In the Valley of Elah (B+ or 3.5/4 stars)
Based on actual events, 'In the Valley of Elah' is a quietly powerful drama directed by Paul Haggis (Crash). November, 2004: when American soldier, Mike Deerfield, returns from Iraq, but then goes AWOL, his father, Hank (Tommy Lee Jones), an ex-military cop, jumps in his car, leaves Tennessee, & heads for Fort Rudd, New Mexico on a quest to search for his missing son. What had happened to him over there in Iraq? Where is Mike? And what do his fellow soldiers know about one tragic night near their home base? I have a mixed reaction to this film. Though it lacks some depth, this is a competently shot, thought-provoking, & extremely well-acted police procedural. But it's unilateral anti-Bush sentiment & overwhelming somberness makes it laborious, at times.
Hank begins to methodically answer his own questions. Why? Because no one on the military base and/or the local cops seem to give a damn about a potentially fallen 'hero'. Eventually, Hank is able to convince Detective Emily Sanders (an excellent Charlize Theron) to take charge of the investigation (despite the doubts of her sexist colleagues). A hacked-up, burned corpse is identified as Mike. When the news hits home, his mother (a heartbroken Susan Sarandon) collapses (now having lost, not 1, but 2 sons to war). It's up to Hank to take it upon himself to lie, cheat, poke, prod, & do whatever he can to uncover the mystery of Mike's (if it's him) death ... and, how the culture of soldiers in Iraq may have something to do with the discovered corpse.
Slowly, surely, piece by piece, suspect by suspect, theory by theory, Hank is making headway. Each revelation leads to another alarming fact about the case, his son, and/or who could have killed him, & why. Ex: Mike's PDA, when downloaded, shows garbled video clips that begin to paint a grim picture of what it must have been like in the battlefield. Was it so easy to kill over there? When you do it once, is it the spark that ignites a cold, emotionless string of murder? You'd think the answer is no. But apparently, according to this film, the answer is a resounding yes. Everything takes a toll on Emily, Hank, and his marriage. By the end, everyone has to face the truth about both Mike, and his wartime brethren. This film reminds me of a lesser Full Metal Jacket.
Clearly, this movie's goal is to portray war as a bad thing; and to show post-war backlash. War is the villain, war is the enemy; not the civilians. War is bad, but postwar is worse. 'In the Valley of Elah' wants to show us (though we know it already) that many soldiers come back from war as morally devastated, psychologically damaged, soulless monsters. And perhaps, they're rigorous training makes it hard for them to distinguish friend from foe. Because of this, the film is hard to swallow (and could enrage 'some' war vets). As mentioned earlier, the somber tone of the plot never lets up. To prevent us from going over the deep end, Haggis provides effective visuals & nuanced acting. Whether you like it or not, this film is a whodunit (with an Iraq War facade in the backdrop of it all).
Tommy Lee Jones is great as the haggard, relentless father. He's quiet, but there's intensity beneath his hardened face that could scare the pants off of you. Hank may be regimented, strong, patriotic, but I truly felt his (and Sarandon's) suffering, grief, & loss. Jones impressed me in one scene where he tells the David & Goliath story (in Elah valley) to Emily's (Theron) son. The exploration of post-war circumstances is crucial; but the conventional narrative is quite heavy-handed here. Aside from some forced pacing, If I have a problem with the film, it's the 'way' that the story is told. A film like this needs subtlety to create a desired effect. This movie is as subtle as a sledgehammer (in getting its theme across). Do I agree that war is bad? Absolutely. SO, aside from that sentiment being shoved down my throat, the film doesn't offer anything revelatory or interesting aside from a decent story that is acted well. It's very good, but should have been even better.
Hank begins to methodically answer his own questions. Why? Because no one on the military base and/or the local cops seem to give a damn about a potentially fallen 'hero'. Eventually, Hank is able to convince Detective Emily Sanders (an excellent Charlize Theron) to take charge of the investigation (despite the doubts of her sexist colleagues). A hacked-up, burned corpse is identified as Mike. When the news hits home, his mother (a heartbroken Susan Sarandon) collapses (now having lost, not 1, but 2 sons to war). It's up to Hank to take it upon himself to lie, cheat, poke, prod, & do whatever he can to uncover the mystery of Mike's (if it's him) death ... and, how the culture of soldiers in Iraq may have something to do with the discovered corpse.
Slowly, surely, piece by piece, suspect by suspect, theory by theory, Hank is making headway. Each revelation leads to another alarming fact about the case, his son, and/or who could have killed him, & why. Ex: Mike's PDA, when downloaded, shows garbled video clips that begin to paint a grim picture of what it must have been like in the battlefield. Was it so easy to kill over there? When you do it once, is it the spark that ignites a cold, emotionless string of murder? You'd think the answer is no. But apparently, according to this film, the answer is a resounding yes. Everything takes a toll on Emily, Hank, and his marriage. By the end, everyone has to face the truth about both Mike, and his wartime brethren. This film reminds me of a lesser Full Metal Jacket.
Clearly, this movie's goal is to portray war as a bad thing; and to show post-war backlash. War is the villain, war is the enemy; not the civilians. War is bad, but postwar is worse. 'In the Valley of Elah' wants to show us (though we know it already) that many soldiers come back from war as morally devastated, psychologically damaged, soulless monsters. And perhaps, they're rigorous training makes it hard for them to distinguish friend from foe. Because of this, the film is hard to swallow (and could enrage 'some' war vets). As mentioned earlier, the somber tone of the plot never lets up. To prevent us from going over the deep end, Haggis provides effective visuals & nuanced acting. Whether you like it or not, this film is a whodunit (with an Iraq War facade in the backdrop of it all).
Tommy Lee Jones is great as the haggard, relentless father. He's quiet, but there's intensity beneath his hardened face that could scare the pants off of you. Hank may be regimented, strong, patriotic, but I truly felt his (and Sarandon's) suffering, grief, & loss. Jones impressed me in one scene where he tells the David & Goliath story (in Elah valley) to Emily's (Theron) son. The exploration of post-war circumstances is crucial; but the conventional narrative is quite heavy-handed here. Aside from some forced pacing, If I have a problem with the film, it's the 'way' that the story is told. A film like this needs subtlety to create a desired effect. This movie is as subtle as a sledgehammer (in getting its theme across). Do I agree that war is bad? Absolutely. SO, aside from that sentiment being shoved down my throat, the film doesn't offer anything revelatory or interesting aside from a decent story that is acted well. It's very good, but should have been even better.