The Interested Soldier

This is a airing of grievances, not an objective review


Made up Army Words

Fake words heard in the Army Orientate
Detainment
Irregardless
Agreance
Partnershipping
Predecisional

Mayoralship
Expedisiousary
Simular


Previous Posts

Archives

28 November 2005

New movie.. maybe

So I feel like I have to weigh in on this one... if only because it's hilarious. Plus I get to do my first Pajamas Media/OSM/Pantsload Media link.

The short of it: Bruce Willis is looking to make a "pro-war" movie based on 24th Infantry Regiment in Mosul, Iraq. This acts as a lightning rod for anyone who likes to make arguments for or against Hollywood and its biases. Especially since the movie is still in pre-pre-pre-production (ie. no script).

Anyway. Aside from the (in my mind baseless) comparison of this possiblity of a movie to the Passion of the Christ, the reigning feeling I've seen from the (admittedly conservative) smattering of blogs I've read is that this will be a breath of fresh air from the "string of malicious Hollywood movies depicting out troops... [sic]"

First: A list of all the war movies made by "Hollywood" in the past, lets say, decade: (I'm going to stick with movies depicting real wars the US was involved in)

The Patriot
Saving Private Ryan
Band of Brothers (mini-series)
Captain Corelli's Mandolin
The Thin Red Line
Windtalkers
Pearl Harbor
We Were Soldiers
Three Kings
Jarhead
Blackhawk Down
Behind Enemy Lines?

These are the big war movies to come out of "Hollywood" (scare quotes used to indicate disbelief in a unified US movie-making apparatus) in the past ten years or so (I'm sure I've omitted some). For the sake of disclosure, I saw neither Captain Corelli's Mandolin no Windtalkers. The only movies on this list that negatively portray US servicemen and women or US involvement in a war would be Three Kings and possibly the Thin Red Line. In Kings our ne'er-do-well soldiers redeem themselves (certainly in the eyes of the film if not the audience) by saving the lives of dozens of Iraqi dissidents who rose up against their government. In Line we see the traumatic effects of war on the psyches of veterans. Neither of these things is inherently anti-war; perhaps jingoistic. Jarhead, I would argue, is not anti-war so much as it is the portrayal of one man's expiriences, good and bad, in the Marine Corps.

Yes, for those Swiftboat-obsessees, who have yet to get over the fact that there was public outcry against Vietnam, there were anti-war movies made about the conflict in Vietnam. And guess what? Soldiers (and policy-makers) did some pretty fucked up things in Vietnam, some things that rightly should be addressed in the media. Movies like Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, et al exist for a reason, and that reason is not a "peacenik Hollywood."

However, there is certainly a debate to be had over what constitutes an "anti-war" versus a "pro-war" movie. Most people would look at Apocalypse Now and say "anti-war movie." But look at the begining of Jarhead, as the Marines about to ship out watch the gunship attack of a Vietnamese villiage to the strains of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. They don't think it's anti-war. The disposition of most movies is going to be more about what parts you watch, and your personal predisposition to the subject.

And finally. Bruce Willis: You do not want to make this war's Green Barets. Come on.