Is it possible to make a war movie without politics? I think so, but apparently it's either (a) very hard, or (b) very undesirable. I imagine they're both true: (a) is probably true because war is a product of politics, and therefore the two are nearly inextricably intertwined; and (b)? Well, as far as I can tell - and I have extensive experience based on watching the Oscars telecast approximately once every three years - Hollywood types love to hear themselves talk about politics, so why make a movie without politics when you have the option to make a movie with it?I don't like talking/reading/thinking politics much - okay, at all - but, c'mon, Green Zone had Matt Damon in it! What was I supposed to do? The limit of my political commentary is this: regardless of the truth of the specific facts, the movie - which is ostensibly fiction - does a great job showing lies and deceit and confusion and misinformation that may have led to the war in Iraq. I say "ostensibly fiction," because the parallels with what played out in our newspapers were clearly not accidental. What Green Zone does not show, though, are the complicated international relationships and many, many moving pieces of the puzzle which also played a role. Rather, the movie is just the story of one good guy against the world, trying to expose the deceit he stumbles onto by asking the right question of the wrong person - or maybe the wrong question of the right person. And that's fair enough; the perspective is the prerogative of the movie makers.
And for what they do, they do a decent job. The story is engaging, and you want Chief Miller (Matt Damon) to discover the truth, so that you can too. You understand the pressure he's under as a soldier on the ground and as part of the military machine. Miller meets an Iraqi man they call Freddie, who acts as his informant/translator, and together they provide the voices of reason in the movie. Other players are Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear), the American architect of the Iraqi invasion and subsequent political puppeteer; Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson), the CIA's Baghdad bureau chief; and Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan), the journalist who has the power to report or misreport everything she learns. They all do a decent job.
Back to my complaint: the problem is that I just listed all the main characters, and I can count them on one hand. This politics nonsense is way more complicated than that. True - heady, interwoven, complex stories don't always play well in the action arena, where shootings and explosions are the name of the game. The one place where Green Zone actually gets interesting is unfortunately ill-explored: the role of NGOs who act like the military, but don't operate under the same rules (or guidelines). But, like I said, the type of movie to be made is a decision best left up to someone who is not me. (Director Paul Greengrass has previously worked with Matt Damon on The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, and this movie is stylistically similar.)
Bottom line: while this film was enjoyable for what it was, I think it sells itself a little short by having such a simplified plot. However, I'll never complain about seeing a totally buff Matt Damon (my boyfriend!) running around shooting at stuff.
You offer some solid insight into the challenges of war films and politics. I avoided this film specifically because of how politically charged the production of it was and the vacillating politics of cinema and the Iraq War is a path best avoided.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are several solid only lightly political war films out worth viewing. As film tends to be art (heinous homogenized art frequently, but still art), and art tends to be political or contemplative on some levels, I think the aspiration of an apolitical war film is overly optimistic. However, several films exist aht are not diluted by the lunacy that the Iraq War brought out in creative types in Hollywood. "Saving Private Ryan" comes to mind. In addition, "A Bridge Too Far," "Blackhawk Down," "We Were Soldiers," and "Zulu" are excellent in their own ways and may merit a viewing. "Breaker Morant" is an incredible Australian war film that deals with issues of sovereignty, scandal, justice, loyalty, and honor on the battlefield of South Africa. Sadly, none if the films feature your boyfriend, Mr. Damon.
Good post.
I have seen many of those movies, actually; those are good recommendations. "Saving Private Ryan" is one of my all-time faves, perhaps because it does in fact feature Mr. Damon - and as the title character, no less! But even without him, it would be a great movie, just maybe not so pretty to look at.
ReplyDeleteI much enjoyed "Black Hawk Down" and "We Were Soldiers," the former of which is a good read, and the latter of which is rumored to be as well, although I have not read it myself.
I saw "Zulu" for a class I took in college, and I think I didn't appreciate it at the time for what it offered. I haven't really been motivated to watch it again.
"A Bridge Too Far" and "Breaker Morant" are not ones I've watched, although I've heard of both of them. Someone - Mom? - has a copy of "Breaker Morant," but it's just one of those ones I haven't got around to.
All good suggestions, though; I just might put some in my queue.
As an aside, does anyone else find the unformattable courier typeface of the comments box limiting? I feel constrained.
First, total epic brain fart on this end about overlooking Matt Damon in "Saving Private Ryan." Color me bright shades of embarrassed. He only plays the title character...duh. A weak point in my defense, the bulk of the narrative features the journey that Tom Hanks’ platoon to reach and save Pvt. Ryan, and I dig the story much more than Mr. Damon’s perceived good looks.
ReplyDelete“Zulu” is a war film of an older generation. However, it captures the western ethos of discipline and heroism against overwhelming odds, as well as traces how men evolve and rise to the occasion to eek out a victory during the bleakest of circumstances. The score to the film is incredible. Critics tend to see it an anachronistic and imperialistic, yet, I think the values it embodies are something our generation could stand to reevaluate and embrace.
“A Bridge Too Far” is based on an epic Cornelius Ryan historical non-fiction novel about the consequences of a failed Allied airborne campaign against the Axis in Holland. It is very long, follows multiple story lines and perspectives around key events, plus is has an unreal cast that features Sean Connery, Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, and James Caan (amongst many others). It speaks to failures of intelligence, officer corps arrogance, poor coordination, and trying to force military outcomes against political deadlines. Some of the most incredible sequences, which make the film truly remarkable, focus on how the 1st British Paratroop Regiment maintains itself after everything they planned for completely falls apart in the Dutch town of Arnhem. Best viewed with the aid of some vino due to the length.
“Breaker Morant” is the call-out film amongst the list provided. It’s very political in the sense that it raises all sorts of touchy issues about the relationship that the British Empire had with its’ dominions and colonial vassals during the Boer War. In fact, the central controversy addressed in the film still hasn’t been resolved and is still a point of contention between the UK and Australia. One part solid war film, one part legal drama, one part character study, and three measures of Aussie awesome, it is a must for your queue. There are several moving courtroom sequences, however, the code by which the main character conducts himself, despite less than ideal treatment from his superiors, and the film’s final sequence are some of the heaviest and most moving war cinema ever captured. Hell, my heart thumps with all sorts of emotion every time I watch it or think about it.
Agreed and the restrictive thread format the blogosphere imposes.
Sorry, for the long thread. I just happen to be a war film buff and seldom find fun forums to flush out my enthusiasm.