Why Warfare Ends With The Final Image Of The House Explained Director Alex Garland

Warfare director Alex Garland explains why the movie ends with an image of the house. The movie, which is based on a true story, takes place in Ramada, Iraq in 2006, with the house in question becoming a surveillance site for Navy SEAL team Alpha One. Reviews for Warfare have been positive, as the movie garners acclaim for its depiction of war’s harsh realities and Garland’s immersive direction.

While speaking with Collider, Garland explains that the movie ends with a shot of the house because the setting becomes its own character. He explains that the narrative importance of the house merits the location getting its own wide shot, and once the characters have departed from this setting, the story capturing this moment in time is over. Garland also clarifies that the movie does not technically conclude with the wide shot of the house, because the photographs that follow are still an integral part of the story being told. Check out the director’s comments below:

Well, in some ways, the reason it ended up ultimately as the ending of the film is that there’s a strange way in which the house becomes a character. Once you’ve left the house, once you’ve left the street, in a sense, that street shot is like a wide shot of that character in some strange way. Once you’ve left it, the film just feels over. The story, this window of time that we were trying to recreate as accurately and honestly as possible, that window’s closing. So, it’s like it’s done.

On top of that, film and truth and representations of reality, or then romanticizing or overdramatizing in films, it’s such a complicated, long history with these things. Having spent a long time in the recreation, it felt important to add to that a sequence of images that, in a way, don’t just show the actors alongside their real-life counterparts, but also show the recreation of this. We don’t try to pretend that something was happening that wasn’t happening. You didn’t watch the event. You saw a recreation of the event, but the recreation you saw was informed directly by people who were there. It felt necessary to add that to the viewer’s understanding of the film. So, in some sense, for me, the film doesn’t actually end with the wide shot of the street; it actually ends with the last of those photographs. They’re not a credit sequence; they are actually part of the film itself.

What This Means For Warfare

There Are Multiple Levels To The Shot Of The House

From Garland’s first movie, Ex Machina, to his latest, Warfare, he is always deeply intentional in his filmmaking process, and delivers powerful endings meant to linger with the audience. Warfare is no exception to this, and the final shot of the house ties into his approach to concluding his depiction of the Battle of Ramadi. The Iraq War does not end here and will last for several more years. However, the moment in time that Garland is trying to capture, and his recreation of it, has come to an end, and the shot of the house helps to signal that.

Why Warfare Is Dedicated To Elliot Miller: What Happened To The Real Navy SEAL

Warfare is dedicated to Elliott Miller, one of the soldiers who was there at the battle that inspired the film and was severely injured in the fight.

Garland’s response also conveys the deep respect he has for accurately conveying Warfare‘s true story. He makes a point to emphasize that the real-life photographs at the end are part of the main story and are not included as a mere credits sequence. In this sense, the house is more of a penultimate shot as opposed to being the movie’s final shot, with the house setting up the true ending, which are the photographs that go on to be shown.

His Movies Continue To Make A Strong Impact

Cosmo Jarvis is Elliot aiming his gun in Warfare — Image via A24

Garland’s comments add further insight to Warfare‘s tense ending. He is far from the first filmmaker to tackle the subject of war and its horrific realities, but his approach has found a way to successfully resonate with critics and general audiences. It has been clear since Ex Machina that Garland is an innovative filmmaker and his movies are meant to stick with viewers, both in terms of the overall story and in terms of smaller details, and Warfare is yet another example of this.

Source: Collider