I've heard the opposite argued, persuasively.

It depends how it gets covered. They're making a move about Operation Phantom Fury and crews have been visiting Camp Pendleton and 29 Palms to interview a lot of us who were part of it. From my interaction with them thus far I've been getting the vibe that the film is going to be a lot like Blackhawk Down was; focusing mainly on the individual and small-unit trials and accomplishments within the battle, while eschewing much of the poltically contentious backdrop. If that ends up being the case, it absolutely will reflect well upon the US military, and by logical extension, the nation as a whole.

What's really strange about that point, Madanthonywayne, is that despite whatever element of truth there is about the fact that people have no desire to see a film like Redacted, you've missed it entirely. People routinely shell out the ticket price for films that portray our armed services negatively. Whether they are portrayed as sinister, stupid, or merely hapless and unfortunate, the military is regularly lampooned and criticized, from Mr. Roberts and McHale's Navy on through Stripes, Wargames, and others. Patriot Games depicts our soldiers as carrying out acts of war in foreign countries; Platoon includes American soldiers at something other than their best. Apocalypse Now casts the American military according to a phrase that has achieved legendary status. Nicholson's famous outburst in A Few Good Men is another memorable moment drawn from the dark side of the American military.

So it's not simply that U.S. soldiers are portrayed as murderers and rapists. Ironically, you're celebrating one of the film's greater accomplishments.

In this case, the five million or so given to De Palma for the film is essentially a promotional investment. He could make a film about pretty much anything he wanted, as long as he shot the thing in HD.

In November, Brian de Palma sat down for an interview with NPR's Fresh Air:

What seems to separate Redacted from other films, at least in the sense of the audience's desire to see American soldiers as rapists and murderers, is the proximity of the Bush Wars. Even though Duvall's scene in Apocalypse Now came only a few years after the end of the American disaster in Vietnam, it came after the American disaster in Vietnam. Platoon came after. Because the nation is still tied up in this one, we aren't viewing a sense of myth from across a gulf of years. The proximity of Redacted simply makes it too close for mass appeal. And that was expected from the start.

Your indictment ("It's too bad hollywood is more intent on making a political statement than making a movie people might like to watch"), much like a recent indictment in a similar topic ("Has Hollywood learned that this sort of politicking isn't going to get butts in seats, or will they soldier on making these sorts of films?") seems to rely on a notion that the only measure of value is the financial. And perhaps you feel better crowing about Redacted's low receipts. That's fine. You're welcome to feel better about yourself for failing to grasp the point. I mean, it really does take a special conscience to look at someone and say, "Ha-ha! You got exactly what you expected! You were right, and that's why you suck!" So laugh at De Palma all you want. Such a myopic response will serve as a striking testament over the years to what the hell was wrong with conservatives and their political rhetoric during this period.

Well, after the primadonna contest some of our more politically-conservative members just had, one must be prepared to disclaim anything and everything for their benefit.


That would suggest that the common expression of conservative politics in the U.S. is, in fact, a 1-in-4 minority at best. How the hell does this kind of empty-headed rhetoric come to run the show, then?

So what you're saying is that while, for at least the last twenty-seven years, such behavior has been a staple of conservative politics in the United States, I ought not address that notion since such behavior really is marginalized by a ratio of about three to one, even though those three haven't done much to temper the influence of the one?

Just ... focus on the individual, then? I mean, I hear you, Ashura, and it would be a fair request, except for the point that, despite such behavior being a 3:1 minority among conservatives, it is the bandwagon that people like to jump onto.

There are many analogies to this notion to be found in history, but since none of them speak (superficially, at least) well of otherwise decent folks who failed to act in the face of something wrong, well, you're familiar with the outcry that responds to abstraction and analogy.

And I do recognize your point in that discussion. And I thank you. But you're reminding me that conservatives oppose certain behavior 3:1, but will, apparently, only denounce said behavior obliquely, as you have. Okay, great. I get it. The rest of you conservatives don't like that behavior, but you're apparently willing to profit off of it since, while you have a 3:1 majority, you're not using it to change direction.

So let me get this straight: You're not going to hold Democrats responsible for the actions of, say, Joe Liberman? How magnanimous of you.

I, uh ... I get your point, Ashura. But, you know ... really ....

Don't take it wrong, but that's another little quirk that I find very common, to the point of being thematic, about the diverse expressions of conservative thought and political philosophy.

Truly, man, I'm sympathetic, but I'm not going to tolerate heat for playing the game put before me. That kind of crap just goes to show how many conservatives are in it for some interior psychological reward. I've watched this sh@t take place for over a quarter of a century, and just about any study of politics in history you could make suggests it wasn't a new phenomenon when I came across it. It's part of what happens when a political philosophy appeals to those aspects most widely considered the dark side of humanity°.
______________________

Notes:

° dark side of humanity — I recognize that this sounds like harsh language, but consider the strange coincidence between the "evangelical base" of the GOP—e.g., Christians—and a political philosophy that advocates self-interest, violence, and dominion as its platform. How does self-enrichment, for instance, become so important to Christianity? Philosophically, away from the ballot box, most Americans would say that unmitigated self-interest is a dubious ambition, or that violence is a bad way of solving problems, or that one can easily have too much power over the beliefs and actions of others; the only questions, then, to be asked as we approach the ballot box is for the individual to wonder at what point their own self-interest, violence, or dominion would cross that line. Repeat the cycle over and over again, and what you get are recycled justifications. You don't like Democrats? Fine. You think liberals draw the lines too restrictively for your comfort? Fine. Nobody says you have to sign on. But if you throw your lot in with the conservatives, I would ask you to recognize what it is you're pursuing. Maybe some salesman somewhere sold you on a different idea of what conservatism is, but, frankly, it's not hard to make unmitigated self-interest sound like a good thing. If you're not part of this, then what are you part of, and where does it come from? That's a truly fascinating question that most people just don't have time for. Seemingly simple labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are, in fact, mind-bogglingly dynamic when examined in their broader historical context. That conservatives are no longer advocating human bondage or glowing pins does not mean they're not advocating exploitation or torture. And if there are "conservatives" out there who don't hold with exploitation and torture, we might wonder why their voices aren't stronger. And if, as with dishonest rhetoric, conservatives truly disagree with these things by an impressive margin, how the hell does such a minority among conservatives come to so openly and forwardly represent the conservative voice?

Works Cited:

BBC News. "'Napalm' speech tops movie poll". January 2, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3362603.stm

Kaufman, Anthony. "Brian De Palma Explains Himself". The Village Voice. October 2, 2007. See http://www.villagevoice.com/film/074...,77943,20.html

Davies, Dave. "Director Brian De Palma Digs Into 'Redacted' Story". Fresh Air. November 14, 2007. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16289254

See Also:

Lohr, Kathy. "Senator Probes Megachurches' Finances". Morning Edition. December 4, 2007. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16860611

Reduced to its essences, war is more an expression of Testosterone than of Estrogen.

A male either embraces the T with a certain degree of appreciation or they embrace the E with more.

It's true that to a certain degree at this stage of his career DePalma can make whatever he likes and not worry about ticket sales. But I think positing this project as an expression of the Marxist notion that this is art being produced "free of the goad of necessity" isn't totally accurate.

Here's what DePalma said when his film premiered in Venice: "The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening. "The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

So DePalma made this film for political reasons. It is not art for art's sake: He hoped it would effect some changes in US policy. Clearly, this can't happen if no one sees the film. And since no one is seeing it, it is a failure by the director's own benchmark...

There is no comparison between a lighthearted movie like Stripes or McHale's Navy and Redacted. Even the more serious among the movies you listed bear no comparison. Why? Well, consider what DePalma said:
He's taking an isolated incident and attempting to portray that as"'what's happening in Iraq". It's an intentional distortion and the stated purpose of the distortion is to alter the course of the war.

Making such a movie twenty years after the war to document a horrible incident is one thing. But making the movie while the war is going on is quite another. It's basically an enemy propaganda film.
Now you've got it.

(chortle!)

We're the United States of America. If the one thing we can't survive is a reflection of reality during wartime, then we were over at the outset.

I agree with iceaura, you can't compare what people see for 2 hours, and what people see for 2 minutes. so, Inapt comparison there buddy.

How is it a "reflection of reality during wartime?" Wars are big things with lots of moving parts, lots of incidents. It would seem to me a film so small in scope obviously cannot serve as an accurate reflection of the war's reality. What's worse is it appears to be reflecting the exception to reality and not the reality itself. Or do you think rapes such as the one depicted in this film are common?

Hey, I'd go see it if I could, but the 15 theatre showing is a bit limited. For all the hubbub, I'd like to see what it's about. You know, so I can give a real opinion on it, rather than reading a bunch of people complaining about the movie who've never seen it, as was the way with Fahrenheit 9/11 and an Inconvenient Truth. So much talk from people who've never seen em. It's the same thing I'd do for any story, check the source myself, rather than listen to a bunch of spun newscasts, articles, and other web postings.

Oh, but I'd be giving money to the devil, big whoop. Mr. Carrie/Scarface/Carlito's Way/Mission Impossible doesn't need money. Heck, that's part of the reason why he made the film. Everyone knows documentaries and similar movies don't sell well. Nothing is gonna stop him or some other Hollywood big-shot from making another similar movie. He's not gonna score like Mel Gibson did with Passion of the Christ, a movie he practically made with his own money despite the supposed blasphemy. DePalma should have put a scene in where someone masturbated with a crucifix, that way the religious people would really get up in arms and watch the thing such as with The Butt-whoopin of the Christ. Ah, gotta love controversy.

At first I didn't care to Redacted because I'm tired of this current war movie fad as I wanna see something different, and entertaining, at the theatre, but now I do wanna see it. I guess I'll just buy it on DVD instead to watch on my own as I prefer that environment for sit-down-and-watch, pay-close-attention, controversial, docu-style movies.

- N

First-hand knowledge is always preferable, but I think you're being too harsh on those who have complaints about the film without ever having seen it.

For starters, on a purely theoretical level, people make educated decisions all the time about things they have no direct knowledge of (Should I skydive? Would I like to getting shot?, etc.). They do this because they are able to assemble a powerful body of related experiences that put them in a position to make a logical guess about what the unknown represents. In the two examples I gave, a person could say no to skydiving because of relevant experiences with heights and no to getting shot because of knowledge about the effects of firearms and relevant experiences with lesser pains, etc.

In the case of Redacted, the movie's subject matter is enough for me. I have no desire to see a movie about men raping and killing a woman, regardless what the context is. It just doesn't interest me. Furthermore, knowing the filmaker's politics and knowing his intentions, I have little interest in subjecting myself to what amounts to a warped editorial being offered in terms that I consider hyperbole. Am I flawed somehow because I reached these conclusions and decided to avoid the film, regardless of its availability? I don't think so.

No, those reasons are fine to not want to see the movie. As I mentioned earlier, I didn't even wanna bother to see the film either. And I wasn't really referring to people who don't want to see the film, but rather those that criticize it without having seen it, saying the movie was this or that, did such-and-such, is way too liberal or conservative, etc etc without seeing it in context for themselves, in the manner as was done to Fahrenheit 9/11 and Inconvenient Truth because I saw many things taken out of context and argued about with in those films.

The only error in your judgement, in my opinion, of not wanting to see the movie is "I have little interest in subjecting myself to what amounts to a warped editorial being offered in terms that I consider hyperbole". That's an assumption based off not having watched the movie, the same thing other people have done to those previous movies. All your other reasons aren't assumptions though. If you don't wanna see a movie that has men raping and killing women regardless of the context, no prob.

- N

No, that's an assumption based on my knowledge of the director's comments, his intent and his methods — all of which I find questionable. This is the necessary sort of relevant experience I mentioned earlier, and the same standard can be applied to something like Michael Moore's film, in that one can research several basic tenets of the film and conclude he has lied or manipulated the truth. So why bother seeing it?

There is, to the one, the assertion that the larger pattern will be reflected in its components. De Palma has already commented to that. To the other, though, it's easier to cheer the concept of warfare if it remains a polymerized, macroscopic notion. Bad things happen, war is hell. Right, this we know. Looking at the detail, though, it becomes harder to simply write off the bad things. It becomes harder to write off each dead soldier. It becomes harder to write off each revenge killing. It becomes harder to simply leave it at a witticism when one must choose whether or not to acknowledge individual human beings.

I would also ask you to remember that what you see in art is also a reflection of yourself. For instance, this statement—

—and the accompaniment question—

—are reflective of you, not De Palma or the war.

To answer the question, though, it depends on how we define "common". This is certainly not the only atrocity to occur at the hands of our soldiers, while at the same time it is, simply, tactically inadvisable to be raping people left and right. In order to do that, you need to resort to a broader, metaphorical notion of rape, which is, in fact, what De Palma did:

Thus, the story and image of a rape and murder serves as a symbolic assertion, not a literal representation of an entire war. From the Fresh Air interview:

There is plenty about Redacted to consider. See Patricia Morris' review of the film for an example:

And while I'm aware that people who rush to decry films as you've denounced Redacted generally aren't interested in this degree of analysis, but all the discussion of classic and updated"Brechtian" perspectives, comparative musicology, plot progressions and script points, fables, upanishads, and digital cinematography lend toward a central artistic interpretation at the heart of why this film so offends conservatives and prescribes so many empty seats at any given screening:

Or as NPR critic David Edelstein explains:

There's a lot more going on than shallow criticisms of "Hollywood" suggest. Art is generally more subtle than your questions are prepared to admit. This film was never made to put butts in seats. Its value will be reflective, when people look back at this part of the Bush Wars and consider the indictment—"This is war; we are all culpable"—against whatever outcome we have measured at that point. How will it look in ten years' time if we're still losing fifty people a month? How will it look if we're at war in Iran, losing more than that? How will it look if Iraq is stabilized? What will we learn about how we view warfare while it is going on? Our associate might suggest that Redacted is "basically an enemy propaganda film", but it also fights a greater enemy: warfare itself. And where Madanthonywayne and others might charge the film is akin to treason, I don't think Mr. De Palma would disagree if I assert, as I believe, that there is scarcely a better time—perhaps none at all—to examine the value of and values involved in warfare than when our nation is embroiled in a war.
______________________

Notes:

Kaufman, Anthony. "Brian De Palma Explains Himself". The Village Voice. October 2, 2007. See http://www.villagevoice.com/film/074...,77943,20.html

Davies, Dave. "Director Brian De Palma Digs Into 'Redacted' Story". Fresh Air. November 14, 2007. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16289254

Morris, Patricia. "Redacted: a film about us by Brian de Palma ". LondonGrip.com. September, 2008. See http://www.londongrip.com/LondonGrip...ia_Morris.html

Edelstein, David. "Brian De Palma, Implicating Us All in 'Redacted'". Fresh Air. November 16, 2007. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16355491

Tiassa, I fully understand why the concept I'm advocating can be hard to swallow. And honestly, I'm sorry to say I don't have an explanation for your grievances. I myself don't understand why the kind of behavior you're denouncing, which is behavior that I denounce as well, has become so prevalent to the conservative identity in the public sphere. But that's still irrelevant. By lumping all conservatives together in one group when you go on your attacks, you attack both the innocent with the guilty for the crime of the guilty. If instead your intention is to attack conservatives for letting dishonest tactics become the norm for their identity, then I'd feel you were completely justified. But that's not the position you're currently taking. Rather, you directly implicate me, along with other conservatives like me, for something that someone else did.

EDIT: Also, just noticed this. When did I ever say I don't like Democrats?

It's called guilt by association, Ash.

And in many cases, it's more sinister than that, because people are routinely corralled into ideological camps they obviously don't fit with simply because it's easier for Tiassa to label them and attack their arguments.

More people have watched Loose Change. So your theory isn't sound. People didn't watch the Iraq War movies because they're to depressing. When are you conservatives going to learn that those oppose your policies, oppose your policies, not America. But we'll see how supportive your asses are when Hillary is in the White House. Lets see how much support, you show a wartime President that isn't a right wing wacknut.

And we can then imagine, twenty years from now, that as the inculcated complete reality: the US people looking back with pride on what happened to Fallujah, as something that reflects well on the US as a nation - by logical extension.

And omission of "backdrop". Which is one of the technical advances of the '30s, in making such films.

About the mercenaries, the initial welcome by the Fallujans, the events of the 82nd Airborne's tenure, the subsequent re-assaults on Fallujah, and the exported troubles like the Jordan bombing and the refugees - that kind of stuff "backdrop", also? Lotta interviews with Fallujans of various sorts going into this project ?

I'm sorry I got too rhetorical for you.

Very well. I am sorry I lumped you in with conservatives whose behavior you disapprove of. As you have so aptly reminded me, it is unfair to generalize about the diverse shortcomings of conservative political philosophy and arguments.

Very well. I'm sorry I don't disclaim myself enough to satisfy your demand for political correctness.

In order to satisfy your complaint, I am prepared to restate myself:

Congratulations, anti-Hollywood, jingoistic, artistically-illiterate conservatives whose arguments suggest that the only value of art is measured in financial terms because you've decided to step out on a jingoistic limb and make some illiterate criticism that, as your subsequent arguments will show, you haven't the intellectual or creative capacity to comprehend despite your chest-puffing, self-assured pretense of knowledge! Your caricature of the very kind of stupidity rampant among your ilk that makes people so frustrated with the idea that we're obliged to give you a whit's worth of respect since everything you say is so goddamned disingenuous that the only suggestion you have a clue is how willing you are to custom-tailor your generally contemptuous mythology in pursuit of some kind of imaginary ego points because it's just too dangerous to your ambitious illusions to actually have a political discussion that honestly considers the scope and scale of an issue really is saving the world! Good job! Oh, a certain fraction of you that acts as if you live for this kind of pointless, moronic excuse for discussion ought to be so proud of your specific portion!

Is that good enough to satisfy the 3:1 "silent majority" of conservatives?

(And does that whole 3:1 "silent majority" really think Joe Lieberman is a f@cking Democrat? Maybe y'all missed that chapter.)

Anyone who is rationale objects to warfare. However, the rationale person also realizes warfare is a very necessary part of human existence. I reject the word "cheer," because it implies obvious jingoism, which isn't always rationale. However, patriotism and nationalism have their functions and can serve a purpose, too. And one can easily imagine that there are times when people need to "cheer" for a war, because saying nothing or doing the opposite will invariably lead to horrors beyond the effects of the war itself.

It becomes harder sure, but it doesn't remove the fact that war is a very real and necessary tool of existence and statecraft. And at some point, one has to question the usefulness of such reductionism, in that by focusing on the finer points, the overall essence is forgotten or muddled to a point that it becomes something it is not. A crude metaphor that might better explain what I mean would involve something like pornography, where the endless fixation of the camera on the meeting of the genitalia reduces the sexual act to something extremely mechanical and barbaric. In other words, the minutia isn't always terribly informative when considering the whole of something.

I disagree, but you talk about his metaphor later, so I'll respond then...

I think the man's choice of what he bases his movie around should be examined. He did not pick an incident where American soldiers liberated someone or helped a child, etc. He chose a rape. That's his right, of course, but the reasons behind his decision, which you come to later, should be examined.

DePalma says: "You could do Haditha, you could do Abu Ghraib, but it clicked with me because I did a similar story with Vietnam, and, of course, you do, in fact, rape the country. ... It's a big metaphor. You destroy the country: burned, dead, ravished." To which you add, " Thus, the story and image of a rape and murder serves as a symbolic assertion, not a literal representation of an entire war."

I disagree with the rape metaphor, because it implies a crime of passion that is undertaken to relieve some greater tension. I suppose, in the terms of the film, one could argue that the US went to Iraq to relieve its post-9/11 passions and tensions, but that doesn't deal with the "taking" that is implicit in the idea of rape. What are we taking from Iraq? Some would say oil. But I don't buy that, if for nothing else than the fact it doesn't square with our notion of nation-building, an approach that was largely absent from our endeavors in Vietnam.

Rape, in terms of war, also implies something more akin to a Roman way of war, or more recently an Imperialist Japanese way of war, than the calmer, tamer US version. We are not making off with the women, nor are we plundering and generally abusing the population. We will not, as has been documented numerous times, even consider attacking people ensconced in mosques. Our dealings with Iraqi culture, while bumbling and inept, are not disrespectful and bent on annihilation or displacement.

I'm all for film analysis, but I tend to think a lot of your critics are giving DePalma (a director who has never impressed me much) too much credit here. This is a blunt and unwieldy tool he has created for his politics and the purposes therein. Based on other reviews I have read, it does not seem as subtle or as well put together as these folks allege. Besides the few you have posted here, I've seen none (beyond the New Yorker's guarded appreciation) that give it positive marks for the sort of craftsmanship or editorial control these passages describe.

Is it shallow? No, I don't think so, and I've certainly never said so. Is it well thought out? I don't think so. It claims to be addressing the war. You seem to claim it is addressing all wars. I can't see that as being the case, regardless of the intent of its creator.

Maybe not, but perhaps the public would be better served by films that are not obvious propaganda pieces? (Syriana comes to mind. I have problems with that film, but I applaud its muddled attempt at honesty and objectivity). Torture, for example, is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but to crudely paraphrase one reviewer, "Rendition" isn't a film that will do so, because the deck is so stacked in one direction that the film's essential question is ridiculous and moot. And thus, the film ends up insulting its audiences' intelligence with a false choice. I think "Redacted" is somewhat similar. Being against the film's premise is almost akin to being for rape. Nobody is "for" rape. But unfortunately that moral reaction in no way approaches the reality of being for or against the war, which is what the filmmaker is after, because the crime clearly isn't the war.

To continue that line of thinking, I also decry the notion that this film "implicates" us all, as if approving of a war, or "cheering" for it is the same thing (morally speaking) as committing or condoning a violent crime. The two have nothing to do with each other, and furthermore, the soldiers who committed this act were tried and sentenced to serious time in jail, which, if one follows this faulty line of logic, would ameliorate or absolve our collective guilt: We recognized the wrong, we punished it. But the film isn't interested in that (or the problems with it). It's more concerned about the shame and blame game, and in that respect, it appears to be a rather ordinary piece of agitprop.