Harking back to the type of nationalistic war films that dominated screens during the Reagan era, Kriv Stenders’ film “Danger Close” is a stirring tribute to the soldiers from Australia and New Zealand that gave their lives in the largely forgotten Battle of Long Tan. Yet, despite these noble intentions, the film is unfortunately flat and by-the-numbers, as it tracks an impossible battle between a severely outnumbered company (108 soldiers) against an overwhelming enemy (2500 Viet Cong). Starring Travis Fimmel, and a mostly Australian cast, “Danger Close” is an adequate war film that fails to dig into the sociological and emotional repercussions of the battle, favoring bland, stereotypical renderings of the soldiers, instead of fully-developed characters.
“Danger Close” begins at base camp Nui Dat, in 1966, where Major Smith (Fimmel) has seen little action and has become complacent while training new recruits. While hoping to be transferred, his superior (Richard Roxburgh) instead sends Smith out on patrol. When the entire company separates out, Sgt. Buick (Luke Bracey) finds himself ambushed by the Viet Cong. What ensues is an elongated battle, cutting back and forth between the frontline, and the higher-ups in command, as they attempt to find a way to rescue their men, while minimizing casualties.
The closest approximate being perhaps “We Were Soldiers,” Stenders’ film focuses on the tactical issues and immediate emotional repercussions of the battle. Once the Viet Cong attack, the film becomes entirely consumed by the company’s maneuvering, jettisoning all intra-personal conflict in the name of showing dead, faceless Vietnamese. The stock characterizations are all present: the aloof general willing to give up a company to win the war, the selfless commander ready to sacrifice himself, and the private who somehow finds himself alive after a bloody battle, forced to find his way back behind enemy lines.
Visually, Stenders and cinematographer Ben Nott (“Predestination”) favor a washed-out aesthetic, highlighting the green and yellows prevalent in other war films. Often, the camera will push out completely, looming over the jungle canopy Google Earth-style, before zooming back into another battle. If anything, “Danger Close” rejects the subjective, often shaky camera, popular in modern war films, in favor of spatial and geographic awareness at all times. At one point, the film overlays maps, riffing on “Indiana Jones,” to make sure the viewer is aware where everyone is located. While narratively helpful, this tendency is also off-putting, as it takes viewers out of the emotional stakes to address maneuvers.
As written by “Collateral” and “Australia” scribe Stuart Beattie, perhaps the film’s biggest draw, “Danger Close” is largely uncritical, treating the Vietnamese as the savage other. Equating their stand to the 300 Spartans, Beattie too often relies on stereotypes. Does everyone film dealing with Vietnam have to be critical of the war? No, but as is demanded of any film, there should be nuance. “Danger Close” ultimately ends up being a film out-of-time.
While it’s hard to fault “Danger Close” for attempting the type of wartime myth-making that American war films have long abandoned, this film ultimately feels more like the Australian version of “The Green Berets” than “Platoon.” In telling a largely forgotten, impressive stand by soldiers unknown to have even fought in Vietnam, “Danger Close” unfortunately ends up being forgettable. The Battle of Long Tan is fascinating, not only for its tactical outcome but for the historical blindspot, which has effectively marginalized contributions to the war made by Australia and New Zealand. After the film ends, what lingers is the photography and archival footage that accompanies the end credits; with a little bit of context, that’s a film that needs to be told. [C-]
