dave s
Set during the conflict between the Serbs and the Bosnians, three soldiers, one Serb and two Bosnians, find themselves trapped and fighting for survival between enemy lines in an abandoned trench. When an impotent branch of the UN arrives on the scene with the self-serving media in tow, things become significantly more complicated. No Man's Land is a powerful film, a condemnation of the conflict itself, with undercurrents of how self-centered greed and bureaucracy will almost certainly worsen matters. Beautifully shot and acted, it is filled with moral dilemmas and unexpected turns and finishes with one of the most memorable shots imaginable, emphasizing the futility of everything that preceded it.
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
03/30/23
Full Review
s r
1001 movies to see before you die. An ambitious project that takes on the Serbian Bosnian conflict with an interesting light. It pits both sides in a neutral zone to show the silliness of the conflict and the involvement of the UN's hypocrisy. It was entertaining and well made. It was on Tubi.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
In the trenches. So this is about three soldiers stuck in no man's land during the Bosnian war. Two of them (Branko Đurić, Rene Bitorajac) are on opposing sides and mobile enough, but the third (Filip Šovagović) is incapacitated. He is lying on a land mine and cannot move without setting it off. Tension starts to mount as the U.N. tries to deescalate the impossible situation. Now, I saw this once before, and it left an awfully large impression. I've wanted to come back and revisit it for quite some time, but war movies being war movies, they don't work their way into my rotation all that often. I kept up my lazy Saturday and decided to dig up the old DVD. No Man's Land is still as outstanding as I remember. I feel like war stories work best when they get intimate and personal instead of trying to paint the big sweeping picture, and that is precisely what No Man's Land does. It creates a microcosm for the entire war in an enclosed space, and I think that is just brilliant. Which side is in the right and which side is in the wrong depends entirely on who has the loaded gun at a specific moment. The power dynamic can change on a dime, and it just goes to show how a viewpoint can shift when you consider that history books are written by the victor. It shows how other countries can intervene and make things better or worse, and it even shows the role that the media plays with coverage since that can drastically change the optics of the world's opinion. It's a simplification, yes, but it shows you how much egos have to do with these high-toll skirmishes at the end of the day. I also love how this devolves into a schoolyard fight with these two soldiers arguing about which side started it. This war is not a conflict that I know a ton about, but this movie isn't here to give you a history lesson. It is here to give soldiers' points of view, and that will always be next to impossible to be unbiased. There's solid acting from the entire cast, most of which reminded me of American counterparts. Đurić has a Robert De Niro quality, and a U.N. sergeant played by Georges Siatidis is a ringer for Adrien Brody. No Man's Land is one of my very favorite War movies of all time, and I think everybody will be able to connect with it on a human level.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
02/26/23
Full Review
Tony S
A dark allegory to the entire Bosnian war, captured in a hypothetical scenario. Narrative doesn't take sides and every participant of the conflict, from, Serbian to Bosnian soldiers, from UN to journalists, is portrayed with a satirical fervor to drive this allegory. The film explicitly highlights the ridiculousness of the situation in the trench and the nature of this war itself. Yet only few characters acknowledge this and are helpless to do anything.
Good performances with quite ironic castings, to further highlight craziness of it all. The dark ending will most definitely leave the audience at a complete uneasiness, flushing any previously showed levity of the scenario, turning the entire film towards the highest degree of morbidity.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
11/14/21
Full Review
William L
No Man's Land is a parable for the Bosnian War and plays out like it - two men, one a Bosnian Serb (Nino), the other an ethnic Bosniak (Čiki) find themselves stuck in a trench in between their respective fronts. Because the movie has to happen they ignore several opportunities to kill one another and use the time they gain to play out a few heavy-handed commentaries on the conflict, including how both are perceived as in the right and they are both actually rather similar despite their supposedly irreconciliable differences (it comes up that they know the same woman back home).
There are some solid moments in the film, some well-placed satire, and an on-point depiction of the UN as a bloated and ineffectual bureaucracy more focused on image than efficacy; thematically, it feels well-placed. However, there's a lot that looks familiar when considering other depictions of civil conflict (needless suffering and antagonists that are just reflections of each other); the ending is actually quite potent, though - a wounded man laying on a landmine, which has attracted the attention of both the media and the higher-ups, is ultimately left to die once the optics are in hand. If the movie dived a bit deeper into humor, it would have landed even harder. (3/5)
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
11/06/21
Full Review
Audience Member
No Man's Land Review
Logline (what it says it's about): Bosnia and Herzegovina during 1993 at the time of the heaviest fighting between the two warring sides (doesn't really dig into this setup at all). Two soldiers from opposing sides in the conflict, Nino and Ciki, become trapped in a trench in no man's land, whilst a third soldier becomes a living booby trap. [What's missing here is the other large focus of the film which is the failed UN peacekeeping efforts and the political forces involved in intervening in said conflict between the soldiers in the trench].
What it's really about: Two soldiers from opposing sides in the conflict — neither of which has the thick skin or ingenuity needed for war — become entrapped in a trench between the two (Bosnian and Serbian) front lines. They mostly argue about shallow things related to who started the war and occasionally find something to connect over (they know the same girl from a village — actually a nice little scene), stopping short of killing each other all the while Ciki's friend, Cera, is trapped under a mine. Oh, and the second half takes an extremely political turn (a much less lighthearted and more generic turn frankly) as it relates to both the conflict between the nations but more specifically on the seemingly botched and corrupt portrayal of the UN peacekeeping efforts. The focus shifts from the personal stories of the soldiers and their experience with the war (not that they dug too deep into that in the first half) to instead become a melting pot of issues that normally colour war films — certain UN officers wanting to do more than they are, reporters looking to break their next big story, and superiors looking for good publicity and not necessarily doing the right thing. The tale is tragic in the sense that it shows that there were no winners or losers in this war, there was just those facing it, suffering for it, and largely left to deal with the situation and conflict themselves. Nino and Ciki ultimately don't know what they're fighting for, they don't delve too deeply into any particular subject. In its short runtime often resorting to the same boilerplate topics of conversation. I wanted more of the focus to remain on the two soldiers and relegate the UN peacekeeping efforts to subplot status — unfortunately it overpowers the other plot line instead.
Designing principle: Trap two soldiers from opposing sides, both of which don't have the thick skin needed for war, in a trench that is smack dab in the middle of the frontlines in order to debate and argue about the causes, meaning, and absurdity of the war. The confined setting drives some paranoia between them which pushes them to their limits but also helps provide some levity in certain moments, creating some nice (albeit under-utilized) variation in tone and behaviour between the protagonists. Both Nino and Ciki are inherently good men (not having the instinct to kill the other immediately), and that is largely tested over the course of the story. The major problem is there is no real sense of urgency or pressure looming here given that neither is in need of any corrective behaviour and neither is really all that influenced by the other. The desires even get a little muddled for each character, as their behaviour is largely stagnant for most of the story. The writer has another soldier trapped under a mine serve as a catalyst for other forces to become involved in their situation and to offer up a ticking time bomb of sorts (although no real sense of urgency here again).
Character: We have the outright factions formed and defined by the two frontlines on either side of the trench in which the story mostly takes place. I felt there was some decent room for character development right from the beginning with a very simple source of conflict being that they're from opposing sides — they didn't exploit this anywhere near as much as they should have. As well you have some personality characteristics, one being a bit more brash and aggressive v. the other who's a bit more naive that helps create some superficial albeit workable change arcs for both. Normally you want to ensure your characters are active v. reactive, and in this case there isn't enough plot for either to do all that much — for a story like this though they could have kept it a very contained character piece. Neither was ultimately serviced well. As the momentum of digging deeper into Nino and Ciki picked up it soon esorted to the other plot lines which focused on characters who were much less to not developed at all (external forces driving decisions v. internal ones). As such, further character development and internal character growth in the situation they are in within the trenches is sacrificed for a muddled intent to capture many different elements of this complicated and messy historical context.
Nino: the prototypical nervous nelly kind of soldier; the boy scout version of a solider that follows orders religiously but has no instinct or awareness for the dangers of real war — not to mention he's scared shitless and has very little experience firing a gun. As well, he is obviously not yet fully corrupted nor has he bought into the notion that just because he's a Serb and the other guy a Bosnian that that destines them to be enemies. He extends his hand and gets a healthy dose of reality from Ciki. Nino has a negative change arc over the course of the film, which had the story been strictly concentrated on the story of these two soldiers, could have actually been quite profound, cinematic, and cathartic, especially in the scenario where even amongst his own group of soldiers on the Serbian frontlines he was seen as somewhat unequipped and doomed in the face of real war. Again very much a standard archetype, but the story didn't need much else really to work. Even the most shallow change arc wasn't delivered upon though. The idiosyncrasy of the conflict and what they'd be talking about as it relates to the specifics of their experiences and perspectives on the happenings of this war would have helped differentiate this from any other war movie. And the fact that a character is learning how to be a true soldier whilst trapped with the enemy is kind of fresh and exciting.
Ciki: Kind of a cool cat character, is willing to risk his life to get a drag on a cigarette — something worth dying for on the battle field. He's also fairly hard boiled and embittered over the loss of his friend. Hence why he's out for vengeance against Nino. This is somewhat tempered when Cera is revealed to be alive. But there is also something to be said about Ciki not having killed Nino during all the respective opportunities he had. Ciki very much wanted to extract what he could from Nino before killing him. In some ways Ciki is also struggling with his role in the whole conflict, anchoring to the main goal for himself, although there isn't much he can do, or protecting his friend and trying to save him from his precarious situation being stuck upon a bouncing mine. Whereas Nino had some room for a significant change arc, Ciki stayed flat for most of it. Thereby Nino v. Ciki should have been the true protagonist, simply on the basis of having the most profound arc possible. But alas, these guys are each other's enemies — the confined situation could have afforded a nice complementary opportunity for both to be brought to profound moments in their lives as soldiers (in so far as their bravery, skill, and tact — and perhaps their action against the other), as men (teetering between the good men they are and the corrupted killing machines the war has forced them to become), and as victims (in the eyes of the reporters and UN peacekeepers). It could have been interesting if the two were entrapped as the armistice was signed into effect.
Cera: Presumed dead, the best friend of Ciki. A device ultimately — the symbolic representation for the heart of the issue and the message the movie was trying to deliver and communicate. He serves as a helpless arbitrator for the two feuding soldiers. He also reflects the casualties of this war via a second half of the movie plot revolving exclusively on a political message about the failures of the UN peacekeeping efforts which felt very misaligned to the story's initial trajectory with the two main characters. The character could have served as an interesting conduit and device for Nino and Ciki's relationship. That wasn't done all that much other than in one scene where Cera tricks Nino into a cigarette and uses the opportunity to get rid of his gun such that the Bosnians have the upper hand. Not sure why he wouldn't have just been killed then and there. The Serb and Bosnian frontlines cannot see into the trench.
UN: Most characters in this movie are caricatures, not real, fully-formed characters. Within an absurdist story this approach may have been effective, but even when using absurdity I believe we need some of the other building blocks and elements of story telling to exist, specifically compelling characters with, at the least, very interesting, engaging, fascinating and most importantly, conflicting perspectives. The UN side plot character of Marchand presents a great opportunity to introduce more conflict into the already tricky situation. As peacekeepers they could have really played into the corruption and scandal angle such that as Nino and Ciki are moving closer towards finding help, they have these fake-ally opponents interject. As such, in this war, like many, all bets are off so this could have been a nice device for some good old reversals — peace keeping more like peace taking. The bumbling buffoon UN commander was a mistake. Ultimately the fact that this suffocated the main storyline is a travesty as it was the furthest thing from engaging and instead quite boring, conventional, and cliched in execution.
Reporters: I really didn't like this side plot which was overly melodramatic as it relates to getting a story out there about this unfolding incident. It felt very gimmicky and shallow, outright confusing why this was a tact taken for this story. I think there are far more compelling ways to go about communicating the horror of the war at hand. The reporters could have been very minor side characters (if at all).
Other side characters: The Serbian and Bosnian forces (which were largely forgotten about) could have had interesting ideas about how to protect their fellow men, or lack thereof. The other soldiers were largely left out of the mix over the course of the film — not serving as either formidable obstacles nor sources of action beats that would have served well to have been intercut with the quieter, more character-focused moments in the trenches b/w the two main characters. Sometimes dealing with heavier subject matter spooks writers into shying away from utilizing cinematic moments through structure to carry on engagement and offer breaks from the intimate conversations and either character- or theme-focused elements.
Audience appeal: The events surrounding the Yugoslav wars were well-covered and there was very mixed reports coming out of what was really going on there. The film offers an opportunity to try and expose some minutia for this moment in history. Beyond that, which they could have very well chosen to ignore (as they did), should have been counterbalanced with a strong story and characters (which they did not). It also offers a novel situation that is borne out of the specific events, in that there is signature moments to be used that are exclusive to the Yugoslav war. There's some fun tension inborn in the absurd situation as well as comedic moments that help lighten up the otherwise dramatic setting and circumstances. The one piece that they could have delivered better on was the war elements. We have a great opening sequence that puts us right in the midst of things, in the midst of action. A calm before the storm. A troop of Bosnian soldiers gets lost through a heavy evening fog, hunkering down for the night only to awaken out in the plain open with the enemies sites pointed squarely at them. Its a bloodbath and only our protagonist makes it through. We don't get a sense of the character yet, other than his close relationship with a fellow soldier (again mostly just playful banter as the only real depth of their friendship), from which we can moderately get a sense that they're close as they lean against each other whilst sleeping and giddily laugh as their guide stumbles through the fog — a high strung, tense fellow. The story quickly turns to one of survival and we all love seeing humanity triumph over dire straits. When they can show the will of the human spirit to persevere when faced with trials by fire. We soon thereafter switch gears to our second lead who is on the opposing side and reflects a prototypical scared shitless, ill-equipped soldier who is reluctantly conscripted alongside a fellow soldier to inspect the trenches for signs of survivors. There's a lot of great potential and possibilities at play here. The missed opportunity with creating a couple super memorable characters to fend it out in this unique situation is both hilarious and tragic. The tension of not knowing who might kill who and possibly playing with certain information being revealed and concealed at different points throughout the story could have worked well to serve as a balance so as to not bore the audience with a lack of change in setting, location, and a heavy plot (which this film does not have).
Story World: Set against the backdrop of the tumultuous Yugoslavian civil war, there was much rich subtext to be explored here but was only done superficially. All films revolving around this particular period in history and this war have an element of absurdity to them, and No Man's Land is no different in that respect. The situation itself and the crapshoot operation of both sides shows that this was very much indeed a poor man's war zone. Makeshift everything. No one knew what they were doing really. And it was very much an overnight shift of the everyman taking up arms one night and having to contend with brutal warfare the next. The film is almost exclusively isolated in a single location for the majority of it — the trench in which they are "trapped". I put that in quotes because again, we have a very simple solution here — one of them kills the other, they try and get help from their frontline. OR, they both wave the white flag from the beginning and precipitate the events that lead to the ending. There needed to be interesting twists and turns here that would have brought these two opponents closer together before ultimately what I imagine being an inevitable massacre at the end (that's what this war was — it breeded hate from all sides, even in good men). The other locations in the story were just filler for a mindless plot that had UN forces going back and forth between the trench, resulting in causing more trouble than good. There was never any sense of forward momentum in the story, just a lot of waiting around in the trench, not getting anywhere, not doing anything — this is a drag on storytelling, especially when it isn't offset by a colourful, engaging conversation between our characters.
Desire: Survival reflects the first desire line for our main character(s). Nino wants to survive his assigned mission. Ciki wants to get out of this bind. Their desire lines both converge as they cross paths: get out of the situation and survive but now the threat has changed and it is each other. There are further symptoms as it relates to this goal but herein also lies one of the problems with the film which is that there was never a compelling reason to hold off on killing one another. When the intention is as strong as this in the face of battle, we need formidable obstacles to stand in the way of it. I actually do commend them for flirting with the notion that these are good men at their core (their goodness is in conflict with perhaps what they need to do in that moment to survive) but this wasn't as richly explored and there was no where near enough volatility in that relationship as there should have been. The feeling that one will double cross the other, skepticism, but also moments of bonding and connection b/w the two of them — ultimately leading to either a positive state or in the case of this film a negative tragic state which finds the two dead and the soldier on the mine left for dead. There are no winners in war, certainly not for those on the frontlines and in some ways the honesty of the conclusion is refreshing however it should have been supported by the push and pull of wanting to look past the superficial identifiers of Serbian or Bosnian and just walk away from that situation, but it could not be, it was alas inevitable to end in tragedy. The introduction of Cera being alive and trapped on the mine also shifts Ciki's desire from saving himself to saving his friend — he takes on this responsibility but doesn't do a whole lot about it. The contained nature of the story is both a positive and a negative for this story, especially when it is devoid of any clear cut tangible goals that can mark success or failure as we move along the story.
Need: This is an interesting one because I don't think it can be said that either of these characters have much of a change arc throughout the story. They maintain certain beliefs and little do they change. Nino can be said to have become more corrupted and damaged by the end of it, thus possessing a negative change arc. His character reflects this loss of innocence as presumably this is one of his first engagements in the war. Ciki and the situation they finds themselves in thereby sends Nino into this corrupted, disillusioned, ultimately tragic end state. Nino does make efforts to try and bond with Ciki given the bind they're in. Ciki resists any semblance of forming bonds with Nino and this puts a divide b/w them. Thereby the forces of influence are one-way, from Ciki to Nino. Nino has very little effect on Ciki's change throughout the story. Marchand has a change arc too — similar to Nino's to some extent, whereby he is negatively affected and changed by his efforts to intervene in the conflict, learning that there is no place for intervention in this war, and there are no winners or losers, no heroes and villains. It could be said, in its arguably most simplest form, is that they needed the conviction to follow through on their most primal of urges to kill the other and embody the worst of what the war has to offer up.
Theme: Can there be winners and losers in war?
Moral problem: 2 fold (which is part of the problem) — can differences between the two ethnic groups be reconciled when put in this pressure cooker environment; what is the value of a life in this war vis a vis a damning portrayal of the failures of the UNPROFOR peacekeeping efforts.
Moral argument: Although never outright explored (which is a shame) there is an element of inevitability in the fragile build up of Yugoslavia to have had this conflict transpire and displace and destroy people's livelihoods. The differences are irreconcilable and the root cause of the conflict is contrived (violence begets violence and although these two men, they are good natured in their blood, the war has poisoned their souls)
Plotlines:
1. Nino and Ciki trapped in the bunker, resisting the urge to kill the other whilst trying to save themselves and in the case of Ciki help his friend escape
2. UN officer Marchand believing they are not doing enough who wants to overstep and save the day
3. As it relates, the news reporter angle regarding the UN's failed attempts to upkeep peace, and the threat of bad press — pushes them to intervene in the situation
4. This is where there could have been lots of room for some cinematic set pieces regarding the Serbian and Bosnian frontlines — we are in the middle of a war zone after all
Cinematic: The movie definitely has some beautiful moments peppered throughout, starting with that great opening sequence, to the inciting incident altercation between the two sides after which a soldier is dead and the other two are left to confront one another. The setup in this story is quite well done. The moments where they defeated from the initial scenes b/w Ciki and Nino, such as their brief bonding over knowing the same girl from a village, is quite refreshing. I wish more of the story was of this variety. I think the most interesting part of the ideas (pitting two soldiers from opposite sides into the same place) needed a different story world slightly, a different plot line, but perhaps some of the same elements as the present designing principle. Rather than being "trapped" — which they never were really — they need to work together for some reason — this always works better.
Clever: A couple fun little moments that were gold, outside of which nothing overly novel done here to stand apart from the regular wartime hits.
Genre: War, drama, absurdist comedy, political; the genre elements selected here make for a good melting pot of tone and style of film. You get great runway out of a war film when you can n
Original: The idea and premise is quite refreshing in that sense. I don't recall another film that pits two enemies from opposing sides of the war being cooped up in a confined space and managing to not kill each other — despite their lacking a compelling reason not to do so.
Compelling: Not particularly. The setup situation was done well but very evidently lost steam and had themselves written into a corner. The characters were fairly shallow, nothing too deep to be explored in either's personal journey's and struggles with the war and never any kind of profound debate waged between the two of them other than the petty he said she said over the trigger for the war. The biggest defining quality of the war (although this could be said about any war) is the absurdity of it. There is something very intimate about the Yugoslav war and the idea that everymen and women switched from farmers to soldiers overnight, of all ages and orientations, fighting the friends and neighbours of yesterday for a cause they can't even confidently speak to today. It was an emotional war v. one of brains. The film doesn't do much in the way of digging into the contextual issues of the situation, although the designing principle is precisely setup to foster a rich exploration of the personal trauma and forces and contrasts b/w the Bosnian and Serbian perspective on the conflict, in a pressure cooker setting, it shy's away from digging deep into the heart of the matter. Not to mention, in a war context, it is very compelling to add the wild card of death being possible at any moment given the war waging on above.
Well-paced: For an hour and a half long movie, it felt like a bit of a slog. In today's era I am looking for tightly paced and structured films in the 90 to 100 minute context. Attention spans are tested these days and I commend those writers and filmmakers who can successfully craft a story within that short time frame and hit all the necessary marks. No Man's Land comes in at a great runtime but partly because of its failure to diversify the shifts in tone, scene length, scene style throughout and because of a very poor decision to focus on a subplot unrelated to the main initial focus of the film (and a quite significant portion of the total runtime at that) I found the pacing to be very poor here. I didn't feel super engaged or attached to what I was viewing and caught myself getting bored, attention waning, and a general sense of "who cares" to the experience. It's almost as if in the second half it becomes this other movie which was much less interesting, generic, and downright cliched. Partly the fault of the premise in itself or using that as a launching off point. Finding something within that that would require motion and action to carry on from it v. being stagnant in a single place and forced to repeat beats again because of the failure to exploit the setting, contextual happenings of the time for their full value — a barrier needlessly enforced by a misconception of not wanting to glamorize or remain entertaining when its about something as true and as serious a subject as this. I believe you could have had a few more action set pieces sprinkled throughout and still not bastardized the morality, honesty, and truth trying to be respected here with the subject matter. The fact that we're cooped up in a single setting for most of the story is both a blessing and a curse. I personally found it diminished pacing quite substantially and the cure that the filmmakers here went with was a left field, political, tangential plot line that somewhat overpowers the initial plot line in the second half. They did this in order to be able to cut away from the trenches but have something that would ultimately, conveniently crossover with the trench — but as is said in the film. Its all largely contrivance and a series of deus ex machine's. No conflict, nor struggle to arrive at it, thereby no tension and suspense because there isn't real stakes.
Empathetic: We don't get to know these men intimately. Nor the situation all that well. This is a challenging position to find oneself in. Especially when considering that not everyone is all that intimately familiar with the setting and historic moment in question. I really like the characters in their setup but that was just a tease for a payoff that we never got as an audience.
Cathartic: I'm not sure the movie is meant to be cathartic, almost anti-so. Its meant to be a tragic ending, a cautionary tale and one that is uniquely portraying the outcome of this particular slice of history. There were no winners and losers here. And no one really wanted to intervene in this conflict. What resulted was a massacre and many casualties from all sides. Nino is obviously corrupted over the course of the story as his instincts are anti-war by and large. Ciki is the source of this corruption. He negatively influences and changes Nino over the journey. Ciki himself a byproduct of the war time, deep down (and we see it in his subtle actions or lack thereof) he is a good man who doesn't want to succumb to it but is slowly forced to, brought upon by the further pressures of the whole world watching and the forces beyond his control — treating them not like men but like they're not even human.
Spice Element: Two soldiers cooped up in a confined setting forced desperately in need of cooperation to get out alive but overwhelmingly feeling the urge to kill the other is a pressure cooker situation that holds some promising potential, especially when considering the novelty of this premise is that these two soldiers are from opposing sides. This implies opposing worldview, behaviour, action that can lead to many exciting conflicts throughout and the question of who will kill who first is teetering alongside the fact that these two men are morally good and if that will lead them to form an unusual, unexpected bond instead. As well, given that they are in No Man's Land, in b/w the two frontlines, there was always (although never acted upon) the suspense built up as to whether one of the sides would strike or comedically, neither side cares enough about said soldiers and they bomb the shit out of the trenches.
Complements: The premise itself had a lot of promise in it. There is a rich exploration here to be had with showcasing two sides of the same coin. That in spite of their superficial, surface-level differences they share a common problem and concern with the war and their attitudes towards it. This increasingly challenges the relationship to which we assume is leading to the inevitable death of at least one of the two men. The goals here are primal, which is always something easy to root for, and the setting is contained, which keeps things focused. There's some decent comedy sprinkled throughout that adds some levity to the serious context and subject matter.
Structure: Three-Act Simple Linear
- Act I (Set-up)
- Opener: Looming threat beyond the fog… it's war…. calm before the storm… playful banter amidst the tense situation
- Inciting Incident: Ciki gets trapped inside the trench; Nino and another soldier sent to inspect the situation
- Debate: Nino and the other soldier inspect the trenches, create a human booby trap; Ciki cowers in hiding, teetering with jumping out to kill them
- Plot Point 1: Ciki attacks, kills one, Nino remains alive albeit wounded — they're in the trench together
- Act II
- Ciki considers what to do; tells Nino to strip down and sends him above ground to wave the white flag
- Ciki and Nino must hunker down together as the bombs shower down upon them; they bicker about who started the war; they ain't getting out of the trench easy
- The soldier on the mine is not dead, it's Ciki's friend, Cera
- Tables turn, Nino acquires the gun; more bickering about who started the war
- Tables turn again as Nino is held down by Cera as the negotiations b/w them unfold
- Nino and Ciki wave the white flag together in their underpants; UNPROFOR called in
- Relationship troubles continue b/w Nino and Ciki
- UNPROFOR gets the report but no action to be taken; small UN outpost commander is hungry for action so he charges in
- Midpoint: UNPROFOR moves closer; Nino and Ciki connect over knowing the same girl from a village (Midpoint)
- UN greater forces at play (some bad old exposition)
- UNPROFOR arrives to the trench to suss out the situation and is told to pull back by superiors
- Situation escalates as Nino takes up offer to leave with UNPROFOR but Ciki shoots him, causing him to stay
- Reporter intersects Marchand coming back — they know the details, she offers an ultimatum, an opportunity that's a win-win for them both
- Back in the trenches (brief) — identifies the knife
- Reporter leaks story — higher up UN powers get forced to intervene; also offers some news footage of the war waging on, providing context
- Back to the reporter — more reporters arriving, UN forces go back in
- Back to the trench — trying to get the knife; Nino stabs Ciki — tit for tat b/w them; UN forces arrive; Nino and Ciki stare each other down as the forces keep them at bay
- Marchand back at the barricades, awaiting arrival of bomb squad and superiors; they arrive, superior knows Marchand wanted the attention and publicity on the situation; allow press to come in
- All arrive to the trenches; reporter tries to interview the men — they both refuse
- Ciki and Cera exchange — the usual banter about how Ceras doing and how Ciki wants to kill Nino — he sees the knife
- Bomb squad expert coming in
- Ciki gets the knife
- Marchand kicks everyone out of the trench for the german bomb squad expert; tensions boil b/w nino and Ciki (who doesn't want to leave Cera)
- Plot Point 2: Nino and Ciki leave the trench together — reporters cover the case
- Act III
- Nino and Ciki are separated
- News coverage wants the reporter to go in deeper into Cera being on the mine
- Bomb squad guy tries to inspect the mine under Cera — determines he cannot defuse it
- Superior UN officer arrives — they even say "deus ex machine" which is a real cop out
- Ciki gets a gun
- Bomb squad guy gets sent to the trench as a cover up that the UN superiors are orchestration
- Ciki loses it and kills Nino, Ciki gets shot dead — covered on film by the reporters
- Everyones trying to figure out what to do — everyone is silent in the aftermath
- The UN officers have staged a cover up for Cera
- Marchand discovers Cera — they determine they have to turn their back on him
- Reporter and Marchand have a final exchange; Marchand is somewhat of a disillusioned character like Nick Caraway in The Great Gatsby; the reporter looks upon him
- Closer: Ciki and Nino are dead; Cera is left for dead on the mine; the UN forces and the world alike turn their back to the conflict — intervene where unnecessary and vice versa
Symbols: The trench; the mine; Cera; the gun; the knife
Suggestions for improvement: Keep the story focused on Ciki and Nino's wants and needs. Elevate the level of inner conflict between them in the claustrophobic situation of the trench with the elevated and mounting pressure of the looming conflict above them between the Serbian and Bosnian frontlines. As well, relegate the UN forces and reporter plot line to subplot status. Weave the three plot lines throughout to one final climactic crescendo. Select a single protagonist to focus on. Impose a real ticking time bomb of sorts on the situation — potential as it relates to the wounded soldier atop the jumping mine or otherwise. There is great juice and runway to be had with a buddy story that pits two soldiers from opposing sides together and both are reluctant to do the simple task of pulling the trigger on the other. In fact, in their shared entrapment within the trenches they can almost forget about the respective roles they're playing and actually speak to one another as they would have before the war — as equals, as friends. The idea of the trenches is interesting. They could have very well become entrapped in them and given that neither knows their way through them, have to weave and go on this journey together. Or as a bombing strike occurs, both are forced to hunker down in the same trench. There would/ should be some kind of shared goal for both that creates conflict between the two at all points in the story. The story really lacks forward thrust — it never feels like we have an exciting place to go — a destination — nor a clear marker of if we're getting closer to success or failure. No suspense or tension in the situation — no ticking time bomb and no real stakes here because we don't get invested in the characters, especially not Cera. If there is no time bound element there should still be a real sense of urgency and a greater feeling of "why now" — why is this such an urgent story and situation that we find ourselves in, now.
What I learned: Confined stories lose runway without physical movement. Being trapped in a single place can feel like a slog without some kind of variation in what's happening. This could have very well, almost exclusively, been a heavily character-driven film. The plot elements, and any major action beats, did not have to exist in this story. Everything could have been contained but every scene should have been laced with conflict between our characters.
Marketability: Wikipedia says the budget was $2 million. This film is very marketable. The contained situation helps keep costs low. The added war elements would help add some action into the mix that can help to attract more audience appeal. I think the added comedic elements, the black comedy in it provides the needed light hearted touch to cut into the otherwise heavy subject matter and single note dramatic beats. For a character driven piece that is always a concern whereas in genre films like action you can get away without as much of a tonal balance between drama and comedy because it is serviced through other emotions like fear and joy that comes with horror and action films respectively.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/30/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
