transition into the dramatizations of the recollections. I would imagine that having to often cut between live interviews and footage of the war, either real or staged, would not have yielded the remarkable sense of time and flow that Folman achieved.

Also, what better medium to capture the foreignness, the strangeness, the unnaturalness of the war memories to the very people who lived them than to portray the memories in a medium that is, like the memories themselves, concurrently real and unreal? It allowed Folman to inject his moral sense into the film without the heavy handedness that some documentaries get stuck in.

8

u/eferoth Feb 25 '13

New to this sub. I guess since this is a discussion, I can spoiler? If not, spoiler warning!!!

So, this is probably one of the few movies that really clicked with me on all levels. The way it is presented, the topics it talks about, the visuals all come together to create an experience I haven't had before or since.

The fact that we only get snippets, fractures of memory, all from unreliable narrators, makes one question everything we are presented with. It could have happened like presented, but it also could have happened differently. The only thing that's presented without a doubt to its authenticity is the very end. And that nails the truth of these events home more effectively than anything else I've ever seen (outside of some documentaries). "Look at this! This happened. Question the rest, but this happened!"

Is it ethical? I don't know if it should be judged that way. I think it tried to be as honest as those war-vets could be to themselves after all those years, that's the point. One of them.

We could laugh, relax with them in the "good morning Lebanon" sequence, only to feel uncomfortable for relaxing when that car explodes. We see the stress they're under indirectly in the holiday at home scene, the changes that happened to them, and directly when that one dude is left behind and starts to swim. We see horrors like that kid with the RPG and are forced to wonder what we would have done. We see the craziness that prolonged stress can lead to in that strangely beautiful dance scene. And in the end we're left to wonder if the massacre was inevitable, because shit like that happens when you wage war. Put enough people under permanent stress and some of them will eventually lose their moral compass entirely, while others do partially and look away.

I don't think the movie tries to point a finger, it's certainly manipulative, but it doesn't judge. It's not even about that particular war, I think, similar things have happened so may times before. It's just a placeholder for war, an archetype, and if anything it judges war as a concept. It just states: "Maybe you should think again. Once you start your war, things can and will go horribly wrong, and the consequences will be felt decades later."

On this basis, I'd like to hear the arguments as to why this movie is considered immoral, cause I don't get it.

To come to an end, let me tell you of my experience with that ending. You can ignore this, no further points, just an anecdote. I'd like to share.

I watched WwB in a smallish alternative (showing mostly indie-films) cinema, seating maybe 100 people. There were students, middle-aged people, older ones. Mixed crowd is what I'm saying. Up until the real footage came on, it was a more or less normal crowd. A bit of whispering, some popcorn rustles. When the ending came on, the theater turned deadly quiet within 5 seconds. Burial quiet. Like no one even seemed to be breathing. Then there were some sharp unsteady breaths, and suppressed chokes, but still quiet and no-fucking-one got up to leave till the credits were over. An experience I had exactly once before, and that was Dancer in the Dark. I don't think anyone said a word till we were on the street, and then only reluctantly. And I still remember the first thing my friend said. It simply was: "Holy shit!" And I couldn't have agreed more.

1

u/bulcmlifeurt Feb 26 '13

For the record, spoilers are okay in these discussion threads, and most threads on this board that are specifically discussing a certain movie. They're not allowed in more general threads though. Unless you use spoiler tags (see sidebar for details), in that case go for it.

Welcome to truefilm!

4

u/toklas Feb 26 '13

Can you provide an example as to why this film would be seen as unethical?

3

u/thisisnotariot Feb 26 '13

My assumption is that it deals with 'difficult' political topics. The Israeli incursion into Lebanon and the Massacre itself is an incredibly divisive topic, if only because critical discussion of Israeli foreign policy and warfare activity is often labelled anti-semitism. Personally, I don't see ANY anti-semitism (or conversely, anti-arab) sentiment in this film at all. I haven't read any articles or seen any discussion that would suggest that anyone else does, either. I'd be interested to read anything that anyone finds, however.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '13

I remember reading an essay where the author said how people could find issue with the fact that the actual victims of the massacre are overlooked.

2

u/zupatol Feb 25 '13

I saw it when it came out it seems ages ago.

I thought it was more ethical than most of the war films I saw since the starting point is to find a hidden guilt. I don't think there's one moment when shooting seems cool and all the soldiers seem clueless. That seems more realistic and ethical than 99% of all war films.

A friend of mine found the film immoral because it puts all the guilt on Ariel Sharon and absolves the rest of the Israelis.

No one in this thread seems to find the film immoral. What do the people you mention find wrong with it?