Kippur

When the siren sounds the two main characters head off to do their part for the Israeli state. The bookends on the movie place the context of war as an eventuality that, like working, has to be done. The action doesn't take place at the front but with a medical evac unit who's cleaning up the wounded after the action has moved on. My two reasons for liking this film are the creative camera work and the battlefield sounds and visuals. Early in the film when they're looking for their unit they do accidentally drive right into the front lines and the viewer (camera) is placed right in the back seat of their Fiat as they scramble to get turned around. My one complaint. The characters lack development. Overall an enjoyable film.

The Yom Kippur war almost caught Israel unawares. Twenty days later they were across the Suez 100km from Cairo and near as many from Damascus, another disaster for the Arabs. In a strange turn of events however, the surprise attack and doom-laden buildup to it, with thousands of graves dug in anticipation, had a devastating effect on the country, in effect signaling a perpetual state of fear and alert.

I am in the middle of exploring through films these bumps in the national mind, which brought me here. For what it's worth, the filmmaker has decided to capture an experience of war as purely about what it means to be there as he can. He knows, he was there.

Sadly, it's flat beyond belief. For better or worse I found it to be nothing like Thin Red Line, as others have mentioned in their comments. Whereas Malick spins war to be one of conflicting urges in the soul, this is what we see, two hours of med- evacs carrying the wounded.

There's one contemplative image in the film, a helo shot of a muddy battlefield with maneuvering tanks drawing meaningless patterns on the mud, contrasted with the early shot of the lush mingling of painted sex evocative of life, color, imagination, spontaneity. It's a great shot, and perfectly describes both what the film wants to portray, a sort of aimless cosmos, and what it ends up with—aimless doodling on the ground.

So the filmmaker reminisces in film about a time and place that allowed no skyward gaze. The important message is that war is as wasteful and pointless to happen in real life as it is to watch in this film.

This movie stunk. Scenes that go on and on without any life to it. The first ten minutes shows a couple making love, covered in paint on an art canvas. There is a man walking on an empty street and it goes on and on. Two lost soldiers are driving around for fifteen minutes trying to find their unit. Boring and dull. As for the biggest invasion in Israeli history, no one seems organized or even worried for that matter. The soldiers are not wearing combat helmets in a war zone and come across as dumb and dumber. As for the conversations, they are dull and listless, void of any emotion. Honestly, I found this whole movie unrealistic and totally boring. There isn't any type of character development and the viewer has no connection to any of the characters in the movie. I was hoping for a great film, but all I got was a snore bore. I give it a three only because of some effort from the main two characters. Don't waste your time on this junk.

As an Israeli's view of war, "Kippur" takes "Thin Red Line"s visual approach, with little plot or explication or context, from the sacred (Yom Kippur mis en scene) to the procreative beginning, to the wounds and exhausted faces of the soldiers.

This is a war where a soldier takes his used Fiat right up to the front and back again to his girlfriend's front door. Unlike "Tigerland" where the soldiers are young neophytes with taut basic training bodies, these are lean, lanky, long-haired chain-smoking, experienced reservists who pretty much pick and choose where they'll serve. Instead of the usual U.S. barking sergeant, this unit is based on long-term friendship, training, coordination, shared goals and consensus. Fodder for discussion on military management styles. And I can't think of another war movie where a guy named Weinraub is as sexy looking.

Even my husband, who is a devotee of the War Channel and thought it was way too arty (and amazingly this was from the same director who did the agit-prop anti-Orthodox domestic drama "Kadosh") found one long sequence with almost no dialog very effective, as the medics try to rescue the wounded in the mud.

The projectionist shut down the credits before it was finished.

(originally written 12/2/2000)

Those here who have bashed the film have grossly misunderstood Kippur. Either they look for a blow-blam-bang Holy-wood flick, which it isn't; or for a highly reliable reconstruction (which Save Private Ryan, extolled by some, is only in part: the first scene is almost like-it-really-was, the last scene is blow-blam-bang with Matt Damon and Tom Hanks instead of Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal). Kippur is a highly personal film, in that war is filtered through the very personal point of view of a sophisticated director. Amos Gitai is close to Antonioni; and in directing a war movie he couldn't forget the Lesson of the Master. Hence the minimal dialogue, hence the dilated times, hence the attention to the setting more than the characters. You try to watch Deserto rosso and then Kippur and you'll notice just how much they have in common. Then, if you don't like Antonioni, it's your own business, go for the blow-blam-bang stuff. However, as for action movies, I think Black Hawk Down is better than SPR. I may be wrong...