Fury: "Ideals are Peaceful...History is Violent

Rating: 8/10 (19 October 2014)

"Ideals are peaceful...History is Violent"
This is the justification that Brad Pitts' Don "Wardaddy" Collier gives to the young newcomer, Logan Lermans' Norman, as to why the violence and brutality exists in the war they fight. It also serves as the overlying message that director David Ayer is giving for his new WWII tank epic, "Fury". What is so hard with modern day WWII films is that it is so difficult to break new ground and try to tell a story that we haven't already seen before. Sure there are the aspects that we are always going to see (gratuitous violence, the male camaraderie, moral quandaries), but there is always a struggle to show the war in a different light that offers perspective and can challenge us emotionally in a way that we haven't seen.
"Fury" does well in telling us a story from the unique perspective of a group of soldiers who reside within the thick, loud, and brutal walls of an American Sherman battle tank. Watching these men fight this massive war within the confines of a small metal box lets us see witness these men exist in an almost prison like state of violence ad bloodshed along with seeing their bond strengthen. The latter is even more evident with the addition of the new tank member who quickly learns what he is in for even though the only thing he knows how to do is "type 60 words a minute".
Some will criticize "Fury" for being almost over the top with the gore and violence, but that is how it was. Who are you servicing if the product that you put on screen doesn't accurately capture the brutality of the events? Will it make it more civilized? Will it make have more substance? Bullshit. These are the people who are turned off by the violence because they can't comprehend that part of history being the brutal reality that it was. Neither can I for that matter, but I recognize and acknowledge our violent history because without it the war isn't won and the ones who lost their lives ensuring that victory aren't given the justice they deserve. Not every WWII film can have some fictional romance or "journey home" that detracts attention from the violence just because you don't have the stomach to show it.
Again, Ideals are peaceful...History is Violent.
It's a treat watching Brad Pitt at this stage of his career. He is no longer the young and hot leading man whose main purpose is to be eye candy for the ladies. Here he is the grizzled veteran whose job is to lead men through hell and back and keeping them alive while doing so. Even when he isn't speaking, we feel that command that his Wardaddy has over the men under his command. They prove to be loose cannons and capable of losing control but at the end of the day, they acknowledge their C.O.'s control because they have an almost unbreakable trust in him. This is portrayed the best in a scene involving a captured German town and Wardaddy and Norman break their way into the apartment of a woman and her young daughter where they get a chance to have a meal and for Norman to get a little action with the daughter. In come the rest of the tank crew, drunk and disorderly, wondering why they weren't invited to this peaceful meal. The supporting cast does an admirable job as well. Lerman doesn't have much to work with in his role unfortunately as we see nothing new from his other past roles from films like "Noah" and "The Perks of Being a Wallflower", Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal are solid here and Shia LaBeouf reminds us that he is very good at being able to cry on screen...he cries a lot....but it's OK...he is actually pretty good.
Now will "Fury" reach the level of "Saving Private Ryan" as some have said? No, but there is nothing wrong with not reaching the level of the best war film ever made. It's also a problem I have with how movies are received these days, especially when it comes to WWII films, in that there is so much pressure for them to be GREAT. It is the "Great War" (part II) and the most glorified event in entertainment history (especially in the American film industry) and the pressure to try to live up to that is unfair. It's interesting because the more recent war films that do tend to be more in the same violent vein as "Fury" (Lone Survivor comes to mind) have tended to resonate with audiences more. Seeing the brutality, as horrible as it may be, accentuates the story to a degree and makes the characters' triumphs/failures that much more profound. I think that should be the main goal for "Fury". If audiences walk out of this film feeling like they watched something powerful, something intense, that made them "feel" then that is all the recognition it needs.