Yeah, I didn't even remember it was set in 2004 until all the "soldiers hate Hurt Locker" stories started popping up.
Green Zone
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Maybe that detail is expalined on the commentary, but I didn't have the patience to listen to it. Perhaps screenwriter Mark Boal wanted to set the film in that period because that's when he was embedded as a journalist in Iraq, and director Kathryn Bigelow just wasn't interested in great fidelity to the period? But, that's all idle speculation, really.
By this point I'm sure the number of Iraq war films I have not watched is actually larger than the number of Iraq war films in existence. Funny, that. Looks like Green Zone will be added to that nonsense paradox.
Hurt Locker didn't inspire a lot of confidence in the genre, (though I did like it); and so I'd still say that, to add another paradox, Battle of Algiers is the best Iraq war film I've seen.
Hurt Locker didn't inspire a lot of confidence in the genre, (though I did like it); and so I'd still say that, to add another paradox, Battle of Algiers is the best Iraq war film I've seen.
To give you an idea of just how trite Green Zone was, and how hard it had to push to get its point across, there was a scene where the character walks into a room for a meeting for some such thing, and what is playing conveniently (and live) on the TV: The infamous Bush/ mission accomplished speech.
Greegrass has a clear agenxda here.
Greegrass has a clear agenxda here.
I loved the political subtexts in Greengrass' Bourne sequels, and thought they worked great entirely because the character and story are so fantastical. The scene in Ultimatum where Bourne executes the foreign-looking dude just because he's told to is a rather brilliant distillation of the country's apathy towards Bush Administration justice.
I also love a good dramatization of history, United 93 included. Years ago, there was talk of adapting Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, which I would still love to see get an HBO-style treatment, even though Stone's W., which I also enjoyed as a solid work of drama, covered much of the same ground.
But making a heavy-handed, subtext-filled action thriller under the guise of historicity? I've got no interest in that whatsoever. I caught both Greengrass Bournes in theatres, but won't even be renting this one.
And I was excited to see this movie when it was first discussed, partly because the title "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" is wonderfully intriguing. It'd be great to see a serious, low-key drama set inside and outside the Green Zone, and really delve into the minutiae of it all. But, according to all accounts, there's almost none of that here.
Fail.
I also love a good dramatization of history, United 93 included. Years ago, there was talk of adapting Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, which I would still love to see get an HBO-style treatment, even though Stone's W., which I also enjoyed as a solid work of drama, covered much of the same ground.
But making a heavy-handed, subtext-filled action thriller under the guise of historicity? I've got no interest in that whatsoever. I caught both Greengrass Bournes in theatres, but won't even be renting this one.
And I was excited to see this movie when it was first discussed, partly because the title "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" is wonderfully intriguing. It'd be great to see a serious, low-key drama set inside and outside the Green Zone, and really delve into the minutiae of it all. But, according to all accounts, there's almost none of that here.
Fail.
I did read an earlier draft of Green Zone, when it was under the title Imperial Life in the Emerald City and it was a lot more low-key. There was some fantastic character interplay and it lacked a lot of the political overtones that somehow seeped their way into the realized version. Which is a shame.
It surprises me that I am still surprised by the reactions that some people have to certain movies like "Green Zone".
To me the movie runs like this: Matt Damon is the lead, the movie is set up to follow his perspective to see him put the pieces together. There are no other male leads, no female leads; just opponents and other pieces (neutrals? pawns?). This is his story. I never worried about or wanted to know about his squad mates. I don't need to know the home life of Freddy or Poundstone or Lawrie Dayne. The movie gives you enough information about these other characters to let you know what their positions in the world are, but leaves the rest of the screentime to Miller so he can explore and piece together the world he finds himself in.
The movie is a fictional thriller. Yeah it is based on a serious book about the real war, but this movie takes some facts (no WMDs), some opinions (Bush administration blindly led by ideology and lies), and gives fictional characters fictional activities to do.
Coming back to my first thought. I am surprised that people react so vehemently against the movie: stating they won't watch it, that it is trash or garbage, or liberals pushing their perspective on a movie. I think it is more than just a liberal consensus that going into Iraq was A) falsely supported by claims of immediate danger via WMDs and B) has resulted in endless sectional fighting and massive loss of civilian life - the two main "moral" points of the movie.
Someone who avoids watching this movie because it pins the false justification for war on a fictional high-ranking bureaucrat is doing themselves a disservice. Not only will they miss out on a decent thriller, but it will just perpetuate their participation as part of a highly polarized U.S. populace.
Now saying that the movie should have more in-depth secondary characters, that we should see more inner conflict and turmoil in Miller (Damon), or that the finale was too obvious (this is my opinion of the final shooting, not necessarily the emailing) are valid considerations that may have improved the movie, but it was still decent.
Overall, I liked this movie enough to want to find out more about the book that inspired it. They are so different that I haven't yet decided if I am interested in "Imperial Life in the Emerald City."
To me the movie runs like this: Matt Damon is the lead, the movie is set up to follow his perspective to see him put the pieces together. There are no other male leads, no female leads; just opponents and other pieces (neutrals? pawns?). This is his story. I never worried about or wanted to know about his squad mates. I don't need to know the home life of Freddy or Poundstone or Lawrie Dayne. The movie gives you enough information about these other characters to let you know what their positions in the world are, but leaves the rest of the screentime to Miller so he can explore and piece together the world he finds himself in.
The movie is a fictional thriller. Yeah it is based on a serious book about the real war, but this movie takes some facts (no WMDs), some opinions (Bush administration blindly led by ideology and lies), and gives fictional characters fictional activities to do.
Coming back to my first thought. I am surprised that people react so vehemently against the movie: stating they won't watch it, that it is trash or garbage, or liberals pushing their perspective on a movie. I think it is more than just a liberal consensus that going into Iraq was A) falsely supported by claims of immediate danger via WMDs and B) has resulted in endless sectional fighting and massive loss of civilian life - the two main "moral" points of the movie.
Someone who avoids watching this movie because it pins the false justification for war on a fictional high-ranking bureaucrat is doing themselves a disservice. Not only will they miss out on a decent thriller, but it will just perpetuate their participation as part of a highly polarized U.S. populace.
Now saying that the movie should have more in-depth secondary characters, that we should see more inner conflict and turmoil in Miller (Damon), or that the finale was too obvious (this is my opinion of the final shooting, not necessarily the emailing) are valid considerations that may have improved the movie, but it was still decent.
Overall, I liked this movie enough to want to find out more about the book that inspired it. They are so different that I haven't yet decided if I am interested in "Imperial Life in the Emerald City."
War is not a drug. War is a political act performed by governments. Denying that war is a conscious choice executed with much deliberation by the government that starts a war, but saying instead it is an inevitable product of the male personality is very much a message, an extremely one sided message. Which happens to have the drawback of being incredibly stupid, by the way.
Truthfully it seems to me that Green Zone is a loser because there is no need for a hero to find out that it was all a pack of lies. Everyone who cared to know knew at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction, especially the ones who claimed they'd be upset if none were found. Damon's character sounds like a chap who is shocked, shocked to discover there is no Santa Claus. It's hard to imagine how you could find any drama in that.
On the issue of personal jeopardy as the interesting part, I think that's kind of overrated. The vicarious hero wins in the huge majority of "Hollywood" movies, which is why most of them are not even dramas. It sounds as if Green Zone wasn't a conquering hero fantasy at all, despite being in a thriller genre. It sounds as if it was intended as a real drama, where the lead has to decide whether to change his thinking. And the viewer decides whether to accept the conceptual breakthrough. This kind of story was actually kind of common in science fiction before the idiot fantasists got a death grip on the market.
Truthfully it seems to me that Green Zone is a loser because there is no need for a hero to find out that it was all a pack of lies. Everyone who cared to know knew at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction, especially the ones who claimed they'd be upset if none were found. Damon's character sounds like a chap who is shocked, shocked to discover there is no Santa Claus. It's hard to imagine how you could find any drama in that.
On the issue of personal jeopardy as the interesting part, I think that's kind of overrated. The vicarious hero wins in the huge majority of "Hollywood" movies, which is why most of them are not even dramas. It sounds as if Green Zone wasn't a conquering hero fantasy at all, despite being in a thriller genre. It sounds as if it was intended as a real drama, where the lead has to decide whether to change his thinking. And the viewer decides whether to accept the conceptual breakthrough. This kind of story was actually kind of common in science fiction before the idiot fantasists got a death grip on the market.
That's not necessarily vehemence; the vast majority of films go unseen by just about everybody. I won't see "She's Out of My League" either, but that isn't an aggressive statement on my part.
I'd have to "avoid" my roommates if I didn't want to see them, but it takes no effort whatsoever to not go the theater and plunk down ten or more bucks to see a movie.
And yeah, I could Netflix it, but with the whole world of cinema and television a red envelope away, is "Green Zone" really that solid a use of my time? I suspect not; then again, thrillers aren't really my genre anyhow.
Woah, it takes place in 2004? The uniforms they were wearing weren't even fielded until 2005. Anachronisms indeed. Epic fail is epic
I think you're directing that at Hurt Locker. In which case you're falsely assuming there's an 'either-or'. The question in Hurt Locker is not how wars begin or why, but the motives of people - soldiers - who act in war. Why does the lead sign up for a tour of duty? Why does he sign up again?
The answer cannot be that war is a conscious choice executed by his government. That's the answer to another question.
I'll be honest: This always seemed obviously the case. I never thought the argument for WMD had any credibility, but hey, I was a European teenager, what did I know?
Anyway, didn't buy it.
I can't speak for everyone else who said that, but I wasn't being vehement. The film didn't sound that interesting and the rather poor reviews indicate it's not likely something I'd enjoy. I have equal interest in seeing this as I do Kurtlar Vadisi Irak.
I might check out Generation Kill, though.
Last edited:
Woah, it takes place in 2004? The uniforms they were wearing weren't even fielded until 2005. Anachronisms indeed. Epic fail is epic
Yeah, they must have had a bad consultant... or just didn't go with one at all. Oh well.
I didn't mean anyone here in particular had a vehement reaction to it, but I have seen it elsewhere.
As for "The Hurt Locker", I enjoyed it a fair amount. Some of the stuff didn't make any sense (team of only three, driving out into the desert by themselves for demo work, wanting to dart off into the dark on the trail of enemies who might never have even been there to start with) and I ended up enjoying "Moon" more (saw them at about the same time).
As for "The Hurt Locker", I enjoyed it a fair amount. Some of the stuff didn't make any sense (team of only three, driving out into the desert by themselves for demo work, wanting to dart off into the dark on the trail of enemies who might never have even been there to start with) and I ended up enjoying "Moon" more (saw them at about the same time).
I ran a couple of hundred EOD escort missions in my time in Iraq. SOP was that they would never leave the FOB without at least a three gun-truck element(at a minimum nine guys) pulling escort duty in addition to the EOD team itself.
EOD assets are the most in demand high value units in Iraq and Afghanistan and we're not going to throw them outside the wire without escorts.
Just one of the things I didn't like about that movie.
EOD assets are the most in demand high value units in Iraq and Afghanistan and we're not going to throw them outside the wire without escorts.
Just one of the things I didn't like about that movie.
It is very doubtful that Hurt Locker is genuinely a character study of why men enlist, or even re-enlist. Lack of economic opportunity is a major factor. Esprit de corps is by all reports both a major real world factor and violated in the movie's story. But some enlist because they genuinely believe the government's position. It would be politically incorrect in today's political climate to have a character remotely like Frank Burns played straight (neither exaggerated for comic effect nor edges softened for palatability,) but such did and do exist. As I said before, maybe Hurt Locker's would be friends have made it look bad, but it seems quite certain that Hurt Locker is making a Statement about the Cause of War. Apparently it's male atavism, and apparently the movie isn't so sure it's a bad thing.
As to the other aspect, the notion that the occupation created the civil war. It is in fact a distinct possibility that the occupation authorities deliberately provoked sectarian violence as part of a divide and rule strategy. Beyond that, one only has to remember how the occupation governments of Germany and Japan tried to actually reform society, including significant steps toward redistribution of property and deconcentration of economics power. They fostered labor unions, not sectarian militias. They did not deliberately create chaos. Even in Nazi Germany, they tried to actually identify criminal elements, going so far as to send out detailed questionaires, the infamous Fragebogen. US policy in Iraq by contrast may be due to the moral degeneracy and intellectual decay of US society. But I wouldn't bet on it.
As to the other aspect, the notion that the occupation created the civil war. It is in fact a distinct possibility that the occupation authorities deliberately provoked sectarian violence as part of a divide and rule strategy. Beyond that, one only has to remember how the occupation governments of Germany and Japan tried to actually reform society, including significant steps toward redistribution of property and deconcentration of economics power. They fostered labor unions, not sectarian militias. They did not deliberately create chaos. Even in Nazi Germany, they tried to actually identify criminal elements, going so far as to send out detailed questionaires, the infamous Fragebogen. US policy in Iraq by contrast may be due to the moral degeneracy and intellectual decay of US society. But I wouldn't bet on it.
I came out of the movie feeling a lot like you did. The "message" was way too heavy handed, tons of things didn't quite make sense, the whole thing just felt off from the moment thy lost the Iraqi general and the conspiracy stuff started into full swing.
The only thing I disagree with is about Damon, do you have some hatred of the guy or something? The only thing I really liked about the story was that they didn't play him up as some super soldier. He was a competent, but not particularly amazing senior noncom. I mean he gets his ass handed to him by the SF guy, gets caught in a trap by the general because he ran off ahead of his men, he let the general escape in the first place. The wasn't really anything that made him look like a super soldier, most of the things he's able to do came about by the shear luck of freddy coming o him, and him believing freddy.
You're right. But did he at all seem scared? Did he at all seem human? Even though soldiers are trained to be in the war zone, I mean, Damon is walking around the most dangerous place on earth, where you can get shot just for walking and he acts like he owns the place, and he didn't get dirty or scratched for the entire film.
To me, he was playing Josh Duhamel's character from Transformers !
To me, he was playing Josh Duhamel's character from Transformers !
To be fair, a lot of soldiers compartmentalize all that fear and emotion stuff. Sure, a few guys freak out when small arms fire open up or an IED goes off, but the majority, at least in my limited experience, get really really serious and cold.
Similar threads
- Locked
