Random Review: No Man's Land (2001)

No Man's Land (2001), directed by Danis Tanovic, is a film set during the Serbian-Bosnian conflict. Two men, one from each side of the conflict, are stuck in a trench between the two front lines. A third man is lying injured on a jumper mine which will explode if he is moved.

At first the film feels as if it could go in the direction of having the two rivals begin talking and realizing that they are not as different as they had thought. You're left hoping that they could remain friends once the conflict is over. But No Man's Land is smarter than that. Old habits die hard and these soldiers do not change their ways within the day that the entirety of the films chronology takes place. Instead the two continue their escalating conflict with each other, injuring each other in the trench. When they are finally saved, one exacts his revenge by killing the other before meeting death himself at his U.N. saviors.

A third point of view beyond the two warring soldiers is from a U.N. sergeant who at first defys orders to help save the men from the war torn no man's land. We connect with him as he watches the two men that he worked hard saving die. The third solider in the trench is also a victim of fate. His mine cannot be disengaged so the U.N. pulls out, leaving him to explode.
The film ends with an aerial shot of the third man laying on the mind as the image fades to black. We have no knowledge of his actual fate and can tell our minds the mine may be a dud and he eventually walks away. But that would not fit with the tone of the film. One U.N. director also stated that he will be sending false information to both sides that the other side will be attempting to take the center trench. Will one of them move the mine? Which side? The Serbians, whose mine it was originally? The Bosnians, with their injured man upon it? We have no answers, much like the question of war itself.

The film takes a stance on action towards conflict. The U.N. sergeant says "Neutrality does not exist in the face of murder. Doing nothing to stop it is, in fact, choosing. It is not being neutral." It does not condone mere talks, nor does it condone being a warhawk. In the middle the answer lies. As the soldiers find themself in the middle of the two lines, our way must follow.

Part of the film feels like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930). That film also dealt with a pair of opposites stuck in a hole in the middle of the original no man's land. This time instead of one soldier immediately killing the other and having to deal with just a dead body, the tension from both sides comes to a clash. Either man can kill the other easily. The tide turns multiple times with one having a weapon, then the other, then both. The first soldier who may be identified as the films protagonist at first eventually becomes more bloodthirsty than the other. There is no good or bad unless they are both good and bad.

No Man's Land was awarded an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film (Bosnia) in 2002. It beat out, among others, Le Fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain (2001, France) or Amelie for short. Amelie currently rides high with audiences, holding a position in IMDB's Top 250. No Man's Land only edges into the bottom of the list at times. Both films I have found worth my time and I could see myself watching Amelie more than No Man's Land. No Man's Land is a bitter fruit to swallow but indeed more filling. In this case I believe the Academy has made the correct choice.