[psycho d]

Lebanon (2009). Lebanon begins with an expansive image that leaves the viewer wondering what its message could possibly be. The remainder of the movie is then spent in the grimy housing of war. This is a movie that is unfairly criticized by some, all because the standards of filmmaking are not strictly honored. On the contrary, the wise filmmaker knows when to stick to the rules and more importantly, when to break them. In Lebanon, writer/director Samuel Maoz wisely chooses to leave the character's backstories without flesh, and it is with this deficiency that the matrix of the movie finds its puissance. No matter though, for there will always be the loudly unimaginative set that revel in inane blather.

The story is not very fresh, but again it is in the telling that lends its original feel. Hot, wet, dirty and suffocating, the setting is perfect for a genuine feel of war. Our players are far from heroes and all the more believable because of it. Even the bad guys are fairly portrayed.

The acting was solid on all accounts. Though there are no memorable performances, these guys conveyed their parts in the tightest of environments without a glitch.

As his first full production film, Maoz does a spectacular job orchestrating a war movie that has something new to add to the genre. The photography was limited but wonderfully captured, its polarity almost lending weight to the psychological stress of war. Our narrowed view of the plagues of war are fully developed, with scenes that alternate between repugnance and humiliation. The sound was a constant reminder of the dreadfully destructive forces of mechanized combat, along with the difficulties of performing in horrific circumstances. The sparse score was splendidly askew and apropos for the story.

The end of the movie is a thankful breathe of fresh air, but just enough to let us once again contemplate the irony of human intelligence in the face of our primal behavioral patterns.
d