Although it was the top-grossing film in the USA last week, Battle: Los Angeles hasn’t been received too kindly by critics. The film is well-made, technically, and in my opinion it redeemed itself to a certain extent with its last 20-odd action-packed minutes, but I have issues with it, formally and ideologically.
The script is an example of “fragmentary” filmmaking: nothing much is explained, there is no true closure, and yet it’s not a slice-of-life story either. Battle: Los Angeles resembles an “episode” from a panoramic movie showing different aspects of a widespread event (disaster, war, whatever), yet an episode which has grown so large that it somehow squeezed out all of the other episodes as well as the framing story. The events of the film aren’t narratively “located” in the larger context.
This might have worked—it has, in other films taking a micro-view of a major event—if the plot had been clearer and the characters had been developed, if their reaction to their plight had been revealing and insightful and touching and capable of being extrapolated, if this was a film “about” friendship, patriotism, bravery, love, duty, whatever. But we don’t get that from Battle: Los Angeles.
The script is partly to blame, but the frenetic film-form doesn’t help (more on that shortly). Quick, name the main roles? Um, Staff Sgt. Nantz, probably the only (nearly) fully-developed character—he actually has a back story, amazing. Not that his character really grows during the movie (basically, the other people have to adjust to him), but he’s a satisfactory protagonist. And then we have…Santos, the Michelle Rodriguez character, her usual tough-babe shtick, nothing new but she’s alright. Then, uh…Lt. Martinez, yeah, the inexperienced squad leader who screws things up but—in a tried-and-true war movie trope, “redemption by valour”—sacrifices himself, dying bravely. After that, there’s the Nigerian guy, the nerd-glasses black guy, the Sean Penn lookalike, the moustache guy with the ethnic name, the guy-who-hates-Nantz (because his brother was in Nantz’s platoon and got killed in Afghanistan), and…some other guys in uniform. Probably an Asian guy and maybe another Latino and one or two more black Marines? Plus the civilians: Latino guy, attractive woman, Latino guy’s son, and a couple of other crying kids. Wow, I’m surprised I remembered that many, considering that during the first half of the film you only see them in 2-second shaky-cam increments.
Which segues into a consideration of shaky-cam/rapid-editing, a stylistic device that’s become annoyingly prevalent in recent years. It’s ironic that time and effort was spent inventing the Steadicam to remove shakiness from hand-held shots, and now the pendulum has swung back in the other direction: shaky is good. I understand the aesthetic involved, “it’s more realistic!” Since Battle: Los Angeles does not imply the footage we see is being shot by a combat photographer, perhaps the director was trying to simulate the panic, confusion, and other adrenaline-fueled emotions of combat, but honestly, a little of this goes a long way. Compare the frenetic first half of the film with the second half, when the camera calms down, even during the final battle sequence, which is far more coherent than earlier scenes of combat. No contest, the latter sections are immensely easier to watch and comprehend, and we don’t lose a sense of urgency.
Another “formal” aspect of Battle: Los Angeles which annoyed me slightly was the utilisation of CGI for the alien-enemy soldiers. I understand the necessity for this, and it might be slightly hypocritical of me since I lauded the CGI aliens of District 9, but there is a palpable difference between “killing” a computer image and “killing” someone (or something) “real,” something that has mass, and bulk, and moves accordingly. I can’t put my finger on any specific flaws in the CGI, but the knowledge that the Marines were essentially pointing their weapons at a computer image (and possibly, for all we know, going “pew pew pew”) was slightly off-putting. Another reviewer (possibly more than one) likened Battle: Los Angeles to a “first-person shooter” game and the film “feels” a little like that (though I’ll confess my experience with such things stopped around “Wolfenstein 3D” and a brief flirtation with a zombie-shooting game online).
The depiction (not to say characterisation) of the enemy soldiers brings up the ideological component of Battle: Los Angeles. Is this, as some suggest, a patriotic, pro-military film? Or, conversely, a veiled criticism of American imperialism (the aliens invade Earth to obtain our water = American adventurism in the Middle East to control oil)? Or does the film attempt to be ideologically-neutral, having no goal except to thrill audiences with shooting, running, shouting, and things blowing up real good?
Having spent a considerable amount of time studying World War Two media, the absence of ideology in Battle: Los Angeles is especially noticeable to me. The invaders are quite literally faceless, zero-personality robots with mushy insides (sidebar: the scene in which Nantz vivisects an alien to find its weak spot is morally repugnant, and would be even moreso if it had been filmed more effectively; yet this is presented matter-of-factly and with no ethical awareness of the alien “soldier” as a living being). They aren’t just attacking the United States, they’re enemies of Earth, so the whole world can unite to repel the invaders without worrying about national, ethnic, or religious matters, right? (Except the movie is so micro-focused that we don’t get any sense of this)
There is no patriotism in Battle: Los Angeles (not even “Earth-patriotism”). Nobody says, “my homeland has been attacked, I want to defend America, this is where my family lives, I am fighting for democratic ideals,” and so forth. Was this a conscious decision made to avoid offending international viewers? The result, of course, is that the protagonists don’t seem to stand for anything. I’m not calling for flag-waving (after all, this is a movie about a fictitious invasion, so it’s hardly the same as Air Force or Bataan, made during the midst of an actual conflict), but it would be nice if the protagonists appeared to be something more than a bunch of people trying to save their own asses.
Indeed, I would not call this a “pro-military” film. First, the Marines (and the rest of the armed forces) are not portrayed favourably, especially in the first half: Nantz is ostracised by his squad; the Marines seem confused, poorly-trained, panicky (perhaps this is a realistic depiction of inexperienced men going into combat for the first time, but it hardly inspires confidence); command decisions are incorrect, etc. In one scene, a Marine wonders if the invaders are “grunts like us, [just] taking orders?” Hello, is that how members of the armed forces see themselves? As mercenaries carrying out orders in exchange for a paycheck (or, as someone points out in the case of the Nigerian corpsman, in exchange for U.S. citizenship)? “It’s just a job?” Even stepping it up one level, if the Marines are fighting for their honour as Marines, this still isn’t exactly a laudable “higher purpose.” Your country is being invaded! Or, if nationalism is perceived as bad, substitute “Earth is being invaded!”
I have no doubt that members of the actual armed forces run the gamut from those who do see it as “just a job,” all the way to those who joined to serve and protect their country out of a sense of idealism, patriotism, and duty. However, in Battle: Los Angeles, this image is skewed strongly towards the former category.
Again, this may all be intentional, and this isn’t supposed to be a film about larger ideals, or about anything for that matter, it’s just some people we don’t care about (admit it, you didn’t feel anything when various characters got killed) fighting a bunch of robots in a generic big city (which, oddly enough, looks like it’s been the site of pitched battles for weeks or months, rather than a day or so).
Much of the criticism heaped upon Battle: Los Angeles focuses on the script which, as I noted earlier, is relatively minimalist but still manages to include some silly, illogical, awkward, and pointless bits. I won’t recap those pointed out by others, but it occurred to me as I was watching the film (hint—it’s never a good sign if you question the movie’s premise in real-time rather than in retrospect):
(a) why attack Los Angeles? Other places around the world are being attacked, and presumably the aliens have some overall strategic plan, but other than being a major city on the west coast of the USA, Los Angeles is…what? Capturing or destroying L.A. might disrupt our supply of new motion pictures and television shows, but it’s not even the capital of the state of California, for goodness sake.
(b) why attack at all? One of the palpably stupid commentators in the film claims the aliens are here to steal Earth’s “unique” water. I don’t know, wouldn’t it have been worth a try to do this stealthily? Crash your “meteors” (camouflaged spaceships) in some remote area of the south Atlantic or the Pacific or Antarctica and suck up the water. If and when you’re finally busted, then you can destroy civilisation and wipe out the local population, which is “what all colonisers do” (another colossally dopey remark).
Finally (and this review has gone on far too long for a film which doesn’t have a lot to say), let me give Battle: Los Angeles the praise it deserves. The final section is actually exciting and well-done. When Nantz rappels down alone from the helicopter on a suicide mission to find the enemy command-and-control center and he’s joined by his whole squad (plus Michelle Rodriguez’s tagalong Air Force officer), it’s predictable but at least it has some honest feeling. The “Custer’s Last Stand” sequence—the Marines hold off enemy hordes while waiting for an artillery strike—gets one’s pulse pounding (yes, it could have been better, but at least we can see who’s where and there is a concrete objective to the sequence, rather than shaky-cam vertigo and pointless running-and-shooting). The final bit—the Marines going back into battle—is also sort of stirring. If the film had achieved this level of coherence and emotion earlier, Battle: Los Angeles might have been pretty good.
Instead of mediocre, which is what it is, let’s face it (Terry Malloy impression implied).
