On July 2, 2009, after years of covering combat in Afghanistan, embedded freelance photojournalist Danfung Dennis found himself in an intense firefight between US Marines and the Taliban deep behind enemy lines. Dennis videotaped the combat, and over the next four months pondered what to do with the extraordinary footage. Then on November 17, he attended the homecoming of the same Marine unit—and decided to produce a documentary on war, injury and returning home.

As protagonist of his story, Dennis chose Sgt. Nathan Harris, who in the heat of battle had handed a thirsty Dennis his water bottle—the first gesture in what would become a strong friendship. Harris had been severely wounded in early November and sent home. Dennis spent the nine months from November 2009 to July 2010 documenting Harris’ recovery and reintegration into life in North Carolina.

Dennis was a well regarded photojournalist, but had no training as a filmmaker. He had chosen to add video to his portfolio because he felt that still images of war were losing their impact. The PBS documentary show Frontline had used some of his footage in a 2009 film. But Dennis wanted to make his own documentary, under his editorial control. He wanted to avoid glorifying combat, but instead provide an immersive experience that conveyed the emotional reality of war.

Dennis teamed up with documentary film editor Fiona Otway. Their goal was ambitious: use video to portray a highly subjective experience, but without narration, captions or other overtly expository techniques. They had two distinct sets of footage to work with: combat in Afghanistan and Harris in North Carolina. They decided on a flashback structure to integrate the two. They were willing to use cinematic techniques, but wanted to avoid anything that looked gimmicky or contrived.

After considerable experimentation, they were able to establish flashbacks by, for example, starting combat audio before transitioning from a North Carolina scene; or using slow motion at the end of a North Carolina scene before transitioning to a combat scene. They also wrestled with showing the mangled body of a dead Afghan National Army soldier. Dennis wanted to expose the brutal reality of war, but the filmmakers did not intend to overwhelm viewers.

As the documentary came together, Dennis and Otway were largely satisfied. But when they screened it in September 2010, to their dismay Harris came across as unsympathetic. They realized that they had not conveyed sufficiently that Harris was in severe pain and heavily medicated during his recovery, which accounted for his sometimes erratic behavior. But without a voiceover or commentator, how could they make Harris’ state clear to viewers?

They looked at footage of a pain specialist discussing with Harris the likelihood he would become addicted, but the scene was flat and overly expository. One cinematic technique that might fix it was to periodically fade the audio while the doctor was speaking, making it seem that Harris was dazed and uncomprehending. But they felt uncomfortable with that option. They had no idea whether Harris had been dazed in that moment. A documentary’s credibility rested in large part on its creators’ implicit guarantee that viewers were watching a true story. Using Hollywood production tricks to imply a character’s experience could undercut that credibility.

Otway and Dennis had to wrap the film by September 24. They debated at length how to convey Harris’ emotional, psychological and physical state. Should they use the fading technique? Might something else work as well, without requiring as much compromise? Or were they holding themselves to an unrealistic standard?