Waltz With Bashir

Year: 2008
Country: Israel
Director: Ari Folman
Watched through: Netflix
Also known as: Vals Im Bashir, Valse Avec Bashir, Walzer Mit Bashir

The scenario: A semi-documentary in which an Israeli veteran of the 1982 Lebanon invasion tries to regain his memories of the conflict. He interviews several people, including fellow veterans, a reporter, and a psychologist, trying to reconstruct his forgotten experiences, especially the details of two heinous massacres.

First impressions: This film has a lot of “firsts” in my movie-watching. It’s the first feature length Israeli animation I’ve seen, it’s the first feature-length animation I’ve seen that purports to be a documentary, and it’s also the first animated feature to be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. That being said, I was expecting a great deal. This is one of the most truly “adult” animated films I’ve ever come across, and it also has powerful subject matter with a sympathetic message. Surprisingly, however, I was underwhelmed when I actually watched it. I found it impossible to “get into” this film, partially because I lacked any knowledge about the events depicted and partially because of its odd structure. As such, it left me feeling rather empty, when I felt it should have had a great impact.

Plot and story: Most film scholars draw a definite line between “narrative film” and “documentary film”. To resort to a gross over-simplification, narrative films are meant to entertain and documentary films are meant to inform. This film tries to do both things, and in my opinion it fails on both levels: it’s neither entertaining nor informative. The reason for both of these shortcomings is the same, however. The story of the main character’s war experiences is told in disjointed, out-of-order chunks that are narrated by his interviewees; the very structure of these memory sequences, which includes voiceover dialogue, breaks the basic narrative rule “show, don’t tell.” In addition to this, we are aware throughout that we are only hearing peoples’ subjective memories, and that these memories are diluted by their expression in words. Because of this, the real events discussed are so far removed from any kind of “history” that it is hard to view this film as a documentary. The realness of the events is further removed from the audience by the very fact that everything is animated; I can’t help but think that another medium would have suited this subject matter better. And, in the end, because everything is told out of order, the plot is hard to follow and the film can’t hang onto a narrative thread. 8/20

Characters: I feel stupid referring to the people in this film as “characters,” when they are, in fact, real people, but they are put in a (sort of) narrative film. The main character, whom we spend the most time with, is surprisingly un-dynamic onscreen and doesn’t have anything exactly memorable about him. His quest to restore his memory starts out interesting, but even as he learns more and more disturbing things about his past, he doesn’t seem to go through any change, leaving him the same featureless guy he was at the beginning. The side characters and interviewees don’t manage to get much characterization either; it’s really hard to get a clear picture of who anyone really “is” in this film, and thus it’s hard to relate to anybody. 8/20

Voices: Most of the voices used in this film are actual audio taken from interviews, so there isn’t much traditional acting. The straightforward voice deliveries are the only thing that lend this film credibility as a documentary, and all of them sound good. 12/20

Music: Even if the plot and characters are lacking, the music in this film is decent. There are two actual songs sung by characters, which add a great deal to the atmosphere to their respective scenes. There are also some gimmicky bits that resemble music videos, which I wasn’t sure what to think of, as they didn’t really contribute anything. The score includes a lot of fast-paced techno and electronic stuff, which stood out most in the opening dream sequence. Overall, not half bad. 16/20

Visuals: What to say, other than “I thought the animation was rotoscoped but it actually wasn’t”? Throughout the film, I marveled at what I thought was exceptionally good rotoscoping, but the director’s commentary emphasized that fact that it isn’t. In any case, the human figures and backgrounds were very life-like, to say the least. Monochrome palettes are used for the memory and dream sequences, while a bold, full-color palette is used for the present. The animation isn’t quite like anything I’ve seen before, and the colors and designs were both great. Overall, even though this film didn’t have much of an emotional impact on me (because of the above complaints), I’d say it has great niche appeal and it’s certainly unique. 15/20

Overall grade: 59/100 (C+)