Camp Victory, Afghanistan

Over the weekend I went to see a screening of Camp Victory, Afghanistan. In short, if you get a chance – go see it.

What makes the film different from many others about Afghanistan post-2001 was illustrated by a comment from the director in a post-screening Q+A session. Carol Dysinger explained that, unlike many others making films of the conflicts in Afghanistan, she had first approach the Afghan government for permission to film rather than the US (or other) military forces.

It is the Afghan army that is at the centre of the film. The footage comes from five visits, each of two months, that the director made to the country. The length of these visits means she earned enough trust from many of those filmed to reveal more than superficial first impressions. Yet at the same time the film is deftly edited together with an economy of style that packs in numerous illuminating pointers to wider issues. It only takes 30 seconds of an American special forces officer pointing out in a meeting that he has a completely separate line of command from all the others in the room to throw a stark light on the tangled command structures: US special forces, US non-special forces, Italian, NATO and Afghani.

Camp Victory screenshotThe film’s focus on Camp Victory and its key personalities means that direct fighting features only rarely in the film. That is not to sanitise the military conflict, but it means the film covers the wider and longer-term issues than the usual reports which are drawn like a magnet to cover the ‘kinetic stuff’, giving drama at the expense of understanding (a point I talked about back in September).

Through the personalities we see the successes and failures of attempts to build up the Afghan army and the tangled web of political, social and economic problems which influence those efforts. As the director recounted in the Q+A, one Afghani said to her when she was asking about how bribery and corruption could be tackled, “You call it corruption. We call it an economy”.

The film is low-key in its presentation, with little in the way of editing or music to force a message on a viewer. However, the regular cycle of US advisers leaving Camp Victory and burning their papers before departure leaves a symbolic message about the difference between those who can tidy up and move on and those who are left behind.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon McGrath
    This seems a surprising decsion. The problem in the London housing markets is not ' deevlopers arent building affordable homes' is that noone is building homes ...
  • Jana
    “ and argued that local people deserve to be able to afford to live in the communities they grew up in.” So, is the plan that local people who ‘grew up...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Paul R , The EU Treaties may not explicitly use the term "political union," but they legally codify the core objectives of "ever closer union among the pe...
  • Peter Martin
    '...
  • Peter Martin
    Andy Burnham does seem to have a knack of choosing constituencies which don't have a railway station -at least not for their major town. Neither Ashton-in-Maker...