Fury (2014)

Allegedly this was a common haircut in the period, though strangely I've never seen it in any other war film, and it just so happens to coincide with the same stupid trendy haircut seen in most urban areas of today.

 Director: David Ayers
Writer: David Ayers
Cinematography: Roman Vasyanov

by Susan Bartley 

“Best job I’ve ever had,” so the soldiers all say about 2/3’s into the movie, only to repeat the exact same exchange ten minutes later. It’s a commonly uttered phrase, which would have worked better if I actually knew what any of these men did it for a living prior to the war, allowing me to see how strange it is that they'd think a tank crew was better than their civilian job. But I didn't get any of that info.  

Fury essentially is a countless collection of scenes from war and action movies, which tosses them into a blender, and wants to get a pat on the head for profundity and originality. Name a great war film from the last twenty-five years and there is something of that film in this.

The biggest issue is I’m not sure how this film's to be received? Is it supposed to be taken seriously in the style of Hamburger Hill, Saving Private Ryan, or When Trumpets Fade? Or is it simply a fun action piece, harking back to The Great Escape, Enemy at the Gates, or the The Dirty Dozen? I truly don’t know. The movie is so completely ridiculous, from the battles to the men’s actions and dialogues, that it has to fall on the latter category, though I’m fairly positive this wasn’t the intention. 

The film's cringe level is fairly high, but oh how incredible are the one liners, with my personal favorite being - ‘Ideals are peaceful, history is violent.’ In the film's moments of earnest I found myself holding back a laugh, and in scenes of humor I couldn't break a smile.  I kept thinking about my grandfather and the men he fought alongside in World War II and what they could have possibly thought of this film? I have a strong suspicion that they didn’t know too many young recruits who, for reason unknown, were tossed into a veteran crew, though only a typist moments before that. That is, a kid (Logan Lerman) who in the course of a day whines and cries about wanting to leave and how he can’t kill anyone only to, just hours later, be forced into shooting a Nazi prisoner, firing down a couple SS officers, and then having the miraculous courage to stick around during the film’s absolutely absurd concluding scene.

With whether or not to take this film seriously, here’s the problem the problem with the closing scene:

1. The geography of the concluding action scene makes zero sense. The tank breaks down on a road. We see that the road extends up a hill, and then another road intersects from the left, forming a ‘T’ turned ninety degrees counter clockwise. Norman heads over to scout it out, has a cracker, then hears a Nazi marching song and discovers 200-300 soldiers head in their direction. He runs back to the tank, far enough where we can’t hear the song anymore. We also see the lone road extending forward but don’t see the soldiers. Then we hear the soldiers, and the tank crew starts yelling about having to stay but the soldiers don’t hear the tank crew. So... how did no one hear the tank crew? How did the tank crew, given their geography, fail to see the approaching Nazis or vice versa? 
2. Next was the issue of Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) choosing to stay and fight, proclaiming that his job is to kill as many Nazi’s as possible. While understandable, it seems incredibly reckless to endanger the entire crew for some suicide mission. Considering the volume, why wouldn’t they instead go back for reinforcements? Their tank broke down, justifying the move no matter the order. This seemed completely unrealistic and illogical.
3. Leading to the entire issue of the land mine that blows the tank tread, in that, although they hit a land mine, Wardaddy still orders Norman to go running down the road to scout beyond; a road that would probably contain more land mines. Worse is that none of the attack Nazi soldiers or vehicles hit  any of them when approaching the tank - not one. Was there really one single land mine in this road?
   
   1. ​This goes even further into illogic because it means the Nazi’s had commanded their best SS unit to walk down a mine-filled road
4. Finally, and on a more ridiculous note that seems to push this movie into sheer action packed entertainment, is that during the final battle, no matter how many of the Nazis were getting slaughtered they just kept coming, down the same exact path, to get picked off in the same exact way, with no change in strategy or approach. 

Again, I don't mind have these bends and twists in logic if the film is meant to be received as such. I just don't think it was. I think this was to be a Serious Film, and so massive plot holes and unrealistic actions are all the more significant. I can handle these types of absurdities in a John Woo film. But I have a strong suspicion David Ayer wanted us to take these men and their actions seriously. We don’t know anything about them, but we were suppose to care and regard them as heroes. 

Of course, most modern WWII films are now compared to the big three: Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, and Band of Brothers. Films that set high precedents with developed characters, allowing us experience the action and fear, witness the horror, believe what was happening. Instead, all we get in Fury are cliches - the Southern idiot, the Bible quoter, the damaged commander, etc.
​
In another of Wardaddy’s heavy lines, he declares, ‘Wait 'til you see what another man can do to another’, which brings me to yet another piece of gross illogic and possible the most infuriating one. Wardaddy chooses to stay to kill as many Nazi’s as possible, even though he could have let them go, and the tank crew could’ve walked away. Thus, although Wardaddy expounds on the horrors of war, he contributes to these horrors in the most appalling way. David Ayers seems to take cue from the 1950s approach to WWII, in which all the Nazis are terrible, worthy of ruthless slaughter. We watch them get mowed down and it doesn’t matter, they’re all just objects to fall, bleed, and die, and we're rooting for the Good Guy Americans. And yet when Norman escapes and the horrible SS Officer finds him (with another in piece of illogic in that although he has a flashlight on Norman with about twenty soldiers walking behind him, easily able to see whatever this one ray of light in the night is shining upon, no one sees) the officer lets Norman go. What if that SS officer was killed by Wardaddy while storming down the hill? How many of these 'good' enemies were killed because Wardaddy decided to stay and fight, risking his men and killing hundreds, rather than getting help?  And how could he have such a humanistic view on war and then choose to do any of this?

Ayers complete lack of awareness of the story's own hypocrisy is beyond frustrating. It’s one thing to celebrate soldiery. Lone Survivor (2013) did a fantastic job. It’s another to exaggerate the cost through offering a shallow exploration of the horrors of war, approaching the material with childish superficiality.

​BELOW: 1 of 2 moments where they express how it's the best job they've ever had, knowing they're about to face 100s of enemy soldiers, when they could just go back for help