Neutrality does not exist in the face of murder. Doing nothing to stop it is, in fact, choosing. It is not being neutral.

Rating: Null/10 (3 November 2004)

No Man's Land is an extremely social film about the absurdity of war and the lack of humanity that surrounds it. It takes a very recent conflict with the Bosnians and Serbs and translates it into a message that is very relevant in today's current Iraq conflict. While it begins as our normal, mundane and clichÃ© war film, it quickly changes 'when the fog lifts' and our two heroes are forced into a situation that they never chose to be in. Director Danis Tanovic uses a new trick of storytelling by eliminating the hordes of soldiers and limiting our interaction with just two people that are to represent their own country. This impressed me about this film. Each character in this film represents their own country. Nino is the Serbs, Ciki is the Bosnians, and the French officer tries to place the peacekeeping French. When you take the human away from the picture, you begin to see this as a battle between countries with a 'neutral' character standing in. It also reminded me of a boxing match. We had our two fighters whom never really became friends because they had to fight, and the referee called the UN who was there to blow the whistle if it was ever too rough.
After you begin to see that we have moved from a platoon war film to a simple two-person fight (worthy of the stage) of which each symbolize their own country, the rest of this film falls into place. Well, I was hoping that it would at least. I wasn't crazy about this film. I was expecting to see a tour de Force of imagery and triumph because it was able to beat out Amelie for best picture, but sadly I think the Academy went with this film because of the message that it sent throughout the picture. As I said before, this is a very social film. It dabbles in the idea that wars are sometimes fought for the wrong reasons and for forgotten times. There is a conversation between the Serb and Bosnian near the beginning of the film that I thought was interesting. They were talking about how this war started, and neither could remember who was the aggressor and who was the pacifist. Why was this war still happening? Nobody knew, but the anger and hatred was still in full demand. They each continue fighting over who caused this accident to happen to our man under the mine. Instead of helping and trying to save him, they fight. I saw this as yet another 'jab' against war. Most of the time the soldiers are so upset that being a savior comes second nature to fighting. We can definitely see this in our current battles overseas.
Another key element in this film was the lack of use in the media, and the way that the UN is portrayed. First, the role of the media in this film. While they were key in brining the UN to the site of the accident, they are not very forceful in knowing the truth. I found this to be shocking and very realistic at the same time. They got their story, they pulled their ratings out of the ground, but the need to know the truth and to be of some help was obviously lacking. This was a huge punch in the media's faces. They are portrayed as cold, heartless celebrities that use the camera as their weapon of choice. Let us not forget the UN as well. No Man's Land hugely knocks the role of the UN in this conflict. One of the quotes from this film, 'Neutrality does not exist in the face of murder. Doing nothing to stop it is, in fact, choosing. It is not being neutral' is a direct slam on to the policies of the UN. For most of these conflicts, troops are there to keep the peace, not to interfere. Therefore, the UN is asking their troops to ignore the violence, and allow the UN to be there just to say they were there. This is obviously the way that director Danis Tanovic wanted to portray the UN and it came out very clearly. It was a genuinely emotional scene that seemed to resonate from the director's heart.
Overall, this was a decent film. I was expecting much more than what was present due to the fact that it beat out Amelie for best Foreign Film at the Oscars, but it carried itself well. I felt it could have been more comical and a little less politically social commentary. By the first thirty minutes of this film I could see what the director wanted to accomplish and I needed something different. I wanted to be shocked and surprised, but instead I found a half-creative film that could have pushed the envelope a bit more to allow it to reach new heights. I think you should see it once, but a second viewing is right out of the question. Instead, spend more time seeing Amelie.
Grade: *** out of *****