Pretty interesting stuff. If anyone needs convincing that genres and cinematic vocabularies are evolving, all they have to do is go to the movies. This one is a part of a new trend, the war-detective genre. It is strictly noir, in the sense that forces outside our hero's world are at work on him. He is an ordinary Joe; he has amazing coincidences happen to him; he is trust into the role of detective and serves as our on-screen surrogate as we discover together some hidden perfidy. So innovation number one is that we have a war-detective genre almost fully formed already.
The action is there for the same reason that smoke was 50-60 years ago, to enrich the screen. But this is no longer a war movie based on the assumptions of the founding genre. Then, we went to these to help identify as a tribe, to re-enforce that identity by celebrating its natural values and of course we have to win. Not here.
In this case, we have what is widely known about these wars. They were a mistake, based on fictitious realities coaxed out of tortured detainees. The military here is not used to validate an identity, but to validate that we are estranged from the institutions we used to trust and venerate. Look at the characters: on the US side, everyone is a stock stereotype: smarmy Cheney factotum, grizzled CIA operative, earnest girl reporter, ,wild amoral snakeater, scads of lazy soldiers in battlefield luxury.
The only two interesting characters are Iraqi. They not only are real men with complex motives, but they are the ones with agency.
I can see that they had some trouble with how critical to be of the men in uniform. Apparently, a whole subplot about abuse of luxuries at Sadam's palace was jettisoned. Only a few scenes remain, necessary for the main plot. But that whole business, together with the name, is left dangling. I think the movie failed to make money because it is easy to buy into an evil operation managed from the White House. But we still find it hard to not think of the man in theater as anything but noble.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
The action is there for the same reason that smoke was 50-60 years ago, to enrich the screen. But this is no longer a war movie based on the assumptions of the founding genre. Then, we went to these to help identify as a tribe, to re-enforce that identity by celebrating its natural values and of course we have to win. Not here.
In this case, we have what is widely known about these wars. They were a mistake, based on fictitious realities coaxed out of tortured detainees. The military here is not used to validate an identity, but to validate that we are estranged from the institutions we used to trust and venerate. Look at the characters: on the US side, everyone is a stock stereotype: smarmy Cheney factotum, grizzled CIA operative, earnest girl reporter, ,wild amoral snakeater, scads of lazy soldiers in battlefield luxury.
The only two interesting characters are Iraqi. They not only are real men with complex motives, but they are the ones with agency.
I can see that they had some trouble with how critical to be of the men in uniform. Apparently, a whole subplot about abuse of luxuries at Sadam's palace was jettisoned. Only a few scenes remain, necessary for the main plot. But that whole business, together with the name, is left dangling. I think the movie failed to make money because it is easy to buy into an evil operation managed from the White House. But we still find it hard to not think of the man in theater as anything but noble.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.