A good war movie doesn’t tell us what it is. We know it. War is a horrendous ongoing atrocity that agitates a frustrating equilibrium with peace. With the good war movie, it’s a given. It shoots to be a primary source, not a textbook. The defining quality, however, is the handling of the social climate in union with the political. War is war, and the official term for it, whether it be “conflict” or “aggression,” won’t stop the film from outlining the core.
We’re at a point in movie culture when we can be particular about this genre, which makes ‘71’ the impressive feat it is. The film, a glowing showcase of a film debut, both for writing (Gregory Burke) and directing (Yann Demange), pinpoints the struggle of many players through the story of one. We have a perfect view of it swelling, engulfing surrounding parties as it grows. Even more so, there isn’t one perfect outlet to the madness, of which there is a lot. It’s pure diffusion in all directions, and the causes and effects are left to be picked up like broken pieces to a puzzle, one that’s at times difficult to put together. It’s a good thing that we respond to it the way the movie wants us to.
The film gets it title from the time of its setting, during the gruesome thickness of the Northern Ireland conflict with the restrictive overseer, Britain, looking to settle a largely radical Catholic area. It opens up with lightning fast, strenuous training sequences within the British Army. The editing is fairly choppy, but we know to keep an eye on the protagonist, Gary Hook, a newly recruited young soldier.
Still early on, we’re told that the situation in Belfast requires Hook, with his team of troops, to be deployed for a routine inspection. We don’t feel as though we’re ready to enter the battleground, and neither do these soldiers. Nearly within moments of arriving, crowds of Irishmen gather, confusion arises, people are agitated, and the scene escalates to a riot. Hook is separated from the others in his team and left stranded in hostile territory with the younger, more irrational IRA looking for him.
We watch this movie scene to scene. The action and pacing doesn’t allow us to look ahead, much less know what to expect. Hook is our island in what’s basically a madhouse, and we cling to him, anxiously, full aware that he doesn’t have more of a grasp than we do. It’s a thin tightrope he has to walk, even though there are nets below tempting him with a chance of stability. Once more groups come into view, the suspicion in the air meets the concentration of chaos, and the script makes sure to make the more subtle bits loud.
And yet a clear conclusion isn’t thrown out there. This document is an observation, and what many directors mistake for less actually turns out to be more. Simply placed shots can be difficult to watch. A boy, no more than ten years old, retrieves a massive gun dropped on the ground by a soldier and disappears into a manic crowd. Often times, a tattered Hook making his way uneasily through the treacherous streets of Belfast is enough to get us, a perfectly crafted mess.
The movie falls a little bit too easily into place at the end. When you want a movie centered around one point to have numerous lines, it’s hard to bring them together without making it seem like a template.
However, it’s the taper that we get to leave with at the finale. Who really is in the right within the midst of this? There isn’t a solid answer, and I think it’s what the movie gets on point. Most war movies with a message make the mistake of contradicting themselves simply by having a side to route for. “71” is one of the few standpoints we have received in the past year that disproves the paradox: if there isn’t a rational argument between either contender, maybe it’s the institution that’s wrong.
