Before going to see the film, I'd heard lots of positive things about it. There were two things that I was concerned about though. Peter Berg in the director's chair, and the American military source material. Peter Berg's last directorial outing that dealt with the American military was Battleship. A dire film that contained one of the most ulceratingly jingoistic scenes in recent memory.
I understand that my being British, and not of military background means my perspective and opinion on the above scene is skewed. However, the entire film is a 131 minute tribute to the American Navy. Making the above 3 minutes completely unnecessary. A view that I am not entirely alone in having:
Anyway, I digress, so before I go off on a Battleship hating rant, let's bring it back to Lone Survivor. Where were we, yes, my reservations, as above. To my delight, my reservations were unwarranted. The film has the correct level of American heroism (they do not sweep all before them in a fiery wrath of hi tech weaponry), and even includes some non American heroism. It even manages to have a strong, multicultural, moral theme.
Based on actual events, and a book of the same name. Lone Survivor is a dramatic retelling of Operation Red Wings that took place on June 28, 2005. The aim of the mission was to locate, capture and kill a Taliban bad guy by the name of Ahmad Shah. Aiming to be quickly and quietly in then out, a small recon team of 4 was selected. They would be dropped off by helicopter several kilometres away, before hiking to the target area to locate Shah. Once Shah had been located and killed they would then radio for extraction.
Everything was going according to plan, right up until they reached the compound where Shah was hiding out. Then events took a turn for the worse, and 2 things mess up the whole operation. Firstly, the mountainous terrain stops them from using their radios to communicate with the base. Secondly, goat herders come across their location. They capture the goat herders, but then have the moral dilemma of whether to kill them and continue the mission, or release them and run.
Earlier in the film, during their mission briefing, the Seals talk about the Rules of Engagement (ROE). For U.S. Forces, the rules of engagement state:
"When U.S. Forces are attacked by unarmed hostile elements, mobs and/or rioters,
U.S. Forces should use the minimum force necessary under the circumstances, and proportional to the threat."
Two of the four Seals say they should eliminate the compromise and continue with the mission. The target has killed other Seals and they believe he should be eliminated at all costs. A third believes that the only thing to do is to follow the ROE and release the herders. Even if it means abandoning the mission. The team captain is conflicted, but finally agrees with the third Seal and they release the hostages.
One of the herders immediately runs to the Taliban to alert them, and they make short work of catching up to the Seals. The Seals are still struggling to make radio contact with their base so are left with no choice but to engage in a gun battle of four against many times their number. Severely outnumbered, the Seals get their arses kicked in a very brutal and graphic way. Imagine Black Hawk Down to the power of ten. Like Black Hawk Down, Lone Survivor still has an element of behind the scenes logistics hindering a rescue attempt, helicopter's being redeployed etc. However this plays a less prominent role. The focus in Lone Survivor is very much on the four man Seal Team on the ground.
As the title would suggest, there comes a point where only one of the Seals remains. Badly injured, and struggling to evade capture the Lone Survivor comes across a group of people who he assumes are Taliban. They are in fact Pashtun villagers, who take him in and protect him against the Taliban until he can be rescued by the Americans.
The film opens with actual footage of Seals in training, and closes with text explaining the code of the Pashtun Villagers which requires them to protect someone against their enemies no matter what the cost. A code similar to the ROE the Seals adhere to. This nicely encapsulates the strong morale theme of the film, a morality shared by both cultures. Following on from Battleship, this is a nice, and unexpected element from Peter Berg's film.
The film had been in development for quite some time, and with a budget of $40m, is not quite the heavyweight in budgetary terms of other films of it's type. If we again take Black Hawk Down as an example. A film made 13 years earlier that had a budget of $92m.
To ensure it went ahead, Mark Wahlberg, Peter Berg and several other members of the production team gave $1m each of their own money to get things started. To help further reduce production costs, Peter Berg took only the minimum salary allowed as director, in accordance with the Director's Guild of America. Many of the cast and crew also lowered their asking prices for wages as well. It's great to hear that in a world where budgets can be inflated by wages to the detriment of the production, that so many of the people involved were willing to make this sacrifice in order to tell this story.
Whilst there are undoubtedly dramatic embellishments on the actual accounts of what happened within the film, it doesn't go overboard. There are even differences of opinion in the real life account of events. In the heat of combat, such things are sure to happen. Regardless of this, the film that they have made as a result is compelling and a must watch. I also encourage anyone watching the film to also read up on the actual events of Operation Red Wings. A great example of morality being upheld even during war.
You can buy the book from Amazon here:
