Consider how Berg introduces our tragic heroes. His opening testimonial is followed by a low-key scene in which an outfit of SEALs laze around their makeshift living quarters, firing off fond emails to loved ones and fretting over forthcoming social engagements. They play games and sing songs and like American beer. They are, in other words, ordinary guys, totally down-to-earth despite being the best at what they do.
Now, compare this exaggeratedly casual introduction with the way the film brings in its Taliban villains. Their unruly gang storms into a quiet village while firing off machine guns and, while screaming unintelligibly, drags a man into the streets and lops his head off with a machete. (Sinister-sounding music accompanies, just in case the sentiment wasn’t clear.) This is cartoon villainy—the realm of the black hat and the twirling moustache. Such gestures serve a straightforward dramatic purpose: They align the audience with the heroes while encouraging them to dislike the bad guys, so that when the battle finally ignites, the viewer’s sympathies have already been sorted out.
During the film’s longest and most spectacular sequence, in which four SEALs face off against a veritable army of Taliban soldiers in the middle of the Afghan mountains, we need to feel an emotional connection to the heroes in a way that we don’t with their enemies. We need to believe, even subconsciously, that while the Americans are three-dimensional characters to whom we can relate, the seemingly endless droves of attackers who besiege them are not—they’re merely The Enemy, a faceless mass, a manifestation of evil. We want to see them shot at, eviscerated, blown to pieces.
This strategy, of course, is nothing new. And because an informed viewer is perfectly capable of distinguishing fiction from reality, it’s doubtful that even the most outrageously jingoistic war films are actually dangerous in any meaningful sense. In other words, nobody will be rushing off to war on account of Peter Berg.
But it is worth considering that movies like Lone Survivor do begin to resemble multi-million dollar recruitment videos—tools of military indoctrination geared toward the young and the impressionable. Films like this contribute to subtle shifts in public perception, helping to legitimize feelings of xenophobia and American exceptionalism. It’s no accident that Lone Survivor ignores the question of whether the SEAL team’s mission was justified or worthwhile, just as it ignores, even more broadly, the merit of the war in Afghanistan to begin with. Not asking is its own kind of answer. It tells us to focus elsewhere: on the heroism of these men, on the bravery of their actions. The moral issues are for another day.
In an interview with Newsweek following the release of Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg declared that “every war movie, good or bad, is an antiwar movie.” What Spielberg means, I believe, is that insofar as every war movie depicts the brutality and horror of wartime, every war movie takes an implicit stand against it—that is, to make war look real is to make war look bad, and to make a movie that makes war look bad is to make a movie that’s anti-war. This seems reasonable enough: Surely nobody leaves Saving Private Ryan under the impression that Normandy was a lot of fun for everybody involved, just as surely nobody leaves Lone Survivor under the impression that the average Navy SEALs operation is a cinch. Therefore, the thinking goes, Saving Private Ryan and Lone Survivor must be anti-war movies.