Review of Jarman's War Requiem

Where do dead German soldiers go after they die? To heaven? This was one of the questions that Jarman's film about war inspired in me after watching the film. There are so many amazing visual scenes in this film. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the film is when Sean Bean enters into the camera's view with a red rose wreath to lay at the human monument to English war dead. Prior to that scene I was thinking about where dead soldiers go after they die?

The film is decidedly artistic. In fact I'm not exactly sure what to classify it as; is it a narrative? Is it a documentary? Is it experimental. I would say yes to all those because there are elements of each in the film. The most narrative part of the film is where Sean Bean fights with the British soldiers and is killed. The other narrative scenes are of Tilda Swinton being a nurse. But these are beside the point, the film has no linear progression, no classical narrative structure, perhaps Jarman had a progression mapped out in the screenplay, however there is no dialogue so the notion that the screenplay can provide some guidance is probably ill formed.

I was astounded by the visuals. Totally unlike the contemporary films with quick cuts Jarman uses long takes, slowly moving close-up shots, and archival footage to tell the story. The pensive shots of Swinton were perhaps the shots I liked best. As well as the shots of Bean looking off into, I presume, the light. These scenes are cinematic flourishes where a facial expression says more about the character than a line of dialogue ever could.

The meaning of the film is told through visual exposition. Mostly archival footage and the aforementioned shots of characters. The archival footage is mostly gruesome footage from wars past. The sequence in which rows of skulls are displayed are telling that the film is a condemnation of war. Add to the row of skulls footage of the atomic bombings of Japan and it becomes a subtly, but powerful message about the horror of war.

The nytimes.com reviewer, Vincent Canby, didn't like the film. Although, I don't think the film is a popular or commercial success I do think it pushes the cinematic art form in new directions. I think Canby makes short shrift of the film. He doesn't give Jarman enough credit. He calls the images "redundant" but doesn't offer any analysis of what the images meant. He certainly doesn't entertain the idea that the film has a deeper meaning and aspires to a higher form of cinematic art than the standard narrative film.

I have seen two Jarman films; The Last of England and War Requiem and I liked both. They are both highly expressionistic or formalist. Both films are based in reality, but the way in which the story is told was, at the time, innovative.