Matthew Gazaille

Pols 3426
Comparative Essay
Best

The Glamorization and Polarization of Wartime Cinema

"The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug"

When attempting to locate the presence of propaganda within American cinema, a very

reliable genre to examine is that of the war film. Ever since the popularization of film, movies

detailing the events of various global conflicts have consistently remained in the limelight. Many

war movies, particularly those about the conflict in Vietnam, such as Kubrick’s Full Metal

Jacket and Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, are lauded as masterpieces. In recent years, however, the

political climate has shifted, and the United States has entered into an unjust war in the Middle

East. From this, we have witnessed the emergence of a polarized American audience; those who

are for the war, and those who are against it. In turn, we are able to see how cinema has evolved

as a result of this. When examining works such as The Hurt Locker, Green Zone, and War Dogs,

it is clear that these relatively popular films serve to embellish and beautify the United States

reckless invasion of Iraq.

As far as films go, these kinds of works tend to be extremely divisive. There are a num-

ber of such films that carry with them an exceptionally strong sentiment, one that typically

causes the film to fall into one of two marketable categories; those that act to glamorize the act of

war, and those that serve to demonize it. While each film is drastically different content-wise,

they tend to leave an overall impression that implies at least one of these messages to be true. In
addition to this, due to the contentious nature of the content that is portrayed in these works,

films revolving around real-life conflicts are taken extremely seriously by the public, more so

than other films with equally polarizing topics. (add more)

In 2008, right as President Bush ordered the removal of all United States troops stationed

in Iraq, Kathryn Bigelow released her blockbuster war movie, The Hurt Locker. This film fol-

lows the life of William James, a soldier and bomb defusal expert for the United States military.

While the film received high praise and was critically acclaimed for its storytelling, cinematogra-

phy, and sound design- it still has its share of problems. Many are quick to assume that -- due to

the sad nature of the movie -- the film is strictly against the conflict in Iraq, however, this is sim-

ply not the case. While it may sound outlandish, there exist many key scenes within the film that

are subtly coded in order to cater towards both pro-war and anti-war audiences. Depending on

the mindset of the viewer, they will place emphasis on certain scenes that accommodate their

perception of the conflict. While one audience member might cheer when the ‘bad guy blows

up’, others will undoubtedly feel solemn. The film leaves out a lot of factors such as dialogue

and character building in order to ensure it’s protagonist stay as neutral as possible. As a soldier,

William can fit whatever archetype the viewer throws at him; he can either be a rattled soldier

that has become disillusioned towards the United States’ involvement in Iraq, or he seen as a

fearless patriot who -- after everything he's been through-- decides to leave his family to enlist

once more.

Apart from making the protagonist of the film morally flexible, the director employed a

much more sinister strategy in order to deliver it’s agenda– it’s depiction of the enemy military
force, as well as Iraqi civilians, is done in a way to make it seem as if the occupation of Iraq was

not just warranted, but necessary. In one disturbing scene, Williams discovers the body of his

young civilian friend, Beckham, who had undergone a process -- against his will -- to install a

bomb within his corpse. This entirely fictional scene does more than enough to demonize the en-

emy, and in turn, suggest the inferiority of Iraq as a country. By showing that they are willing to

kill their own civilians, especially someone like a child, is to essentially mark them as savages.

Even though public opinion at the time was heavily shifted towards ending the conflict, films

such as Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker can serve as unwitting pro-army propaganda, regardless of

the fact that it shows the bleak realities of war. (add a few more lines)

In a similar fashion to Stone’s JFK, the 2010 war film Green Zone, directed by Paul

Greengrass, drove a rather interesting -- albeit, unproven -- conspiracy theory into the minds of

movie-goers; that the United States military knowingly went off bogus intelligence in order to in-

vade Iraq. While marketed mainly as an action movie, this film's primary focus is on the bureau-

cracy at play in the aptly titled “green zone”, or allied territory in Iraq. The film follows Roy

Miller, an officer for the United States military. Over the course of the narrative, the officer un-

earths a conspiracy that is being carried out by the Department of Defense. Particularly, Officer

Miller and his fellow soldiers have been tasked with searching Iraq for weapons that do not re-

ally exist. This movie suggests government corruption at the highest level– spinning a fabricated

narrative that has the necessary level of logic and plausibility required to convince viewers of it’s

truthfulness. Propaganda such as this can be extremely detrimental to society for a variety of rea-

sons. At the base level, it further strains the already tenuous ties between the public, and the fed-
eral government. When typically discussing propaganda, one does not immediately lump in films

such as this due to the message it is trying to convey. In most instances where ‘propaganda’ is

discussed, such as in schools, it is usually in the form of a pro-government or pro-nationalist

message. In the case of this film, it serves to sow discord among the people and create distrust to-

wards the government. It can be argued that this is just as -- if not more -- damaging form of pro-

paganda. Both have the indisputable ability to shift the public’s perception of controversial

events, and even turn the people against their own government.

The issue with Green Zone arises from the fact that it is presented as a re-telling of the

actual events surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. By doing this, the director is able to instill a

sense of legitimacy within his work, even though the original script was written out of specula-

tion. While it may very well be possible that there is some form of truth to these allegations set

forth in the film, it is simply unethical to present it as a mirror to reality. During the later portion

of the movie, Al-Rawi, an Iraqi General, reveals to Miller; “your government wanted to hear the

lie, Mr. Miller.. they wanted Saddam out and they did exactly what they had to do.. this is why

you are here..” (Greengrass, Green Zone) While movie-goers won’t exactly be easily tricked by

this narrative, it still has the ability to be passed among susceptible individuals.

For example; envision a young person who happens to be going to see his first R rated

movie– that movie happens to be Green Zone. Without possessing any prior knowledge regard-

ing the Iraq invasion, this particular audience member is very likely to accept this as a histori-

cally accurate account of events. That is to say, if someone does not know much about the topic

at hand, they are more likely to take everything at face value. Moreover, If one views this from a
global standpoint, these types of films can be said to disproportionately persuade those foreign to

the States, than those who call it home. American blockbuster films such as Green Zone are

heavily marketed and distributed to foreign audiences, particularly in Asia and Europe. When the

only way to learn about the affairs of other countries is through news and popular media, the

mind becomes a great deal more receptive to whatever kind of archetype is being supplied by

these platforms. The same could be said about wartime cinema; each different conflict is incredi-

bly intricate and three-dimensional– no one movie has the power to encapsulate the topic in its

entirety.

Another example of war-fueled propaganda infiltrating the screens of American cinema

is the 2016 movie War Dogs, directed by Todd Phillips. Unlike the aforementioned films, this

political comedy takes place -- for a majority of the film -- within the United States during the

war efforts in Iraq. It follows two young men, Ephraim and David, as they begin selling guns and

combat equipment to the United States military as private contractors. This practice is seemingly

innocent enough at first, but starts to become quite shady once the duo land an otherwise un-fill-

able contract. This film does a wonderfully good job at glamorizing the war, whether it intended

to or not. The two would-be arms dealers are given everything they could ever ask for– all of

time, directly benefiting from bloodshed in Iraq. This film, as a whole, is indicative of the way

the United States government treats war like a business. While this may seem to invalidate the

claim that this movie sensationalizes the war, This is simply not the case. There is little to no de-

velopment for the two main protagonists; They get involved in a shady and unethical practice,

make a lot of money doing it, get caught by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and finally, they
get off with a slap on the wrist. While Ephraim had to face a few years in prison for his crimes,

David is merely placed on house arrest in his lavish apartment– the apartment he bought with

blood money. In addition to this, the mastermind of the entire pentagon deal, the character por-

trayed by Bradley Cooper, is never caught.

By showing these two opportunists make an exorbitant amount of money off the lives of

enemy combatants, the viewer reaches a dilemma; should they root for these two likable goof-

balls? Or should they condemn them for attributing to the bloodshed? This film is extremely out

of touch with reality– seeing as they attempted to show David’s apparent protestation of the War

solely through his relationship with Iz. This film was unable to supply an intriguing narrative,

filling many of the scenes with guns, drugs, and luxury items in order to further glamorize and

portray the two individuals successes. Much like Green Zone, this is a work of semi-fiction– bas-

ing the film’s characters and events off fact, David Packouz and Ephraim Diveroli were two real

life individuals who profited off the Iraq war. Because this film is supposed to supply a some-

what accurate portrayal of facts, it makes very little sense to cheapen it with crude comedy and

brash consumerism at every corner. This not only undermines the crimes committed by the real

AEY, it makes it seem like the whole situation is a joke- a comedy of errors, two people getting

in way over their heads. This is an unfaithful retelling of the true event, making it seem like noth-

ing more than an amusing adventure between two old friends.

In addition to portraying the two arms dealers from AEY in a positive light, the film also

does a great job at making the government seem like they are utterly incompetent. While trying

to pass off Chinese ammo as the much less illegal Serbian kind, the two essentially dupe the pen-
tagon. In the end, it is their own greed that does them in; by refusing to pay the workers at the

repackaging plant, Ephraim is exposed by his creditor. This leads to the investigation and in-

evitable arrest of the two. By essentially making the government seem clueless to all of this is

just simply not right– the government must have known about these shady wartime practices, it

is highly unlikely that they went unnoticed. Films such as these are very clearly modern exam-

ples of propaganda that have breached the big-screen. These movies are carefully crafted in order

to evoke a visceral reaction, one that has the power to sway one’s opinion on a fact with ease.

(ADD MORE)

When attempting to cover historical events, particularly wars, it is important to be as

transparent with the information supplied as possible. When done incorrectly, works like the

ones mentioned above can act as a detriment to society, as well as our understanding of the truth.

While it is widely known and accepted that the violence in Iraq was less than warranted, it is im-

portant for individuals to acquire their research from trusted sources– not from works of fiction.

With all of that being said, it would be unfair to essentially censor works that bend the truth. For

that reason, it more so becomes the responsibility of the consumer to vet the information pre-

sented in popular media for inaccuracies– not the duty of the director to omit them.

½ page conclusion, add quotes to lengthen. Add sources.