In 2009, "Lebanon", the winner of the Golden Lion Award at the 66th Venice Film Festival, and "Fury", which was praised as "the best war film in the past three decades", are both from the perspective of tank soldiers, through small Scopes experience warfare. The difference is that in the characterization of the story and characters, the director of "Lebanon", Samuel Maotz, as a witness to the war, used the film to tell a true story: four young people in their early twenties are in the cruel reality of killing civilians. In China, killing has become what they have to do, they are not heroes, and no one wants to be heroes. The "Fury" portrayed by David Aya, who was a screenwriter, shows the war in the process of a soldier who was a typist degenerating into a soldier step by step. In terms of form of expression, only the first and last shots of "Lebanon" were shot outside the tank, and the rest were shot in a small interior. The audience and actors could only see the outside world through the scope. On the other hand, "Fury" adopts a relatively flexible method, that is, there are shots inside the tank, and there are also passages that explain the external battlefield accompanied by the actors' entry and exit.
In 2009, the birth of "Lebanon" provided us with an unprecedented war film experience. It jumped out of the general thinking frame of war film shooting and placed actors and audiences in a narrow and confined space. Here, we can only understand the outside through the scope, and observe the war from our first perspective. With the roar of the tank advancing, the mechanical sound of the scope moving, and the rumbling of the cannon, our sight is limited to the sight framed by the scope. In a small circular area, many close-up and close-up shots directly present the bloody battlefield in front of us, and we can only feel the war at a close distance which is unavoidable. When the camera turned to the inside of the tank, there were blue-faced soldiers, dripping oil and water, and a dirty and depressing scene mixed with soil. This is a typical small space movie. An alternative secret room movie, but also a war movie with a novel perspective. The four tank soldiers in the camera are afraid and afraid of battle. For them, the real battlefield may never be the world outside the tank, but in their hearts, in how to transform from an ordinary person into a soldier. From this perspective, " The perspective adopted in Lebanon is exactly in line with the idea of the film, focusing the camera on the people in the tank, using the cruelty of war and the suppression of a small space to intensify their struggle with themselves. Although some audiences who are accustomed to grand scenes do not experience the sensory stimulation of mainstream Hollywood war movies in the film, the experience created by this claustrophobic space is not available in ordinary movies.
"Fury" takes into account both the internal and external environments of the tank. It not only has the scene inside the tank, but also has the lens of observing the outside through the scope, and even the scene of the battlefield. For the majority of military fans, the panoramic view of the war scene is obviously more attractive. This is largely because the crew borrowed from the Bovington Tank Museum in northern England, the only remaining tiger in the world that can still drive. tank. At the first hour and 19 minutes of the Tiger Tank's debut, the director used panoramic, medium, close-up and close-up shots to fully show the opponents that the U.S. military did not want to encounter on this battlefield. The appearance in "Fury" this time is also The Tiger Tank's "screen debut" since World War II. With the use of parallel montages, from the first hour 18 minutes to 24 minutes, the director spent a full 6 minutes to show us the Sherman vs. Tiger style, and truly restored the exciting and exciting tank battle for us. For military fans , Tank fans, it is a wonderful content not to be missed. However, in terms of characterization, each character has a distinct personality but is slightly masked, the serious and pragmatic Tang, the Norman who grew up on the battlefield, the ruffian Grady, the bible who always preaches the Bible, the seasoned Triney , lacks a more in-depth description. Furthermore, although the scenes between Tang and Norman and the German women are emotionally laid out and full of tension, the time is too long and the length is too heavy.
Although both "Lebanon" and "Fury" have problems to a certain extent, they do not hide their flaws. Both provide us with an unusual perspective. The experience of war at such a close distance and the repressed feeling of such a narrow space are all in the past. Not in a war movie.
In "Chinese and foreign military film and television"
View more about Fury reviews
