LONE SURVIVOR (Peter Berg 2013)

[Chris Knipp]

Peter Berg: LONE SURVIVOR (2013)

http://www.chrisknipp.com/newpictures/LS.jpg
BEN FOSTER, EMILE HIRSCH, AND MARK WAHLBERG IN LONE SURVIVOR

War story

Lone Survivor depicts an American operation in Afghanistan that went badly awry. This gung-ho memoir of one man's actual experience is notable for its realism of physical detail. It tells a war story of soldiers who die honorably in battle. In other aspects than the pure physicality of that battle, however, it disappoints. Moviegoers deserve more than a battle, however accurate and however brave. And anyway, in some key aspects physical events have been altered, denting the accuracy.*

The survivor is Marcus Luttrell, whose book this is based on. Book and film tell how four Navy SEALs dropped into the mountains to eliminate an enemy leader are surrounded and outnumbered something like six or eight to one. Or is it ten or twenty or fifty to one? It all happens amid trees and rocks on a mountainous hillside, and we can't really tell. The SEALs' communications don't work adequately, not even an insecure "sat" phone. And the "Tali" -- the Taliban -- are not lacking in fire power -- machine guns, AK-47s, RPGs and mortars -- and are at ease with the terrain. The Americans become all bloody and wounded while the Afghans, when seen, remain fresh-faced, unblemished. They quickly shoot down a helicopter sent to retrieve the endangered Americans, killing, of course, everyone on board and forcing a second helicopter to retreat and leave the men stranded.

The story is not without framing material, but that's where the trouble comes. It begins with a rah-rah montage portrait of SEALs training. Then it moves to the men at Bagram base, the rookie eager to be chosen, the future bride's request for the expensive gift of an Arabian horse. After the battle there are scenes of the titular survivor's protection by friendly locals, the enemy invasion of their village, the Americans' big counter invasion and Luttrell's rescue. Around it all hovers a moody poetic voiceover in blatant imitation of Terrence Malick. Using the most up-to-date special effects and makeup, Peter Berg delivers the action from the book with brutal accuracy as to the grim minute-to-minute combat. But the derivative, simplistic, overly gung-ho and sentimental surrounding elements reveal that while Berg is great at action, he lacks style and objectivity.

It's hard to see sometimes what's blunt new realism and what's simply blindness to subtlety. All the men, even the junior commander back at base played by Eric Bana, are so burly and bearded it's hard to tell them apart, but to begin with they were not chosen to be distinguishable, had they been shaven. There's just not the usual effort to give the characters individual personalities.

The Afghans are seen as colorful people, Middle Eastern types in elegant robes and scarves whose language is presented as meaningless, except very briefly when Marcus (Wahlberg) is being cared for, when some subtitles are provided. We'd surely like to know what one man says, a goatherd running away from the SEALs. Bring an Afghan to the cinema with you if you want the translation.

There's no time given to ironies. But the pivotal one is how unprepared these ultra-qualified fighting machines are when three lone goatherds wander up. They are an old man, a visibly furious young adult, and a boy, with their animals. The SEALs seize them and hold them at gunpoint. They debate killing them or tying them up. But they opt for the rules of engagement. They simply let them go. Maybe this was the right thing, but for the SEALs' safety and the success of their mission it's a fatal error. Already they've seen there are more men at the enemy leader's base than they'd expected. The angry young adult runs and leaps like a goat down the steep rocky hillside to tip off the enemy. The SEALs are fucked.

The story reveals this big tactical mistake, but of course it fails to take into account questionable aspects of the whole Afghan war. Sure, that's not Peter Berg's subject or the topic of the account this movie is based on. But this could have been a richer and more complex story. Even though Hetherington and Junger's well-made, risk-taking documentary Restrepo (http://www.cinescene.com/knipp/restrepo.htm)seemed to me to approach too much with blinders on, as "embedded" journalism, it did show what a mess the relations between the American forces and the locals were in Afghanistan. But this film doesn't go that far. There's the Hallmark card cuteness and sweetness of the "nice" Afghans who care for Marcus on the one hand, and the bad-guy blankness of the Taliban fighters on the other hand with no gray areas or specifics in between.

The distinctive accomplishment, not to be overlooked, is that the hardcore action meat of this movie is way more like being there than you were ever likely to have expected. It is particularly hard to watch the four men, already exhausted and badly wounded, twice rolling and tumbling down the steep jagged hillside, their bodies bashing, turning, and bumping into rocks and trees. It's hard to believe these free falls would not in themselves kill or at least maim and disable them. But no. They go on, with fingers shot off, bullets in the head, sucking chest wounds and shrapnel in the leg, all depicted with admirable specificity and vividness and endured with exceptional bravery.

Soldiers don't think. During the fighting they goad each other on, as they should. It's their job to fight to their last breath. We see one man literally do that. This is Matt 'Axe' Axelson (Ben Foster). At that point Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch) is already gone. And up above them the team officer, Lt. Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch) who has climbed up to try to send a call for help, has been followed and shot in the back.

What happens is so exhausting and awful you'd think this would carry a powerful antiwar message, like the 1959 German film The Bridge (Die Brücke,) which in some ways it resembles. But at the end Lone Survivor, it turns out, is just a tribute dedicated "to the brave men of Operation Red Wings." So there's no larger context, in a sense no thought. But of course, soldiers don't think. Some of us do though.

Lone Survivor, 121 mins., opened in the US Christmas Day 2013; in the UK, 31st January 2014.

*As a Slate article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/10/lone_survivor_accuracy_fact_vs_fiction_in_the_mark _wahlberg_and_peter_berg.html)shows, the film departs in certain important details from the actual events, including who conceived the operation (the Marines, not Navy), the number of enemy fighters (considerably fewer, though the Americans were outnumbered), and the nature of the rescue operation; and Luttrell's memoir departs from fact at some points too.

[Chris Knipp]

Peter Berg is called "a good action director." He got close to the Navy SEALs and Marcus Luttrell's battle experience and he provides total immersion in the intense, hammering action that is made as specific to the place as you could want. That is, up to a certain point. Berg is crude with the big eyes of Marcus' rescuer's little boy. He's crude with the gung-ho SEALS training and the men at Bagram at the outset. This is like the opening of Ridley Scott's equally hammering, accomplished, and distressingly numbing failed mission movie Black Hawk Down, only less memorable and particularlized and more just a clumsy advert for SEALs service. So in addition to sub-Terrence Malick, this is even more sub-Ridley Scott. "Good action director" seems to mean this time a director only good at delivering intense action, without anything else. And it's the something else that you need for an action movie to mean something. This is in a narrow sense a highly accomplished film. But that is distressing, because it means it might conceivably have been a good film.

[Johann]

Me and 2 buddies are making a point of seeing this tomorrow night.
Will post.

[Johann]

This is a fine military film, one that everyone who worked on it can be very proud of.
I saw it with a military buff friend last night and we both thought it was top notch.

It's a strong cautionary tale- for Special Forces units. I was amazed that the Navy SEALs allowed this to be made, if what transpired onscreen is 100% truth. The SEALs don't come out of this looking like the Elite unit of Lore they are.
In fact, this was Amateur Hour in combat operations, and terrible tactical errors pretty much cost the whole Team their lives.
The goatherds that came upon their position should've been either tied up with zap straps and left on a mountain ridge (as Marcus Luttrell suggested- Mark Whalberg) or they should've been executed onsite. I simply could not believe my ears that NAVY SEALs were bickering over going to Leavenworth for killing the goatherders. I could not believe that they didn't discuss all scenarios during briefings- the opening scenes of the briefing covered EVERYTHING- code words, positions, SOP's- but not worst-case scenarios.

These were young men- the oldest was 33 and the youngest was 22. Fresh and Green Frogmen.
It was sad to see what happened play out. I could see myself right there, and I would be losing my canary over what was going on.
They had no helmets! No brain buckets! INCONCEIVABLE TO ME.
Marcus had a jump helmet on his fanny pack, but they were INSERTED, they didn't jump in.
They had no elbow or kneepads- standard gear in Afghanistan. But not for the SEALs. Maybe they are too tough for that shit?
No flak vests! No body armour! No wonder they were ripped up like swiss cheese.
ANd what was with the insignias and American flag patches? You don't wear that shit in operations- every man (including the Commander) should look anonymous. They had no camoflage whatsoever. I know you're in the mountains, but Jesus, no camo at all?

I have a lot to say about this movie. Will post more soon.

[Johann]

The extremely up-close-and-personal style of telling the story (at least after the Team is inserted) is what I want to see in a "modern combat" film.
That is the only way you can get across what these guys go through. The camera is literally up their noses, you can almost smell the pine trees, the claustrophobic nature of firefights, it was shown warts and all.

The editing was also great- very seamless and very tight. One edit in particular was a direct nod to soldiers- when the fire selector switch is hit on one the guys' rifles.
I wondered if Bagram Base was real footage- it seems like they had the explicit co-operation of the Pentagon and the Defence Department.
You need that for authenticity.
The Taliban didn't seem as "rogue" and "scummy" as we've all been led to believe, but that may be in the eye of the beholder.
To me, they seemed fairly organized and well equipped to fight- one of the SEALs can't believe that the Taliban fighters are moving faster than them, and having deadly accuracy. These guys expose themselves at points, and I cringed everytime. Luttrell is trying to keep it all together, but it's a giant clusterfuck. The fact that almost every piece of communications equipment doesn't work for shit was very distressing to me. These guys pretty much had no backup, when they had all the backup in the Universe. Profoundly sad. A Satellite phone drops calls and cannot get signals- I mean, is there anything worse for a TEAM that needs extraction?

Mark Wahlberg is fantastic here. I knew he was a soldier when I saw the scene where they tumble off the rockface and the first thing he says is "I LOST MY RIFLE"- he doesn't even acknowledge his serious injuries- his rifle comes first. He lost his LIFE by losing that rifle! Mark, Serious Kudos to you Man. You hold this movie down like a motherfucker.

Afterwards my buddy said "If the British S.A.S. see this movie, they will laugh out loud at the SEALs", and I agree.
I am sure this "mission failure" is the example trainers of troops will use to explain how the most innocent mistake can be fatal.
When Marcus (in voiceover near the end) says part of him is dead up on that mountain, YOU BELIEVE HIM.
In many ways he did die up there.
Imagine having to live with this mission for the rest of your life.
Maybe that's why this movie exists. To give a proper healing to the loved ones involved, who lost their sons or husbands.
There is no glory here.
Unless you count the famous quote "The Greatest Glory in War is Surviving".

[Chris Knipp]

But it was the SEALs that got Bin Laden, so they can carry out successful missions. I agree with a lot of what you say and appreciate your knowledgeable specific comments on details of the mission and equipment, but do not think this is a good film, and perhaps on reflection you will see that. Certainly as to the mission many things were wrong and the SEALs seem clueless about how bad this looks. If you read the Wikipedia article about this affair, which is clearly an inside job, there's no real point where they say "we made big mistakes."

Their information was faulty. It was probably a doomed mission. But there were more people than they knew. They ought to have sent out twenty men if they wanted to get this guy. Four was not enough. Then, once they were there, they didn't get backup when they needed it. There is one point when a higher up just says no.

How come they didn't anticipate goatherds and how come they had no instructions what to do if any showed up? The reason Marcus objects to tying them up is that they'll die in the cold. And one supposed to be a young kid, remember. So they'd go on record as killing young kids. Nonetheless, releasing them was suicide.

As for the lack of helmets or camouflage or body armor, that all goes with not anticipating what was going to happen, I guess. But to me fighting a gun battle in that terrain against locals is just crazy anyway.

The US is failing in Afghanistan, has been for 13 years, just as the British did long ago and as the Russians did more recently. You can't win there. And what is the objective? Can anybody explain that? Has anything gotten better? Part of the larger context Berg ought to have referenced.

NOTES. I have researched this topic further. See the Wikipedia article about this affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings). I recommend the Cummings brothers' writings
"On Vilolence," (http://onviolence.com/?e=234)and their Slate article, (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/10/lone_survivor_accuracy_fact_vs_fiction_in_the_mark _wahlberg_and_peter_berg.html) . There is even a Naval Academy prof's 20-page PDF file article, (http://www.hsdl.org/?search&exact=U.S.+Army+Command+and+General+Staff+College&searchfield=publisher&collection=limited&submitted=Search&advanced=1&publisher=U.S.+Army+Command+and+General+Staff+Coll ege+Foundation&fct&page=1) on the moral dilemma of the goatherds. And my review of Rick Rowley's film DIRTY WARS (http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.php?3521-DIRTY-WARS-%28Rick-Rowley-2013%29)b provides background on the SEALS-based units, JSOC, Joint Special Operations Command, then headed by Navy Admiral William H. McRaven. Controversial and important. The documentary DIRTY WARS is not as good as war violence porn, but it's a more important film. The Naval Academy prof's article says the men were traveling very light and hence did not have anything to tie up the goatherds and did not consider that option, only two ways of disposing of the bodies if they killed them, and releasing them. The comment "there is no glory here" makes no sense. As the Naval Academy prof writes, ". . . without evidence of hostile acts or hostile intent and without knowing the goatherds’ intent, the SEALs were obligated to release them. Having done so, the SEALs of Operation Redwing acted with honor and integrity and are deserving of our most profound respect." They died nobly, upholding the Law of Armed Conflict "and tules of engagement in effect at that time." What more glory is there than that?

[Johann]

My friend and I have been discussing this movie for days and we've determined that it's 50% bunk and 50% truth.
He bought the book of Lone Survivor and he thinks it's heavily padded, and that the COMMANDER of the mission fucked up- he did something we aren't told about, and the Navy is putting a sheen on this sad story that should not be there.

So there you go.
This movie is the SEALs version of Bravo Two Zero. The stories are pretty much identical.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm glad you and your friend are looking on LONE SURVIVOR with a more jaundiced eye. Or course it has strengths but both as action filmmaking and as to its accuracy there's a lot to question. And what is "realism" if not fidelity to events? There is a lot to look into, question, and debate. I haven't seen BRAVO TWO ZERO but it does sound very analogous, except that the latter was a more important mission and more than one survived.

[Johann]

We think Marcus has "survivor's guilt", and was pressured to write the book for big bucks.
There is a lot missing here, things that don't add up. Things only ex-Infantrymen would notice.
Regular moviegoers wouldn't have a clue.
I'll add more later after I've read the book myself- my buddy is lending it to me soon.

[Chris Knipp]

He has denied that about "survivor's guilt" though it would seem natural to feel it. I think Marcus' superiors at least should share the blame for the mission's disastrous end, because the intel wasn't sufficient and the backup was lacking at key points, though a breakdown of communications is just something that can happen in that environment, I suppose. You questioned their lack of protective gear.

It's true "ordinary moviegoers" might be more blown away by the movie and not question it. I pointed to the source that compares the movie to the other sources on events and points out significant discrepancies. Apart from that the Cummings brothers hated the book to begin with and as I mentioned, begged Peter Berg not to turn it into a movie. It's good to read the book, but you should look at other sources as well.

[Johann]

Your links are most helpful. I'll look at any sources I can dig up.

The business of going to prison for killing the goatherders is what sticks in our craws. Who would know? It's a warzone.
Are you a band of brothers? Who would speak up about killing them? Who would know it even happened?
The story of your getting out of there all 4 men intact would be better than the gigantic clusterfuck that occured.
Losing a million-dollar helicopter and more trained SEALs was horrendous. Did any heads roll for these mistakes?
Nope.
Marcus got to meet George W. Bush at the White House. Did he earn a purple heart for those tactical errors?
Cringe City, Man.....

[Chris Knipp]

Well, as to your question, people like Jeremy Scahill, featured in the doc DIRTY WARS, which I strongly recommend, one of the year's best, would go around and interview locals, who would pass on the information. You can't hide anything nowadays. Isn't that pretty much obvious? But still, the worry that they'd go to jail in the US for this action surprised me too.

[Johann]

It's shocking about the jail talk. These are SEALs! Are there bleeding hearts in the SEALs? I don't fucking think so.
But it's the 21st Century- maybe they are more PC these days? Yikes.

The shale on those slopes might've given their position away- is that part not included in the memoir by Marcus?
That shale could give any platoon away. (and make you tumble off a rockface hard)

[Chris Knipp]

This fear of jail issue is taken up on this blog: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan46.htm.

This is a right wing writer. (He calls Mexican illegal immigration "the illegal alien invasion.") The idea that the SEALs had been "brainwashed" to be too soft is a bit wide of the mark. Presumably there are actually US soldiers in civilian jails for combat conduct. That would mean it was a justified fear. But it was not, arguably, wise thinking to spare the goatherds. This writer quotes the book: Luttrell immediately regretted his decision, thought he had been a f--king idiot liberal, and had signed their death warrant.


“It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life. I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. I’d turned into a ****ing liberal, a half-axxed, no-logic nitwit, all heart, no brain, and the judgment of a jackrabbit.” (P. 206)

Remember to look at the article I (http://www.hsdl.org/?search&exact=U.S.+Army+Command+and+General+Staff+College&searchfield=publisher&collection=limited&submitted=Search&advanced=1&publisher=U.S.+Army+Command+and+General+Staff+Coll ege+Foundation&fct&page=1) cited by the US Naval Academy professor who praises the SEALs unit's fatal decision to follow the rules of engagement and let the goatherds go. (You have to find it on that page and click on the link to the PDF file.)

In his review (http://cityarts.info/2014/01/10/cluster-cliches/)of this movie, where he damns it as simply inferior filmmaking, Armond white cites THE BATTLE FOR HADITHA (http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.php?2282-Nick-Broomfield-The-Battle-for-Haditha-%282007%29) (link to my review here) as the best recent film about this kind of subject.
Nick Broomfield’s Battle of [sic: "for"] Haditha remains the most powerful and strategically complex of the films to deal with the inherent absurdity and inhumanity of occupation-and-self-defense.

--Armond White. And I agee and strongly recommend this little-known but available film.
Of the many dramas, documentaries and mockumentaries that have come out of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and both Iraq wars, the most painful is Lone Survivor. The problem isn’t political (it would be a relief to see a film take a fresh position on American foreign policy that wasn’t premised on fuzzy, idealistic pacifism passing for “humanism”); problem is the sheer ineptitude of Lone Survivor’s director-writer Peter Berg.
--Armond White.

[Johann]

There you go.

He should have survivor's guilt.

[Johann]

I'm reading the book now. I'll have much more to say. :)

[Johann]

That book is a pamphlet for SEALs recruiting. It is ridiculous.

Here's what's in there that's not in the movie:

- George W. Bush. He's all over this NOVEL (as it was co-written by a "military fiction writer" a la Tom Clancy). Marcus is literally sucking Bush Senior and Junior's toes. Dubya actually told Marcus: "Anytime you wanna talk Son, I'll pick up the phone". They are both form Texas, you see.
A quote that was horrific to read: "US, sent to do God's Work, on Behalf of Our Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush"
and "He's a Real Dude, Dude".
I wanted to vomit. In the movie, there is no mention of Bush or oil (which, Marcus informs us, was discovered in Bahrain).

-the 3 SEALs killed were each horrifically sprayed in the face with Taliban bullets, to make sure they were dead. The film shows them dying "heroically", but what is Heroic about being sprayed in the face with bullets- there was no way to recognize the guys. Sad.

- the way Marcus describes tumbling off the rockface was ridiculous. Any normal person will read that and guffaw. He should be dead after what he described. Not to mention that his rifle was always at arms' length, with God literally loading magazines onto it.
The God talk was too much in this book. God ain't with you on the battlefield. EVER. "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" is the second Commandment, Yo.
Marcus compares the Ten Commandments to football at one point, and for all the God talk, he was the only one in his family who went to church.
Christians in Combat is something I'll never understand.

My military buff friend and I surmise that it wasn't Marcus who decided to let the goatherders go free.
We think it was the Leader, Mike Murphy, and we have a theory that the other 3 SEALs defied their Leader- (maybe even fragged him!) for putting their lives at risk with such a suggestion. Is Marcus "taking the blame" for Murphy's colossal mistakes??
Murphy (and all of Marcus teammates) are described in way over-the-top glowing terms, guys with SUPERHUMAN COURAGE, who showed nothing but sheer valor in the face of the enemy. That may be true, but it also may not be. Define Valor, Marcus. No Valor in putting your lives at risk like you did....

Marcus was awarded the NAVY CROSS, which I think is the second highest military award for Valor the USA bestows.
Unbelievable.
A Purple Heart I can buy, an Afghan medal I can buy, but the NAVY CROSS?!?! For causing the deaths of how many servicemen?
Marcus says they killed over 100 Taliban in that firefight and I say bullshit.
4 guys?

This movie has slipped HUGE in my praise...

[Johann]

We also have a theory that the SEALs may have been spotted by the Afghanis up in the mountains. Their silhouettes may have been spotted, as Marcus is a big boy: 6-foot-4 and 240 pounds- You stomp around up there and you might get seen!!!!!

The shale....it's still a possible giveaway to their position. But let's say that the goatherders DID come upon them- they still had no reasonable excuse for letting them go. At that point it was "mission over" anyway- when they found out that they were outnumbered, it should've been a tactical retreat IMMEDIATELY. You get the fuck out of dodge- as far and as fast as your feet can carry you. You don't fuck around and lollygag.
You get back to your drop-off point ASAP.
The British SAS would've had a plan in place and would've acted on it as soon as they knew their mission was compromised.
SEALs didn't.
But hey, you can win a NAVY CROSS! LOL

[Chris Knipp]

I agree with this second post. It was over for two reasons, they saw the Taliban guy had more people than they expected, and the goatherds blew their cover.

Thanks for reporting on the book. This is very valuable. It's disappointing, but not surprising in view of the fact that as I've mentioned repeatedly, the Cummings brothers in their blog ON VIOLENCE (http://onviolence.com/?e=234) about this reported begging Peter Berg not to make a movei of this book because they thought it was terrible and they hated that it was the most popular US book about the Americans in Afghanistan. Have a look at the Cummings' blog. http://onviolence.com/?e=234

I said that the guys' falls as shown in the movie would have killed the men or seriously maimed them. Obviously from what you say Berg is simply reporting without question Luttrell's version in the book.

Maybe the Naval Academy prof's article justifying the decision to set free the goatherds is part of the government campaign to codify and excuse Luttrell's actions.

Yes, he is a very big guy. The well-tuned locals might conceivably have just spotted the men.

Aprropos of God being with them and loading his rifle, my art mentor who I virtually apprenticed to in Baltimore when I was young, Karl Metzler, who was born in Germany, always said that in WWI the German soldiers had on their belt buckles the motto "GOTT MIT UNS," GOD [IS] WITH US.

[Johann]

When I read how big some of these SEALs are/were I was amazed. The best Airborne troops are always five-foot nothing guys who're built like tanks. When you are over six-foot, you are a Lurch/Stretch lumbering around. Your "stealthiness" is lessened.

This mission is not what we have been told it was. I can read between the lines, and my buddy says because of Luttrell's book he will never again read a U.S. military book written by their own men. You see God referenced in most war movies: Saving Private Ryan, etc. and there is a famous quote about war and God: "There are No Atheists in a Foxhole", but the fact is your own actions decide whether you survive or not, and Marcus got REALLY lucky if you ask me. His belief in God may have quadrupled as a result- he certainly loves the Big Man Upstairs in his book.

The book is just ridiculous. Seriously.
It's an Afghan war novel (the best of the bunch?! YIKES!), and we don't know how much is real and how much is truly padded bunk.
We think Marcus gave interviews on his experiences and the writer just dropped in the "Marcus Bits" between all the military jargon, which army buffs eat up like candy.
The opening bit where he goes to a funeral and tells one his buddies' Mothers' that her son "Died Instantly" made me cringe. Was that a lie, MARCUS????