Stronger psychologically than politically

Rating: 7/10 (2 November 2008)

The premise of 'No Man's Land' is simple: enemy soldiers stuck inside the same trench beneath their opposing lines. The setting is the Bosnian war, and the start of the film is vaguely reminiscent of the films of Emir Kusturica: less wild, but raw and to the point: I believed in the characters. But in the second half of the film, the movie turns it's attention from Serbs and Bosnians to the French and the British; and here I found it less successful. And this is not because western Europeans deserve no censure: in the real war, the U.N. did indeed stand aside while the massacre at Srebenica took place. But the pantomime general on display here does not help us understand how that happened; and the journalist is also an uncomfortable character. Put simply, the way that she reports the news, both inane and emotional, simply isn't how news is done in the real world. T.V. news reporting can be parodied - Chris Morris, among others, has done so superbly in the past - but mimicry is perhaps a prerequisite of good parody: the ability to replicate the tone is what buys the freedom to exaggerate. Although 'Welcome to Serejevo' was perhaps overly sympathetic to its journalistic protagonist, I felt it captured more of the essence of the truth of being a war reporter than this film. And after finding 'No Man's Land's portrayals of its English characters unconvincing, do I then have to ask myself, should I trust its portrayals of its Balkan protagonists? Even the film's final message seems confused, for having mocked the U.N. for not intervening, when it does intervene, things end in inevitable disaster, meaning that that paradoxically, it could almost be seen as an unintentional endorsement of realpolitik. I still enjoyed watching this movie; but its psychology is definitely stronger than its politics.