GREEN ZONE...hmmm...

[George Bellefontaine]

I loved the teaming of Director Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon in the Bourne Ultimatum and Bourne Supremacy, so I really hoped for something as good with their teaming for Green Zone, but alas, there is a bit of a letdown. Green Zone is an Iraq War themed film, presented almost documentary style and deals with the WMD, or lack thereof after Saddam flees the scene. Greengrass's deliberate attempt to make that fine line between truth and fiction even finer in favor of truth, sorta of makes me feel he is one angry dude. Well all of this gets in the way of what could have been a good piece of FICTION if it had been treated as such. Many Americans who are fed up with filmmaker attacks on their government and the Iraq war will probably dislike this film immensely. If you ignore the truth part and watch it for its fiction, you may enjoy it a lot more. That's what I did, and there was enough action and good acting by Damon and company to make my purchase worthwhile. I'll definitely watch it again . But please, Mr. Greengrass, lighten up, man. And for God's sake, stop overdoing the shaky camera thing. Please Please Please.

[Chris D]

Actually, I just watched it last night too. And for those that don't know, I'm currently in Baghdad for a year, in the exact kind of environment depicted in this movie, which I thought was very realistic. For example, the scene where Matt Damon goes into the embassy, and into the chow hall, is very realistic, even if it's not all that exciting. Over here, yes, there can be a stark difference in feel between going from a very industrial, or hardship, or combat environment right into a safe, secure, relaxed area like a dining hall or such. (and although I'm currently visiting the embassy, I'm sure there are swimming pools somewhere, but I haven't visited any--my job here is rather different)

Anyway, back to the movie... I agree with George. I was hoping for more, but was disappointed that Mr. Greengrass seems to be rather angry, and does not even hide his agenda that he sets with this movie. Basically, it was one big overt middle finger to President Bush, whether you agree with it or not.

I've heard many other comments about the "shaky cam" thing on this movie and others, too.

Overall, I would say that it was a decent movie, with decent acting, realistic settings and scenarios, and great action. But for me, the WAYYYYY overt political agenda in making this movie severely detracted. I kept thinking, "sheesh, Greengrass, lay off the politically slanted preaching, and let me enjoy the movie!" So in the end, I'm going with :25: out of :5:. I might watch again, but not worth a purchase. (it might be if the liberal ranting didn't kill it)

[Ovation]

I haven't read the book upon which it is based, nor have I seen the film, but my principle area of academic research is on feature films based on historical events, so I intend to do both (ordinarily, this would be too contemporary for my usual work, but I teach Modern Middle Eastern History fairly regularly, and I touch upon more contemporary topics in that course than in most other history courses I teach).

All of this to say that it is possible (again, only conjecture based on past experience, so I could be totally wrong here) the film is merely being faithful to the perspective of the book. I look forward to learning more about the book and the film.

[David Meek]

Like Sir George the teaming up of Greengrass and Damon again was enough to get me to order this one. As soon as it arrives (Amazon, where is it?) it'll jump into the player. I'm hoping to be able to filter out the political message and enjoy the movie on its own merits. On the other hand, it's good to hear from Chris that the settings have been captured realistically. Anyway, I'm looking forward to this one.

Paul, it would be really interesting to get your thoughts on this film and the book once you've read/watched them.

[George Bellefontaine]

I didn't read the book, Paul, so it's hard to comment on whether or not the film is merely being faithful to it, but I still feel that Greengrass's anger got in the way of what would have been a better film had it not been made to appear as fact rather than fiction. But like Tex said, it's good to know that Greengrass got something correct, as far as the realistic settings is concerned
anyway.

[Chris D]

Scene after invasion:

Greg Kinnear (CIA Agent who arranged WMD "Intel"): "Who cares? The reason we went to war isn't important anymore. That's behind us."

Matt Damon: "Not important? Of COURSE it's important! That's the only reason we went to war. We declared war based on lies! This whole war is a lie! Our government lied! We're killing people because our President lied!"

(not exactly subtle political commentary... and interesting how the "fiction" chooses to only include certain facts from true history, and call itself "fiction" because it makes up others to reinforce the same facts while excluding many other information bits) Either it's a true story, or it's not. A fiction story set in an accurate historical events is still a fiction story.

EDIT: spoiler tags added to be safe

[Chris D]

FWIW, even with the political agenda of the movie, as I was watching it, I still was going to go with about 3.5 stars, until the end where Greengrass just pulls out all stops from the political agenda, and pours it on thick. That ruined it even more. He might as well just had Matt Damon stop was he was doing, turn to the camera, and start spouting political sound bytes like he was a talk show host. (which he, in fact does, only turned to some other character like Kinnear as I mention, instead of saying it 15 degrees further left directly into the camera)

[Ovation]

The book is listed as a non-fiction book (which does not mean it is accurate, only that it does not intend to present fiction in the traditional sense of the word). I am under no illusions that some heavy-handedness is at play here--even the truth can be presented in an overbearing, heavy-handed fashion (I make no judgement about the truth, or lack thereof, in this movie--it's a general observation).

In my experience, though, it frequently happens that the angriest commentator (pundit, artist, writer, film-maker, etc.) about a political topic is one who once fervently believed and supported something that turned out to be a less than honest representation of reality as they came to perceive it (most neo-conservative political commentators and theorists began their intellectual lives as Marxists or something similarly left of centre and became disappointed--rightly or wrongly, I leave to a discussion elsewhere, but it is simply an example). Perhaps Greengrass (or the author of the book) feels particularly betrayed and this clouded his presentation. Now I really want to tackle the film and the book but I have no time for either in the near future, sadly. Perhaps the movie in a week or two, but the book will have to wait for the fall.

[Burke Strickland]

It is OK to not like the movie for whatever reasons, but what happened to hiding spoilers in these discussions like this? Even if we end up agreeing with your conclusions, some of us who have not see the movie yet may want to watch it without having had major plot points and dialog revealed in advance.

Thanks,
Burke

[sikoniko]

just watched the movie.. found this article online written by the guy who was the consultant and inspiration for Millers character.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/13/richard-monty-gonzales-green-zone-iraq-adviser-baghdad-bourne-judith-miller/

[George Bellefontaine]

I checked out the book. It was written by a Washington Post Bureau Chief who has spent more time in Iraq than any American journalist. From the reviews it does indeed appear to be a devastating indictment of the Bush Administration.

[Chris D]

Good point, Burke. I don't think any of the discussion so far gives away any plot points, (I think anyone who seeks out this movie knows that it's about searching for WMD in Iraq and not finding it) but I don't have any problem if anyone thinks spoiler tags should be added to any part of this. Just to be safe, I've gone back and put spoilers around the conversation I reference, although I don't think that gives away anything either.

sikoniko- WOW. That's a very attention grabbing article you reference there. Unfortunately, the percentage of "Green Zone" viewers that will ever read that article, or hear that information, is tiny.

On a completely different note, something I forgot to mention is that I just happened to watch another film the night before I watched Green Zone, that ALSO starred Yigal Naor. In "Green Zone", he plays the lead Iraqi military officer that they are pursuing to determine the origination of the intelligence. The previous night, I watched "House of Saddam", in which he plays Saddam Hussein. I think he plays both parts very admirably, and as a side note, I do recommend "House of Saddam" to learn more about the man and his regime. It was very interesting. It was a BBC special drama series in something like 4 parts, kind of like a HBO mini-series special.

[sikoniko]

I think there are always multiple truths to every event and history will have its own spin on this event. Regardless of what started it, my friend spent several years over there and he said first hand that the people of that country are glad that Saddam is gone.

To me, the thing that stood out the most in this movie isn't whether they found WMDs, but how we (the US) chose to handle the force feeding of "democracy" on the people. I understand that the movie was fiction, but I believe that is what was illustrated by the story. I'm trying to stay away from touchy subjects, as I understand this can get heated, but as someone who supports the war, I am objective enough to say that we could have done A LOT better after shock and awe...

I also believe that since this movie is based on very recent events, there should have been a disclaimer at the beginning to say that this is fiction, because it is presented in a very believable way as fact. Even law and order gives a disclaimer, and in most events it is based on real events...

[Alaric]

Am I the only human alive that recalls a Russian General stating that of course the WMD program existed. It was transported to Syria. I also seem to recall a nuclear plant (in Syria!) being flattened by the Israelis a few years ago. Curioser and curioser......

[George Bellefontaine]

Good point, Burke. I don't think any of the discussion so far gives away any plot points, (I think anyone who seeks out this movie knows that it's about searching for WMD in Iraq and not finding it) but I don't have any problem if anyone thinks spoiler tags should be added to any part of this. Just to be safe, I've gone back and put spoilers around the conversation I reference, although I don't think that gives away anything either.

I didn't feel your discussion gave away any plot points either, Chris, otherwise, as a mod here, I would have added the spoiler tags myself. However, I suppose it doesn't hurt to add them. I don't use spoiler tags in any of my little reviews because the curious are probably going to click on them anyway, but it wouldn't matter because I am always careful not to give away plot twists or endings.

[David Meek]

Am I the only human alive that recalls a Russian General stating that of course the WMD program existed. It was transported to Syria. I also seem to recall a nuclear plant (in Syria!) being flattened by the Israelis a few years ago. Curioser and curioser......

Lee, I remember the Israeli attack on that clandestine reactor but hadn't heard about the WMD comments. I looked it up and found this story under a Washington Times byline.

Story

Apologies for going so far off topic, but this is interesting stuff!

[George Bellefontaine]

Interesting article, Tex.

[Ovation]

Just picked up the book today--too curious to let this pass (even though I've got loads of reading going on already). I'll do a quick skim to get a sense of it and maybe catch the film later this week or next.

[George Bellefontaine]

Looking forward to your thoughts on the book and the film, Paul.

[Ovation]

Got the film for a one week rental (hope I have time to watch it). I've already Greengrass' introduction to the edition of the book I bought and he says the film is not an adaptation of the book but rather leans on the book as source material for his own story (this is similar to the makers of Valkyrie relying on the work of a former professor of mine, Peter Hoffman, but not adapting one of his books specifically. In the case of Green Zone, I've not read enough of the book yet to determine if the film mirrors the book's politics, but when I do, I'll report back.

[Ovation]

Saw the film. Still reading the book. Quick impressions: Reminded me of some 70s era political conspiracy movies where very plausible external scenario/setting has, at its heart, a rather dramatic (and less plausible, though not impossible) element that gives it the jolt a "political thriller" needs for entertainment value. I'll have more to say once I've finished the book.

As a political thriller, in a plausible physical setting, I'd rank it as a pretty good movie. As actual commentary on current events, I'm still mulling it over and want to finish the book before offering an opinion.

[theblue]

I just watched the movie and really liked it. Nothing wrong with an action movie that could happen in real life making it to the screen every now an then.

[wettou]

Not my favorite

[George Bellefontaine]

Nothing wrong with an action movie that could happen in real life making it to the screen every now an then.

And that's exactly the way you have to watch this film if you want to enjoy it.

[Ovation]

I've read the book. It affords an excellent insight into what went wrong (and right) in the first year of the US occupation of Iraq. I know this is not a politics board, so I will not go into detail--I will only say that if even half the things in the book are accurate, then some serious mea culpas are owed.

How does the film tie into the book? Very loosely. The phrase "inspired by" rather than "based upon" is entirely appropriate in this case (to the filmmaker's credit). The mood of the film relies heavily on some sections of the book, but the plot is NOT lifted from the book. As I suspected when I watched the film (before I read the book), the film story uses the book to establish a setting and then invents its own plot. Nothing wrong with that as long as the filmmakers do not explicitly claim their version is "the truth", and they do not (unlike Oliver Stone and JFK--but that's for another debate).

I do have one concern about the film and its relationship to the book. I suspect that many viewers will assume a factual basis for the plot where none exists, particularly as it is associated with a non-fiction book. This is exactly the kind of thing that motivated me in my graduate work and continues to influence how I teach certain subjects, so I will definitely incorporate both the film and book into future classes. Together, they will provide an important lesson on the need for critical viewing, as well as reading, skills.

I liked the film. I really liked the book. I recommend it to anyone who is interested.

[George Bellefontaine]

Think I'll pick up that book. It sounds interesting. As far as the film goes, I pointed out at the beginning of this thread that the documentary style, along with a few other things the filmmaker threw in, was going to make this appear to some as though it were a true story, rather than a piece of fiction based on factual events. Watching it as a piece of fiction made the experience much more enjoyable for me.

[Chris D]

Good stuff, Ovation. I'd like to read the book too. I try to challenge myself intellectually with material from various perspectives and political stances. With this one, though, I see myself wildly cheering and/or beating my head against a wall in frustration as I read it. Maybe even both in the same page.

[Ovation]

The book does not take a polemical tone. It is very "matter of fact" and doesn't advance anything that is not easily corroborated. I would have liked a bit more precision in identifying some sources, but that is the difference between journalism and history (and why I prefer the latter--though good journalism is important). But the urge to "bash your head against the wall" did rise up in me on several occasions. One chapter is entitled "Missed Opportunities"--I think that phrase sums up the book's argument rather well.

[David Meek]

I'm going to stay on the side of the "intelligent action thriller" and not cross into the political mine-field here. I greatly enjoyed the film, and surprisingly, Jen enjoyed it every bit as much as I did. The Greengrass/Damon combination (Bourne Ultimatum, Bourne Supremacy) once again did not disappoint. Taut, fast-paced all the way, intelligent, well acted, well filmed... and the set designers and foremen should be nominated for an Oscar. Even though the outdoor scenes were filmed in Spain and Morocco, I felt like I was in Iraq. Truly amazing. I wasn't bothered by the handheld camera shots at all. If anything they added to the "you are there" feeling. Matt Damon carried off the role of a small unit leader to a tee. Of course, having most of his on-screen team made up of veterans gave their actions all the authenticity in the world.

If I had to nit-pick, the filtered color palette is just about my only gripe. I really hope a new trend in movies comes along soon; one that has a natural color balance to it.

Regardless, I have to give Green Zone a strong :4: out of :5:.

Some day when I've got more time and mental reserves available, it'd be cool to dig into the truth vs fiction side of the subject. But not right now. G'night.

[George Bellefontaine]

I wasn't bothered by the handheld camera shots at all.

You'll change your mind on that, Tex, when you get to be my age, what with cataracts, high blood pressure pills and the rest of that crappola... :lol: You just don't need anything to make you squamish or dizzy.

Re: the political thing with Green Zone, I find it to be an excellent movie when you get the truth or fiction thing out of your mind. Greengrass and Damon are indeed great together. There's a new Bourne book out and maybe we'll see these two pair again.

[Alaric]

I checked out the book. It was written by a Washington Post Bureau Chief who has spent more time in Iraq than any American journalist. From the reviews it does indeed appear to be a devastating indictment of the Bush Administration.

The Washington Post doesn't like George Bush??? I'm stunned! Oh , wait. This is the third dimension and reality rules. What a relief! I thought for a moment the WP was relevant. . My bad.

[Alaric]

You'll change your mind on that, Tex, when you get to be my age, what with cataracts, high blood pressure pills and the rest of that crappola... You just don't need anything to make you squamish or dizzy.

I'm a George fan with that one.....

[George Bellefontaine]

The Washington Post doesn't like George Bush??? I'm stunned! Oh , wait. This is the third dimension and reality rules. What a relief! I thought for a moment the WP was relevant. . My bad.

Hi, Lee. Just some clarification since I'm not totally up on US politics. Are you saying the WP is anti-Republican ? I assume from the satirical tone of your post that they are. Don't want to start a political debate here, just curious as to what you meant.

[Ovation]

The Washington Post generally holds a left of centre (for the US--left of centre in the US is, on the world stage, a bit centre-right) editorial stance whereas the Washington Times has a right of centre (for the US) stance. The Post would be like the Toronto Star and the Times would be like the National Post (to put it in the Canadian mould).

I would just like to point out that the author of the book, at least in his book, does not follow the editorial stance of the paper in lockstep (it is not a collection of articles originally written for the paper, though a few articles for the paper do form the basis for a bit of the book).

I would categorize the book as critical of the methodology employed by the administration in the first year of occupation rather than an ideological critique of the occupation. This is not to say it does not have an ideological flavour, but that it is focused on procedures rather than broader political theories (though the latter are examined and discussed too, necessarily).

In short, despite the fact the author works for the Washington Post, it would be erroneous to assume the book precisely reflects a perspective that mirrors that of the editorial board of the Post.

[George Bellefontaine]

Thanks, Paul. I think I'll end the political discussion on this film as I'm sure it could easily get out of hand. I would rather discuss the film on its merits as a fictional peice of work.

[Ovation]

Fair enough. I tried my best not to "take a side" in order to avoid creating arguments that are not the purview of this particular board.

The more I think of it, the more the film reminds me of political thrillers from the 1970s (another film that reminded me of that kind of movie is one I watched last night--The International).

[George Bellefontaine]

The more I think of it, the more the film reminds me of political thrillers from the 1970s (another film that reminded me of that kind of movie is one I watched last night--The International).

It does indeed, Paul. As for The International, I really enjoyed that one.