A 2001 Danis Tanovic Movie - Essay Example

Affiliation: Stylistic analysis of “No Man’s Land A 2001 Danis Tanovic movie The story of No man’s land is about an incident when two soldiers are trapped in a trench between the frontlines of Bosnian and Serb forces. Initially, the Bosnian Ciki (also referred as Tchiki in many articles) (Branko Djuri´c) and Serb Nino (Rene Bitorajac) are caught in unusual situation which soon becomes tragic when they find another soldier Cera (or Tsera as in many articles) played by Filip ˆSovagovi´c, lying over a deadly mine which would explode if Cera gets up and pressure is released from it. Ciki being a fellow Bosnian also has duty to save Cera. The scenes of verbal and physical conflicts between Ciki and Nino happen. They physically injure each other and also get to know a little about each other. In the course of this multilingual film, Tanovic portrays intentions of peacekeeping forces and media in somewhat negative but realistic manner through UN Sgt Marchand and journalist, Jane (Tanovic, 2001). Landscapes and Photography: As the Ciki and Nino wait with a what seems almost eternal entrapment, nature makes visit through Tanovic’s camera as a piece of blue sky, some trees and feeble sound of birds and insects. But the contrast of this little peep of nature and soldiers confinement to a trench clearly deconstructs war and highlights the beauty of freedom and peace. The sense of wait is depicted strongly as viewers expect something to happen every time but it never does. Ciki finds a gun in the trench and shoots Nino. The shot is taken from a high point to show Ciki’s view point. The camera zooms at low angle to show Niño’s viewpoint who is bracing for the worst to come and looking up at Ciki with blue sky behind him. As Nino closes his eyes camera lingers on him but no shots come. When Nino opens his eyes all he sees is a patch of blue sky and no Ciki. There was no climax such as Ciki putting his gun down and sparing Nino’s life. The incident fades without ending. While viewer’s curiosity is answered by a long shot of Ciki who has moved to other part of the trench. Tanovic has depicted the unending wait for war to be over. The war is waiting for something to happen but it never happens. It is our and Niño’s viewpoint. One more example, explosion of the mine under Cera is awaited but that does not happen. Ciki and Nino are killing time while Cera is forced to have bowel movement in his pants. A war simply ends when world and media puts their attention somewhere else. . Once Jane approaches the trench and bribes soldiers with cigarettes. The camera shot shows her position high up while Nino’s head is at the bottom of the frame. Tanovic had used camera to depict the power relations also (Corbin 47- 49). Saylor (par 2) discloses that the trench had been dug into a picturesque meadow with the landscape of the adjoining mountains. The movie was filmed in Slovenia instead of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the area shows strong similarity to the foothills of the Smokies. Tanovic shows the placid tranquility of the gently sloping meadow surrounded by green mountains with the same treatment and realism that he films a scene of running soldiers being shot and killed by their enemies. The realism is exceptional on account of his previous experience of producing documentaries with similar scenes for the historic archive as a Bosnian Army’s official photographer. Tanovic’s familiarity with the place and situation and his expertise with the camera guides his cameraman to capture the pictures not only at best angle but its inherent meaning as well. Black comedy: The missing war makes way, at times, for humor,. The camera leaves the trench for a moment to soldiers at the front lines listening to music on the radio. One of them is reading the newspaper and exclaims to the other: “What a mess in Rwanda!” Another constituent of Tanovi´c’s caricature is the twisted and sometimes truly comic situations as typical occurrence in a war. After ˆ Ciki shoots Nino, he forces him to strip down to his underwear and get on the edge of the trench waving a white shirt to let the armies know their location.. Tanovi´c takes his camera back to the soldiers on the front lines as they see Nino tottering around and ask each other: “Is he ours?” “It’s not written on his boxers,” another replies. Merritz (2001 par 6) is particularly amused by the incident where Čiki compels Nino at gunpoint to admit his sides guilt in the war. When the tables are turned minutes later and Nino has a gun while Čiki doesnt, Nino, with a cynical smile, forces out the same confession of guilt from Čiki, making the audience roll with laughter, at least for the time being. Tanovic again forces a dour smile on his viewers when the French Sgt. Marchand (Georges Siatidis) learns of trapped man and decides to look into the matter. When he needs a mine expert, his superiors ask him to wait till they are coaxed by Jane Livingstone (Katrin Cartlidge), a belligerent “Global News Channel” journalist. Here, the no man’s land exposes the skewed role of media in presenting war. Thus in full glare of media cameras, the UN commander in Bosnia takes a mine expert in the aircraft already feeling as the ‘hero’. As a trademark of Tanovic’s style, again everybody waits for mine to be diffused and Cera rescued, but would that happen? No! The diffusion of mine is just not possible. He tries to win public relations to save his face. The UN soldiers drag out a different body and show that they are rushing Cera quickly to hospital. But actually Cera was still lying in the trench, over the mine while mine expert sat beside him silently (Corbin 48; Tanovic 2001). As they pack up to leave, Jane’s cameraman asks her if he should film the trench and she replies: “A trench is a trench; they’re all the same.” If she had agreed, she would have discovered Cˆ era still lying there and would have gotten the truth of the situation as well as the much desired scoop with this move (Corbin 50; Tanovic 2001). The Balkan conflict: Woodward (1) is somewhat melancholic while reporting how an upcoming promising nation moved to devastating war. She states that on the eve of 1989 revolutions in eastern and central Europe, Yugoslavia was better poised than any other socialist country to make a successful transition to market led economy. It has well prepared for this event by allowing movement of people and trade in the country, permitting marketization and decentralization to fulfill IMF conditions. But two years later the country vanished as devastating local wars were fought for creation of new states. The war began in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 and destruction moved with lightening speed. Six months later the war in Croatia created biggest refugee crisis after World War II. With 200,000 refugees, 20,000 dead and 350,000 displaced people were even less tragic than turmoil in the Bosnia. In the first two years the death toll in Bosnia was 70,000 , 2 million people out of total population of 4.3 million were either refugee or displaced from their homes. Woodward (271) goes deeper into the causes of war and is not ready to dismiss it off as result of typical Balkan hatred and aggressiveness. She analyses the causes of war as fight for territory for sovereign rights did began with an element of ethnicity. There can be no distinction between a soldier and civilian in such a war , the reason is simply to claim territory for particular people. The ethnicity was reason for these wars but soon overtaken by more important issues. It is also argued that the war is because of clash of civilization and barbarianism, the western and Balkan, Roman Catholic and eastern orthodox, Christian and Muslims. Contrary to this the war is social and economic being played under the cover of ethnic conflict. She (272) cautions that calling Yugoslav war as ethnic conflict is misleading from other points of view as well. Since the military strategy of the war is not driven by ethnic hatred, class conflict and historical aspiration to have own territory. But by geopolitical and institutional sovereignty. It is a war for getting strategic and economic assets with clearly defined and desired borders for secure future. Woodward’s viewpoint that ethnicity is only a guise in Bosnian war is well supported Tanovic in the movie. The two bitter enemies are almost developing a dialogue in the trench and want to continue each other’s company otherwise one of them would have been dead long ago. They are killed when come surrounded by UN peacekeepers and media. This is the contradiction portrayed well by Tanovic. Since at heart they, probably, did not believe in war and enmity but, at the same time, their respective forces would have not forgiven them for living with enemy rather than killing him. Language usage: The many languages used in the movie have been a way to depict that a war means different thing to different people and what one tries to convey others rarely grasped. The uneasiness and futility of the war is enhanced when throughout the movie the UN personnel use interpreters to correspond with the combating states. They need a translator even with their own German mine diffuser. Corbin (49) reports how an obvious incident is exaggerated in the movie. Once Jane tries to speak to the trapped soldiers. She asks “how they feel” When Nino is able to make out her question, he throws cigarettes offered by her and waves her off. She is aware that publicity brings human reaction to sufferings of soldiers but at the same time she erred by making their situation melodramatic inflicting insult to torment. The U.N. officers set English as common language and when they fail in getting response they shift to many different languages creating greater confusion. Jane and Marchand also exchange conversation in English or French. It is the irony of the setting that only the enemies, ˆ Ciki and Nino speak same language and thus are closer to each other than to anyone else, like bickering siblings. But everyone who tries to converse with them is met with a blank face. Saylor (1) however felt that in the different languages used in the film shows the world’s interest in war whether genuine or to get a big scoop of story. So, the absence of American presence in the setting upsets her. She is convinced about multiple languages of the movie since it is a production of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Belgium, France, Italy, Slovenia, and the U.K. It is Bosnian war so the soldiers talk in Bosnian, the UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force) troops talk in French, and the British journalist trying to get a great story of the events in the trench presents her reporting in English. The very obvious presence of these many people with different dialects enhances the striking American absence from the scene. For her, the different languages do not create confusion rather is a positive indication of concern no matter what. She accuses Americans of being utterly self-centered and unmoved by the agony in the world. Director’s profile: Danis Tanovic, speaking about his much commended directorial debut , No Mans Land at a Los Angeles interview quipped . "Youre only making movies for two reasons: Because you have something to say or because you want to entertain people (Scott 1). Tanovic was born in 1969, in Bosnia to a school teacher mother and linguist father. Though he was interested in cinema from the very early time of his life yet went on to study engineering. In 1996, he entered into INSA Film School at Brussels. Before directing his history making debut film, No man’s Land, Tanovic directed about 300 hrs of war documentaries during siege of Sarajevo. His other notable documentaries included L’Aube and Ca ira (Unifrance, webpage). "No Mans Land" doesnt spare its rage on reluctant peacemaking forces of UN or the ‘looking for grand story’ type of media but ensures that no party unfairly takes a hit. Tanovic is a native of Sarajevo who ran the Bosnian armys film archive; he carefully avoids excessive criticism to or putting blame on a single party. (Turan par 8). In the 1990s, as a young student, he was the Bosnian armys official cameraman, responsible for documenting the Balkan war. Tanovic’s stint as the war cameramen and engineering background equipped him with excellent photography techniques while being a close witness to battle in his motherland made him angry at the things he had seen. Thus, emerged a filmmaker who wanted to effectively communicate his feelings to a wider audience. As he pointed out “My documentaries won prizes, but nobody watched them, because they were documentaries”. About the ‘No man’s Land’, he says. "I felt an urge to make movies that people would see, because I was angry about Bosnia. So I sat down and wrote. Ten days later, the script for No Mans Land was written." It was his debut feature film, shot in less than a month, and cut in just one week. A black comedy about the absurdities of war and also raising moral questions on it, it went on to win the best screenplay prize at Cannes, and then the best foreign language film Oscar, beating the much acclaimed Amélie.(Said pars 1-4). Tanovic travelled around the world to show ’No Man’s Land’ in film festivals from Cannes to Telluride. He was amazed at the similarity of responses from the world over that made him state "I was astonished to see Japanese laugh at the same place where French laugh at the same place where Americans laugh. Were all the same”( Scott 1). Conclusion: The movie no man’s land is a great war movie minus the war. There is no usual depiction of killing and devastation as in Hollywood flicks, where muscle- flexing movie hero guns down people mercilessly. In fact, there is no hero in the movie. Rather the viewpoints and relative positions are shown by the high and low shots of camera. In a war every body is in precarious position just like the position of Cera, if he gets up from the mine, it blasts killing him. If, on the other hand, he does not move, he is frozen there for life. Cera is shown breathing, his stomach moving but just after that the camera shows dark background. The mine never blasts in the movie. As a result, the absurdity of war and the moral questions go with the audience as he leaves the theatre. Work Cited Corbin, Amy. “No Man’s Land (Nikogarˆsnja zemlja)”. Film Quarterly. 60 (1): 46–50, 2006. 22 Apr 2009. http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdf/10.1525/fq.2006.60.1.46 Marritz, Ilya. “Caught in the middle: Davis Tanovic’s no man’s land”. KINOEYE l 1(2), 2, 2001. 22Apr 2009. http://www.kinoeye.org/01/02/marritz02.php Said, S.F. “From the hell of war to Dantes inferno”. 5 OCT 2006. 22 Apr 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3651581/From-the-hell-of-war-to- Dantes-inferno.html Saylor, Jennifer. No Man’s Land. Art Savant. February 22, 2002. 22 Apr 2009. http://www.artsavant.com/reviews/2002js0222.html Scott B. “An Interview with Danis Tanovic”. 22 Apr 2009. http://movies.ign.com/articles/316/316640p1.html Tanovic, Danis. No Man’s Land. Bosnia –Herzegovina. 2001 (Movie). Turan, Kenneth. “Bosnian Directors No Mans Land Battles Futility With Humor”. Los Angeles Times, 2001, Dec 14. Unifrance. Danis Tanovic. 23 Apr 2009. http://en.unifrance.org/directories/person/306511/danis-tanovic Woodward, Susan L. Balkan tragedy: chaos and dissolution after the Cold War. Brookings Institution Press, 1995 Read More