"The reasons we go to war always matter."
I often strive for objectivity. One aspect of that is being aware of the failings of my favorite creators. For example, while I will endlessly encourage people to read Otherland and The War of the Flowers and love Tad Williams for them, I cannot honestly recommend his Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series. Some creators have to grow into things. Some have works of brilliance which you have to find in the midst of mediocre things. That's just how it is. Still, when someone whose work I'm invested in doesn't meet my expectations, it's a rather unpleasant experience.
Which is why I am so very glad that Green Zone actually exceeded my expectations.
Green Zone, for those of you who don't know, is a piece of recent historical fiction about the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq following the invasion. Inspired in large part by the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, it was written by Brian Helgeland and directed by Paul Greengrass, the man who directed The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. And it stars Matt Damon as a soldier in charge of a team searching for WMD. (...My interest in this movie comes as a shock to no one.) It's one half political thriller, one quarter action movie, and one quarter war movie.
It had me completely from the start, which used radio over the credits to establish the setting as Baghdad during the initial "Shock and Awe" campaign and then showing the reaction of Iraqis. Admittedly, some high-ranking Iraqis who prove to be important to the plot, but this establishes from the start that the movie is interested in some big picture ideas and effects, even if it keeps itself largely to a strong thriller plot.
This movie made me happy on so many levels. I love the plot. It's intelligent and demands your attention without being overly convoluted, and ties different elements together very well. I like the characters, they're all wonderfully well-performed and incredibly human, whether they're purely fictional or inspired by actual figures. And the budget for this movie? Shows. Apparently it was shot in Morocco, Spain, and England. You would swear it was actually shot in Iraq. The sets, and the set pieces, are amazing. And it has wonderful Greengrass touches like sweeping aerial shots and pitch-perfect pacing.
I also admire how it doesn't just become an anti-Bush rant. For a movie about uncovering the fact that the WMD didn't exist, it's remarkably objective. It's about what's happening on the ground, and the people there don't have time to make speeches about how Bush sucks because they're too involved in what's going on right here right now. There's one scene which highlights how very wrong Bush was when he declared the "mission accomplished," but the film is pretty apolitical, beyond the inherent political implications of its subject matter.
It's really amazing how much of a time capsule something set so recently can be. It fascinates me to be reminded of how convinced so many people were that Iraq had WMD, to see that moment right before the predictions of civil war started coming true. It seems like a different world, in many ways, but that was just a few years ago, and played such a huge part in creating the world now.
Are there flaws? Of course. I know some people don't like Greengrass' camerawork, and it's definitely in evidence here (though I didn't think this was as dizzying as his Bourne movies. ...possibly that's due to the fact there are less chase scenes and such.). I admit I don't understand his attachment to grainy film at times, which gets particularly obvious in some of the night scenes. I agree with Kenneth Turan that the action at the end does get too Hollywood. And there are little bits here and there which flirt with being anvilicious.None of that keeps it from being an excellent movie.
It is inevitably going to be compared to the Bourne movies. To which I say, Green Zone is a better film than any of those (yes, even Ultimatum). Given recent events, it is also probably going to be compared to The Hurt Locker. To which I say, they're completely different kinds of films. The Hurt Locker is a close drama about a few soldiers and the effect of the environment of war upon them. Green Zone is a large-scale political thriller. The Hurt Locker is the better film, certainly, it's a complete masterpiece. But The Hurt Locker is about soldiers, it just happens to view them through the lens of the Iraq War. Green Zone is explicitly about the Iraq War, what caused it and what the consequences were. Dismissing Green Zone just because a "better" Iraq War movie was around last year is ridiculous.
It's an intelligent, entertaining thriller with strong performances and marvelous production values. And I think it's a movie that needed to be made, and needs to be seen. The truth behind the invasion of Iraq, as things like the inquiry in Britain show, is still not fully understood. It's something that needs to be faced and talked about. If a good movie can help people do that, that's great.
...tl;dr: Go see Green Zone. Please.
Which is why I am so very glad that Green Zone actually exceeded my expectations.
Green Zone, for those of you who don't know, is a piece of recent historical fiction about the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq following the invasion. Inspired in large part by the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, it was written by Brian Helgeland and directed by Paul Greengrass, the man who directed The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. And it stars Matt Damon as a soldier in charge of a team searching for WMD. (...My interest in this movie comes as a shock to no one.) It's one half political thriller, one quarter action movie, and one quarter war movie.
It had me completely from the start, which used radio over the credits to establish the setting as Baghdad during the initial "Shock and Awe" campaign and then showing the reaction of Iraqis. Admittedly, some high-ranking Iraqis who prove to be important to the plot, but this establishes from the start that the movie is interested in some big picture ideas and effects, even if it keeps itself largely to a strong thriller plot.
This movie made me happy on so many levels. I love the plot. It's intelligent and demands your attention without being overly convoluted, and ties different elements together very well. I like the characters, they're all wonderfully well-performed and incredibly human, whether they're purely fictional or inspired by actual figures. And the budget for this movie? Shows. Apparently it was shot in Morocco, Spain, and England. You would swear it was actually shot in Iraq. The sets, and the set pieces, are amazing. And it has wonderful Greengrass touches like sweeping aerial shots and pitch-perfect pacing.
I also admire how it doesn't just become an anti-Bush rant. For a movie about uncovering the fact that the WMD didn't exist, it's remarkably objective. It's about what's happening on the ground, and the people there don't have time to make speeches about how Bush sucks because they're too involved in what's going on right here right now. There's one scene which highlights how very wrong Bush was when he declared the "mission accomplished," but the film is pretty apolitical, beyond the inherent political implications of its subject matter.
It's really amazing how much of a time capsule something set so recently can be. It fascinates me to be reminded of how convinced so many people were that Iraq had WMD, to see that moment right before the predictions of civil war started coming true. It seems like a different world, in many ways, but that was just a few years ago, and played such a huge part in creating the world now.
Are there flaws? Of course. I know some people don't like Greengrass' camerawork, and it's definitely in evidence here (though I didn't think this was as dizzying as his Bourne movies. ...possibly that's due to the fact there are less chase scenes and such.). I admit I don't understand his attachment to grainy film at times, which gets particularly obvious in some of the night scenes. I agree with Kenneth Turan that the action at the end does get too Hollywood. And there are little bits here and there which flirt with being anvilicious.None of that keeps it from being an excellent movie.
It is inevitably going to be compared to the Bourne movies. To which I say, Green Zone is a better film than any of those (yes, even Ultimatum). Given recent events, it is also probably going to be compared to The Hurt Locker. To which I say, they're completely different kinds of films. The Hurt Locker is a close drama about a few soldiers and the effect of the environment of war upon them. Green Zone is a large-scale political thriller. The Hurt Locker is the better film, certainly, it's a complete masterpiece. But The Hurt Locker is about soldiers, it just happens to view them through the lens of the Iraq War. Green Zone is explicitly about the Iraq War, what caused it and what the consequences were. Dismissing Green Zone just because a "better" Iraq War movie was around last year is ridiculous.
It's an intelligent, entertaining thriller with strong performances and marvelous production values. And I think it's a movie that needed to be made, and needs to be seen. The truth behind the invasion of Iraq, as things like the inquiry in Britain show, is still not fully understood. It's something that needs to be faced and talked about. If a good movie can help people do that, that's great.
...tl;dr: Go see Green Zone. Please.