::::::::
I just saw Brian DiPalma's new anti war film 'Redacted'.... a pirated version that was quickly pulled from Google.
I'm in the middle of an argument with someone running a 'boycott Redacted' video over at Youtube.
It's tough because I see the heavyhandedness that DiPalma's lends to get his point across. But, ...he's not wrong. Not really, ...there's no over emotionalizing. It seems to try to present a soldier's view unflinchingly.
I was a child during the Vietnam war and I remember the movies, and the music of that period. It was a pivotal period for me maybe having more to do with the images I saw from the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention and the violence meted upon them....(not a bad thing to keep in mind in this day and age is how utterly brutal the dems can also be).... but it changed my childhood perception of gov't and patriotism and war.
When I was 10 I had a discussion with this "hippy" that my mother was dating that forever changed my attitudes and sent me hurtling over to the 'alternative side'. One night when I saw that my mother's date was a "hippy" and that he had her smoking pot... I totally flipped, as those things were antithetical to my perception of a "normal" american upbringing. I belived in the war. I believed in GOD and COUNTRY. I believed in everything that the TV told me. Which was whatever the US State Dept told the media to say. But I believed those things.
So,....
I had a major conniption.
I blew a fuse.
And I certainly made my displeasure quite clear.
This guy, Jim Donovan... he was quite cool. He sat down with me (while my mom was anxiously waiting to get out of the house) and he simply explained.
He done three tours of Vietnam and he'd seen enough to forever sour him on the idea of war. He was totally gung ho the first time around.... but somewhere he'd changed and he wanted to erase it from his consciousness.
We talked all night. He was a remarkably patient man. And you'd think a gentle soul except ...you'd have to realise that "a gentle soul" doesn't survive a war.
But, he changed me that night...in a way that only someone who had been there, could.
Here we are.... 40years later. A different war but the same ole same ole -and always with different twists.
I was arguing with this guy at Youtube over his 'Boycott Redacted'
videoblog.
My initial reaction was that of suspicion thinking that he'd likely be an agent of the GOP or the Pentagon busy doing some counterattacking on the internet front.
But after an exchange and watching the film I realised that his arguments weren't all completely rightwing partisan sniping.
While I'd rejected some of the late 1980's revisionist repentance for anti war activity being penned by columnists in the afterglow of the Reagan era.... in recent times I'd acknowledged another viewpoint of the effects that antiwar activities had on the holders of POW's and on the morale of US military personnel. (Despite the fact that the most influential antiwar messages were being made by former military personnel themselves) Nonetheless I was ready to acknowledge this other perspective while not giving ground to the realisation that that particular war was wrong.
Now we're at another juncture.... and a similar one.
I think it's great that filmmakers like DiPalma want to make a pont.Though, I'm compelled to ask... where were they three or four years ago? And I'm reminded of the antiwar films of the 1960's and 70's.
Before I go into the whole excesses thing I'm obligated to remind you of the significance of the MyLai Massacre. Perhaps that single incident brought to light that aspect of war that cuts right through the patriotic rhetoric that pours from State Dept press releases into the receptive editorial decisions of the mainstream media. They, who'd walk across burning coals before allowing themselves to appear to be "unpatriotic".
MyLai was certainly an aberration just as the incident in Samara where a 14 year old girl was raped and murdered and her family were also murdered by 3 US military personnel. And, that other incident where 24 residents of Haditha were killed in retaliation to a roadside IED attack.
What these 'aberrations ' bear in common is how they spotlight the all too human-ness of military personnel ....that cross section of the US population put into extraordinary circumstances with an absolute minimum of preparation and training... and the side effects of extended tours and the 'stop loss' policies of the Pentagon.
They, who'd had extraordinary expectations and demands put on them under the most trying of conditions.
Don't forget... that Donald Rumsfeld handed Douglas Feith (herewith dubbed by Gen.Tommy Franks as "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet") the responsibility of inking out a feasible post invasion plan for Iraq... and Feith froze... even more so, the dismissiveness of Rumsfeld's post invasion preparedness was best summarized by the remarks of Lawrence DiRosa;In the invasion's early days, as Packer illustrates, the Pentagon's criminal negligence of the need to secure and rebuild the basic services of Iraq became glaringly obvious. Rumsfeld's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita , met with ORHA's senior officials for a briefing, and when a USAID planner for reconstruction told him about the need to provide early benefits to the Iraqi people, Di Rita slammed his fist down on the table. "We don't owe the people of Iraq anything," Di Rita said. "We're giving them their freedom. That's enough," according to Packer. The U.S. wouldn't get bogged down in Iraq, Di Rita later told war planners at a major meeting: "We're going to stand up an interim Iraqi government, hand power over to them, and get out of there in three to four months," Di Rita said, speaking for Rumsfeld.
The point is,... Defense Secretary Rumsfeld so taken with his own genius discouraged input from experienced high ranking Pentagon personnel when queried about post invasion/occupation plans. In the aftermath troops were sent in utterly unprepared for the mission assignment... and the long and continually extended deployments. Not that excuses extreme behaviour on the part of some of the troops. But it certainly helped to set the stage.
This film is mostly seen through the lens of the young pfc Salazar who is a wannabe film student hoping that his video essay will be his ticket into a prestigious film school. He carries his camera about insinuating himself into the daily operations of his unit in Samara much to the annoyance and suspiciousness of those about him.
In the very beginning they point out that checkpoint signs are posted in both arabic and english.... then it goes to point out that over 50% of iraqis are illiterate.
After a scene where a speeding car fails to stop and then is torn apart by US military gunfire... a pregnant woman is brought to the hospital suffering multiple gunshot wounds and simultaneous labour contractions. Then they point out that in a 24 month period over 2000 iraqis had died at these checkpoints.
Moments later as soldiers debate the meaning of this incident it's pointed out that "if you feel remorse (ie, hesitate) then you die!"...another soldier states unequivically that "...rules of engagement, if they cross the trigger line then he kills them!"
There the ethical grey areas in a conflict are portrayed. And so DiPalma tries to flesh out the contrasting perspectives in this deadly situation. I kinda thought though that the idea that someone with a video camera would be encouraged to participate in an illegal action like the rape and murder of an iraqi family seemed a bit unlikely if not forced. The fact that he focuses on a unit where the less intellectually gifted are suddenly thrusted to a leadership position would seem equally as contrived... except that in a rather clever way during the setup you see that the sgt admonishes one of the new recruits for his friendliness with the local iraqis and there we get a sense of the kind of mistrust and isolation encouraged by the american command. This was before the occupational commanders realised... less than a year ago that their lack of counterinsurgency (ie, trying to 'win hearts and minds') had only fueled the insurgency thusly making their mission vastly more difficult.
It's hard to say how much of this film is forced to make a point. And those that claim this film unfairly criticises US military personnel seem opposed to any criticism of the war in general.
I'm reminded of a demonstration at the White House in 1976 where a number of Vietnam era veterans had also taken part -afterwards we were invited to a special screening of'Tracks' starring Dennis Hopper by the director of the film. It was a film about a veteran accompanying the casket of a fallen comrade back to his hometown. During the train ride homewards Hopper is made to confront alot of demons inside him from the war.... but when he finally arrives he explodes in a fit of homicidal rage. (Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler plot synopsis)
The vets exploded into a fit of rage as well as they found the film to be a cheap shot, unrealistic and forced. Moreover that it reinforced negative stereotypes about Vietnam veterans.
There were at times during that period films that seemed over the top and a bit smug. I loved them..... all of them; 'Getting Straight', 'The Strawberry Statement', 'Soldier Blue'. I fell in love with that whole countercultural genre. I don't feel they were wrong in their condemnation of the war, society and evangelizing of the hippy liberal or radical culture. But, you do have to call a spade a spade.
We revisit some of the more tragic moments of this war like the Haditha and Samara slayings... this is just to realise what grows in the petri dish when the conditions are right and human nature is given its free reign. Which is something altogether different from a situation like the decimation of Falluja that was inundated with white phosphorus bombs...where 60 to 70% of all the building were damaged and 40% of the buildings were destroyed. This was in retaliation to the brutal deaths of four Blackwater personnel.
For me the point is, the kind of situation created when you have a leadership that encourages things like the torture and mistreatment at Abu Ghraib. And they encouraged a mistrust of iraqis...basically treating iraqis like 2nd class citizens in their own country. Which if you watch how the US treats the Iraqi gov't (like their initial dismissiveness of the recent Blackwater killings of civilians) with continuing disregard then you'd see how DiPalma's film could be anything but a stretch.
