There has been no subject more distorted or fought over than the United States case for war in Iraq. In his brilliant critical analysis of the war and visual culture in America Nicholas Mirzoeff argues that, "Babylon [Iraq] is a metaphor for complexity, exile, decadence that has resonated throughout Western modernity." The kingdom of Babylon and its legends are for Mirzoeff the key to understanding how the US was able to mobilize its allies and citizenry to wage a war that in effect was manufactured to support the needs of a neoliberal Imperial policy that was formed by the Bush administration. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek echoes this point noting that "the Bush doctrine of preventive strikes" primary purpose was to create an image "of American military might" that could not be challenged because the enemy was believed to be an irrational one steeped in Muslim fundamentalist beliefs. Zizek further expresses his cynicism arguing that "Americans were not simply unsure about whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but that they positively knew he did not have them."
In the new film Green Zone director Paul Greengrass explores this idea by showing an image of the combat in Iraq directly after the "shock and awe" period that is messy, ill equipped, misinformed and ultimately willing to slough through the muck and the mire of the Bush administration's lies. Greengrass uses his penchant for hand-held camera work, rapid cutting and grainy film stock to produce an image of the conflict that serves to capture the intensity of the setting as well as the drama of the characters who represent the various ideological positions possible for Americans. Yet, as Greengrass shows with subtle touches, no matter how hard or to what degree America tried to frame Iraq's future it was always ill equipped.
Matt Damon plays a WMD hunter named Miller who possesses a combination of reserve and explosive convictions which are captured in the craggy lines and intense blue eyes of Damon's face. Here Damon is the ideal figure of America and Greengrass uses Miller as the viewers point of view in the film thus laying bare the complete and total disregard for "truth" in an attempt to forge a puppet democracy in the Middle East. Miller's dedication to truth and to "saving lives" are shown to be a hinderance to a Pentagon official Poundstone played with a combination of cool calculation and slickness by Greg Kinnear. The military official represents an image of the behind the scenes "warrior" who is too busy trying to start wars than to actually analyze and understand their consequences.
Greengrass also shows the disconnect between professional spies in the intelligence services like Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) whose knowledge and expertise of the region are belittled by Poundstone who is more interested in making Iraq into the next economic playground of the rich and powerful. Brown's character is representative of numerous professional intelligence officers who had second guessed the intelligence that led to war in Iraq. Brown finds an ally in Miller who he enlists to help stabilize the country by capturing an Iraqi general but as Brown and Miller soon discover the general is a man who must be removed by Poundstone and the administration because he knows the truth about Iraq and America's reasons for the war.
Greengrass also criticizes the media and its willingness to go along and sell the war as if it were a video game or new television show that could capture the attention of the nation and enable consumerism. The reporter Dayne (Amy Ryan) is shown to be a woman of ambition rather than journalistic integrity as she has been used to sell the public a fabricated "truth" about Iraq and its weapons capability. However, as her own career is jeopardized by the "lies" and half-truths she too becomes a concerned citizen.
Greengrass's documentary technique adds in the emotional and intellectual investment in this film that along with the recent Hurt Locker synthesize how the US misled its people, allies and the world in order to wage a war that was not necessary nor well executed. However, whereas Hurt Locker tries to remain apolitical in its depiction of the conflict, Greengrass's film is clearly a political critique of American foreign policy and the idea that America is a nation based on "truth and justice." In the torture and prison scenes American capitalism and sport are juxtaposed with images of brutality, hooded men and vicious dogs trying to bite men in cages. He also includes news footage of Bush's speech on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln where he declared "major combat operations in Iraq are completed" as white people in business casual attire cheer with Budweiser's in their hands.
What makes this film a brave piece of filmmaking similar to United 93 is that Greengrass asks us to think about what it is that we haven't been told and why. He shows the war from the opening frames of the film from the Iraqi point of view in an effort to humanize them and their experiences as well as to offer reasons for their unwillingness to accept America as a force of liberation. For in the end, the "truth" that the film attempts to capture is one of degrees and the reality that he offers is one of perception. It is perception that must be considered along with context if we are to ever understand this war and its effects. Greengrass provides a film that offers potential answers to bigger questions that we have not even posed yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment