Let's say you are a Hollywood Liberal. You hate President Bush, dislike Republicans, loathe the war in Iraq (and likely Afghanistan) and gernerally want to tell the world that America is wrong (on just about everything). What do you do?
The result is likely Green Zone. A film that focuses on the Iraq War in it's pre-surge stages. A time when admittedly America was not focused in it's efforts or goals. A war that did not have a clear justification, and was the focal point of Liberal disgust with the Government.
But films of this nature have been made before. Lions for Lambs is just one example. There are many. The general public made a clear statement that such films were distasteful, and far too politically biased, to be worthy of viewing - even as DVD's or on cable. Thus the Hollywood Liberal is stuck; wanting to spread a message that no one wishes to hear, nor believes in total.
Green Zone resolves that in 2 ways. First is the use of Matt Damon, a solid actor, as a quasi-Bourne/average joe soldier. Damon is the spy/soldier of fortune of this generation. Sort of a Rambo with a brain or Bond with brawn. His name is sure to draw action and adventure fans, while still bringing in a female audience that just likes his looks.
The second part is the loose use of the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. A book that purported to not pick sides, and was a moment in time in the war in Iraq. A moment that specifically emphasizes the less than stellar actions of America.
With these 2 elements a film can be created that sets the American Government as bad guys, the American soldier as caught in the middle of deceptions and intrigue, and the military as bullies. It can ram home the dreams of the Liberal Hollywood in a format that will seem less political in movie trailers and finally be seen by the public at large.
I am a fan of Matt Damon. I like his acting, and I have no doubt that he will make this role interesting. Politically we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, which is fine. Until politics invades a movie in the disguise of entertainment.
I don't mind politics in movies. Anti-war movies and those with political commentaries can be great films. Like Apocalypse Now or Platoon. When the point is entertainment and then politics and not the other way around.
I dislike films that are mere propoganda, no matter how stylishly done or how many star entertainers it may contain. I dislike films that use the military as a tool to exploit to spread a message. And yes, I am no fan of anti-American films.
Thus you can take this preview of Green Zone with a grain of salt or not. You may not see the elements that I believe are present and at the fore of the film. You may agree with these ideas, in part or whole, and like the package that has been made to present them.
I do not.
Paul Greengrass is an excellent director (Bourne Ultimatum), and Damon is a solid actor. This film will have action and superb war fight scenes. It looks to have a pace that is intense, writing that is on par or above most films these days. Even the plot will be logical, if biased.
But these trappings do not seperate the true reason this film exists. To spread a political philosophy that Hollywood Liberals espouse and have been trying to disseminate for years without success by any metric.
I do not recommend this film. I won't recommend it as a DVD either. I may be completely wrong, and I will be the first to stand up and state so if I am, but that is about as likely as Hollywood becoming Conservatives.
1 comment:
Wow...thanks for this commentary. I was beginning to think it was just me, completely missing the ver loose connection Greengrass is claiming to the book. But then, there's something, I think, to be said for the fact that he has a trademark of sorts, making most of his movies "look like" documentaries. An art form? Hmmm.
Now that I think about it, Greengrass does look suspiciously like....Oliver Stone?!?!? Heaven help us, and Matt Damon.
Thanks, Vass....I think you're spot on with this one.
Post a Comment