Tuesday, July 17, 2007
A short note on the dating of movies
I stumbled across a late showing of the 1992 court martial classic, "A Few Good Men." It is worth seeing again if only for Jack Nicholson's Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, who gives one of the great witness stand speeches in the history of film (Aaron Sorkin's script here). That said, I had forgotten that "A Few Good Men" was so anti-military. The movie portrays the Marines particularly -- from the hapless Private Downey (who is so dumb as to be childlike) to the morally rigid Corporal Dawson to Keifer Sutherland's cracker Lt. Jon Kendrick to Nicholson's Jessep -- as dangerous zealots, and glorifies Lt. Kaffee's casual disrespect for military rules, hierarchy, and tradition. Basically, "A Few Good Men" is contemptuous of military tradition, even to the point of making its most eloquent spokesman -- Jessep -- unhinge at the movie's climax.
My question: Is "A Few Good Men" a product of peacetime, when it is cheap and easy for popular culture to show disrespect for military tradition? Would it even have been possible to produce that movie in, say, 2002 or 2003? And if the audience for that movie would have been much smaller in 2002 than in 1992, would it be larger again in 2007? I wonder.
I had a similar reaction a couple of weeks ago, when we watched another great trial movie, 1960's "Inherit the Wind"
18 Comments:
By 
Gary Rosen, at
Tue Jul 17, 01:21:00 AM:
I want to take a dissenting view here. First, I have to admit I have never seen the *whole* movie, but somehow I have seen the last 1/2 hour or so many times, from the courtroom confrontation between "Darrow" and "Bryan" (Drummond and Brady in the movie) to Brady's death and the final scene with Drummond and Hornbeck (played by Gene Kelly, obviously a stand-in for H. L. Mencken). It seems to me that although the movie clearly opposes Brady's science, the final scenes show respect for him as a person and even for his faith while being quite disdainful of Hornbeck/Mencken's atheistic cynicism. Am I completely off my rocker?
By 
, at
Tue Jul 17, 02:07:00 AM:
Jessep is a caricature of a "rough man ready to do violence," the archetype adored by people who are infatuated with the notion that we should glorify the jobs that require individuals to employ violence above all other jobs. Somehow, these jobs are seen as needing special qualities in those that perform them, or demanding some special sacrifice that is not adequately compensated by society. And, to some extent these claims are true: we do not compensate soldiers or policement very well, relying instead on their patriotism and willingness to sacrifice for their country.
But what the worshippers of violent jobs and the people who do them frequently do not acknowledge, is the point made in "A Few Good Men:" just because you are violent doesn't mean you are strong. Jessep is (unforgivably) weak because he felt insecure enough in his own leadership that he had to "make an example" out of a person in his organization who demonstrated weakness, and when this (inadvertently) produced tragic results, he was too weak to face responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
I think you are completely wrong when you say that, "Basically, "A Few Good Men" is contemptuous of military tradition, even to the point of making its most eloquent spokesman -- Jessep -- unhinge at the movie's climax." The final line spoken by Dawson to Kaffee at the end of the trial, "Ten-hut. There's an officer on deck," and Kaffee's subsequent salute, is explicitly invoking military tradition and what it means to be an officer in a positive light.
What the movie is really trying to criticize is the conflation of the ability to do violence with strength of character, which is a mistake many people make, especially on the "right" side of the political spectrum. Jessep is a paragon of violence and as he points out, his qualities are needed in order to perform jobs necessary for the functioning of the state. But people in those jobs need to be held to a higher standard of conduct, and need to be watched over - because the potential for violence and strength of character aren't correlated at all.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jul 17, 03:00:00 AM:
I nodded along at just about everything but this: "Jessep is (unforgivably) weak because he felt insecure enough in his own leadership that he had to "make an example" out of a person in his organization who demonstrated weakness"
The whole idea of "code reds" was artificially inflated and embellished for the sake of the movie. It's unheard of for an officer to order such treatment, and rare for NCOs, but rough treatment is occasionally necessary to rehabilitate an unmotivated soldier who otherwise just doesn't give a shit. It has nothing to do with security or lack thereof in his position. It's an attempt to discipline a wayward trooper.
The perennial example is the dirtbag in your basic training company (and there's always one) who refuses to bathe. They get pretty foul pretty fast, and soon the drill sergeants start punishing the entire group because of this guy. Once they're set upon by fellow privates with toilet bowl scrubbers and some detergent, they get the picture and change their ways.
By Gary Rosen, at
Tue Jul 17, 03:25:00 AM:
Oops, was not clear, of course I was talking about "Inherit the Wind", not "A Few Good Men".
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jul 17, 09:39:00 AM:
Gary, you are right about the final scene in "Inherit the Wind," but I do not think that it is as disdainful of Hornbeck's atheism as it is of his cynicism. Drummond is basically saying -- As TR would have -- that it isn't the critic who counts, but the man in the arena. Brady/Bryan at least did something great with his life. Also, the movie establishes that Drummond and Brady had once been political allies and even friends, so Drummond cannot really tolerate Hornbeck's ad hominem attacks on Brady.
Also, that final scene is basically an afterthought. The rest of the religious characters are basically positioned as ignorant thugs, from the town preacher to the angry mobs that followed him around to the sour old ladies that would glare at Hornbeck and Drummond. Brady was the only religious person in the movie who was not a lout.
Don't get me wrong -- I love "Inherit the Wind." I just don't think it would be made the same way today.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jul 17, 09:44:00 AM:
Phrizz and Dawnfire82,
I think you both make good comments. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that the movie is anti-Marines. I doubt that today's Corps has anybody as doltish as Private Downey, and I doubt there are many officers who are as overwrought as Sutherland's Kendrick. I am not a military person, but I have met a few Marine officers. None of them have seemed like they would tolerate a lunatic like Kendrick.
By , at
Tue Jul 17, 10:14:00 AM:
It depends on the level of sophistication that you're watching 'A Few Good Men' at. At one level, it's 'The System Works'.
I'm interested in the fact that nobody has spotted the flaw in Jessp's beliefs. His attitude is 'I'm not bound by any rules, but you'd d*mn well better obey me, because I'm a colonel'. In that sense, it'd be far more accurately placed in the Bush administration, where claims of power without responsibility are the norm.
By , at
Tue Jul 17, 10:57:00 AM:
The solution is to invest one's time in truly timeless works of cinematic art that never age or lose their relevance - i.e. the Coen brothers' immortal The Big Lebowski:
"Are these the Nazis, Walter?"
"No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of."
By , at
Tue Jul 17, 02:20:00 PM:
The Scopes trial took place in Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was refered to as a school teacher from Kansas. He might have been born there...doubtful that.
By Cobb, at
Tue Jul 17, 02:27:00 PM:
I think the topper of all time would be "Platoon". I saw parts of it a couple years ago and it was completely unwatchable.
The war film I saw most recently that strikes me as a more positive show of what the military is good for would be Bruce Willis' "Tears of the Sun". That was made in 2003.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jul 17, 02:27:00 PM:
Great comment, mason88. I *knew* that, and forgot it. Doh!
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jul 17, 02:38:00 PM:
There both just movies and we have to remember there are limits of time and the need for artisitic license.
Jessup is a wayward, not typical, Marine. So I think it's problematic to conclude that the movie is a generalized critique of the USMC.
I love the speech, not precisely for its content, though that's good, but because its a Nicholson classic. The problem with wayward military types (or law enforcement, or medical, or whatever) is that its fashionable or easy to then make the ugly generalization, right? Very few people actually experience military officers or service anymore.
As an aside, I wouldn't mind if Jessup was running Gitmo right now:)
That's a joke guys...
By , at
Tue Jul 17, 02:40:00 PM:
Little known fact about the Scopes trial: Darrow and Scopes actually wanted to lose the case, so they could appeal and attack the constitionality of the law outlawing the teaching of evolution.
By Escort81, at
Tue Jul 17, 03:23:00 PM:
I generally like Sorkin's work (including "West Wing"), and "A Few Good Men" was, I think, a play before there was a movie adaptation. Sorkin writes excellent dialogue, with a distinct rhythm and cleverness. He is open about his political bias (as well as his previous brushes with substance abuse), but that doesn't preclude folks of all political stripes from being able to appreciate his work.
I'll respect DF82's view here, since it sounds as though he has served, but there is a certain amount of hierarchical BS that you have to put up with in the military (or perhaps corporate settings as well, but the worst that can happen to you is that you get fired) that civilians would generally find hard to tolerate. It's one of the reasons my father gave me in 1981 when I was considering doing a stint in the U.S. Navy following college -- he advised against it, despite his 5 years of active duty and 12 years in the reserves (1940-1957). He thought the peacetime Navy was for the birds -- it was only worth putting up with the everyday BS if you could kill the enemy (preferably Nazis, in his view).
I think that if you look closely at Jessep's monologue, you'll see elements of valid criticism of the attitudes of the cultural elite (bolded):
JESSEP
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
(beat)
You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me there
(boasting)
We use words like honor, code,
loyalty...we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending
something. You use 'em as a punchline.
(beat)
I have neither the time nor the
inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the
manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.
Clearly there are problems with Jessep's attitude, (as Phrizz11 also discusses in his post):
1) Implied anti-Semitism, with the sarcasm Jessep has in his voice when questioning whether assistant counsel Lt. Weinberg, a geeky lawyer, is ready to stand a post
2) A reluctance to acknowledge civilian control (Kaffee is for all intents and purposes a "civilian") of the military in our system ("neither the time nor the inclination")
3) The fundamental issue in the plot, which is that Jessep wants to use his rank and impending rise to the NSC staff as a means of covering up what amounts to a crime of first or second degree manslaughter in a civilian criminal court -- he is the dishonorable man for not stepping up right away.
All that said, Jessep's point about "places you don't talk about at parties" rings true -- the culture of being a front-line Marine (albeit at pre-9/11 peacetime Gitmo, by no means a garden spot but also not critical to U.S. security) is very, very different from being at a cocktail party in Tribeca. I think that it is hard for civilians to understand what life is like for U.S. military personnel who are seeing action -- we are very far removed from it. Books and movies only can take you so far, and even hearing about it from a relative is second-hand.
We won't ever see John Wayne type pro-military movies made by major studios anymore. Movies such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Black Hawk Down" or the series "Band of Brothers" are about as balanced, nuanced and entertaining as we can reasonably expect, and perhaps rightly so, since the military is a human endeavor and is flawed to some degree, as is every human endeavor. Movies like "Platoon" that have plot elements emphasizing the nuts in positions of power in the military have to be viewed in the context of the people making the movie (ahem, Oliver Stone).
I also agree with Cardianlpark's points above regarding "artistic license" and "generalized critique."
By Whiskey, at
Tue Jul 17, 04:00:00 PM:
The reason why no good military movie can be made today is precisely BECAUSE of idiots like Sorkin.
Sorkin's cultural and class biases scream out from here. He grew up in Scarsdale as upper class yuppie, the play and movie came from his sister's tale of an account of a trial she'd participated in as a JAG officer.
Now a relative of mine was a Marine Sergeant in WWII. Among his other duties he was a flamethrower operator (average life expectancy on the battlefield: five minutes) who by some miracle survived. What I was told was that he'd rappel down cliffs to shoot flame inside caves. Sometimes they'd investigate caves and find well dug-in Japanese soldiers who would have killed many Marines and Soldiers. Other times innocent civilians and particularly women and little kids.
As you might expect this bothered my relative and also the other Marines, greatly.
But, there was no way to know which cave held Japanese soldiers and which innocent civilians. Not flame-throwing every cave (at the risk I might point out of a hideous death, every Japanese soldier was firing at him) meant dead Soldiers and Marines. Their buddies.
What a man like Sorkin, and the rest of the comfortable, yuppie, privileged, and cosseted class can never know is the life-or-death choice that has to be made. To Sorkin and his crew my relative is nothing more than a war criminal. Because their morally superior intellects would have what, "negotiated" with the Japanese. The reality of fanatical last-ditch resistance never enters their heads. Nor the brutality of our enemies (Wake Island, Bataan, etc.)
Guys like Sorkin could not write about blue collar people if their lives depended on it. What do they know of pain and fatigue, mind-numbing and will-sapping? Of brutal physical labor? Of desperate choices and relying on comradeship to carry you through places that are literally hell?
This is why A Few Good Men sucks in ways that defy words. Sorkin cannot understand that being a Marine is dangerous work, demanding utmost training and attention to duty. Including obedience, camaraderie, and trust in often brutal conditions. Marines are blue-collar men who undergo physical hardship.
Upper class Sorkin could no more understand them than he could an Alien from Tau Ceti. I suppose he's very good at writing about Scarsdale NY.
By Escort81, at
Tue Jul 17, 06:24:00 PM:
Whiskey -
You make a number of interesting points, and clearly you are not a Sorkin fan, but I think it might make sense to back off the class warfare language a bit.
My father certainly had a comfortable upbringing, including servants, private schools, a summer home in Maine, and an Ivy League education, but that did not stop him from volunteering for the Navy in 1940. Others from even more fortunate circumstances than his gave their lives during WWII (a close friend's uncle, as an 18 year-old Marine at Iwo Jima, by way of example).
I understand that was then and this is now.
Of the two SEALs I have met personally, one (he is still on active duty, I believe) is the son of a prominent investment banker who grew up in circumstances at least as privileged as Sorkin's.
I am also acquainted with a recently retired full bird Marine colonel (all of the air tasking orders for GW II went through his desk in Kuwait in 2003; he was patrolling the No-Fly in an F-18 during the 1990s) who came from an economically privileged background, including a Harvard education.
It is tempting to (inversely) correlate economic circumstance with a willingness to do the tough and nasty things necessary to defeat the enemy, but I think it makes sense to evaluate people as individuals and not broad brush them based on "class."
Let's stipulate to Sorkin's political bias -- he says as much. There are plenty of authors, musicians and actors whose politics leave me shaking my head, but I can still appreciate their artistic abilities and techniques. I don't think that sort of compartmentalization is a bad thing.
Again, to view "A Few Good Men" as broadly condemnatory of the Marine Corps ethos misses the key plot element -- Jessep needed to acknowledge his complicity in Santiago's death and accept the consequences. There wasn't necessarily anything wrong with ordering the Code Red as a means of trying to shape up a substandard Marine, but it is a huge violation of the Marine officer's code of honor to leave your enlisted men hanging out there for a murder charge.
Let's not forget (as TH points out in the original post) that this is a peacetime fictional case. I, for one, do not want (in wartime) an over-lawyered, over-JAGed military that is hamstrung by ROEs and regulations that make it hard to defeat the enemy.
Whiskey, if there is a market for a certain type of movie, and producers believe they can make money on it, it has a shot at being made. I can't think of any other reason movies like "Saw" and "Hostel" get made.
Look, even some of the John Wayne war movies had a degree of "nuance." I think that artists can produce works that point out and help us acknowledge our own shortcomings, imperfections and injustices as a society, and the extent to which they are reflected in our military, and that our society and military can still be strongly motivated to defeat the enemy. The problem arises when we become so obsessed with our shortcomings that we start down the path of perceiving moral equivalence with an enemy that is clearly medieval (or aspires to be so on a good day).
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue Jul 17, 08:04:00 PM:
There is a different interpretation of events in Olasky's Monkey Business. Both Inherit the Wind and A Few Good Men have definite slants they hope to make the default template.
Even when done well, that's irritating.
By Eric, at
Tue Jul 17, 09:05:00 PM:
Whiskey and Escort, I agree that the class frame should be placed in context. My belief is that honorable military service is a higher form of citizenship that transcends social categories like wealth, race, and religion. If many privileged Americans display frustrating ignorance and conceit, then those from the same background who have honorably served certainly have gone a long way to redeem themselves as worthy citizens.
I was an enlisted soldier for 4 years - PVT to SPC(p) - pre-9/11, before leaving the Army to go to school. (for TH: Roar Lions Roar! ;)) I like what Escort said: "the military is a human endeavor". That's what makes military service so special. We know the grand historic contributions our military has made under the most challenging circumstances. Yet, that history was made by the extraordinary achievements and collective actions of individuals. On the personal and social levels, the military experience is essentially human in admirable and ugly ways, in a setting that's far removed from the synthetic conditions that most folks take for granted. Like you said, it's flawed. It's gritty and it's human. The truth of the military experience fits poorly into the usual 2-dimensional pro- and anti-military narratives.
Soldiers are not better than other Americans because of an in-born or innate superiority. The intrinsic value of military service comes from the act itself - the actual sacrifices, achievements and extraordinary efforts made by ordinary people for a greater good. That said, there are soldiers with innate qualities that make them every bit the worthy hero and role model, and military service is good at bringing those qualities to the front. But those qualities are not exclusive to soldiers.
As far as a "A Few Good Men", it does its damage by devaluing an important, truthful message (Jessep's "wall" speech) by placing it in the vessel of a vilified character. Also, by the honorable Cpl Dawson arriving at a questionable conclusion for a Devil Dog - "We should have protected Willy", as though the reasonable act of policing up a sub-standard troop, rather than the betrayal of enlisted Marines by officers, was the wrong committed.
Relatively recent military movies I've liked for their character portrayals of soldiers include "Courage Under Fire" and "Hamburger Hill". My favorite character from either movie is Doc in "Hamburger Hill", played by Courtney Vance. Cynical, jaded, and in tune with the caustic race politics of the period ... and a proud, caring, squared away American soldier who did his duty honorably, loyal to his comrades and fighting the good fight until the end.
