No Man’s Land is a film about the war between Bosnia and Herzegovina taking place in 1993. The two main characters are soldiers, Nino, a Serb, and Ciki, a Bosnian. They both are on opposite sides of the war, which causes the initial conflict between the two. After spending some time against each other, with the advantage switching continuously, they begin to talk and enjoy each other’s company. Another character with them is Cera, a Bosnian soldier who is on top of a land mine, and cannot move otherwise the mine will explode.
It is interesting to see the change between both Nino and Ciki. Conflict occurs between them throughout the film. Whoever has the gun seems to have most of the power, but the control of the gun switches in the film. The film shows the conflict between the two sides and it also shows that even if two people are against each other, it does not necessarily mean that they cannot find anything in common and enjoy each other’s company. Although the movie is primarily in French, parts of it are also in English, allowing a better understanding for a more global audience. One of the characters has a shirt from The Rolling Stones, showing that even their country is somewhat globalized.
Although the film is primarily a war film, it has a comedic part to it which adds greatly to the film. It allows for comic relief and makes the film more believable and enjoyable. Also, the comedy is able to be transferred through the subtitles, making the film appealing to global audiences. Overall, the film does a great job of portraying an important struggle between two places. While the film may not be as serious or horrific as most war films, it still highlights the struggle between both sides. It also provides an interesting plot and a bit of comic relief to appeal to many audiences, both national and global.
I appreciate the comment about the Rolling Stones shirt. It shows a lot of globalization techniques used in the movies by techniques such as mise-en-scene. The director did a good job with the change in camera angles from low to high during the situations between the two soldiers. Depending on whom had the weapon, the camera angles fixed low shots for the weakened one without weaponry and a higher shot for the other soldier, resembling the power of a gun held in his hand.
ReplyDeleteThis post is well organized, and clearly depicts much of the ideals and symbolism of the movie. I feel like the globalization portion could have been more developed and the synopsis seem a bit wordy. While this is an effective post the wordiness of the whole thing somewhat loses the reader. I feel like portions just repeated the same idea in different words; that being said all in all good job.
ReplyDeleteThe general concept of the struggle of war, when mixed with the comedic aspect, provides for a mixture of inhumanity and humanity that is quite a mind boggler. I appreciate the stressing of the comic relief because that is a very important part of the film, however, the serious aspect is the true purpose of the movie. The comedy is simply to show that they are still human, not just instruments of death.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree that the soldiers enjoyed each others company. To me it seemed more as if they learned that they could tolerate each other until others got involved, such as the media and the UN. I think this is representative of the people in which they fight for. Only a few times when they are alone do you see that they are on the same eye level withe each other as well as the camera. I think this further shows that they are tolerating rather than enjoying. good review and analysis otherwise.
ReplyDeleteComment by Eric Martin:
ReplyDeleteEven though the comedy in No Man's Land can attract a wider audience, what I thought was more impressive was how comedic and war elements were mixed together to comment on the absurdity and tragedy of war. For example, the scene when the UN first arrives at the scene and then is ordered to return can be perceived as the audience as being humorous and ludicrous. What is disturbing, however, is that due to this encounter, Nino is shot which erases all the progress Nino and Ciki made towards peace.
I liked the Rolling Stones shirt, too. We're all human, eh? I feel like it was globalization that both put the two soldiers in the trench, and left the third to die. Globalization tied up the UN's hands, and prompted the two soldiers to attack one another whenever the chance occurred, even though neither knew which side had even started the war. It was the human element that allowed the two to bond, no matter how fragile the bond may have been.
ReplyDelete