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 re-

mained 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

number 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 im-

plies at least one of these messages to be true. In addition to this, due to the con-

tentious 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.

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

tioned in Iraq, Kathyrn Bigelow released her blockbuster war movie, The Hurt

Locker. This film follows 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, cinematography, 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 simply 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. De-

pending 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 en-

sure it’s protagonist stay as neutral as possible. As a soldier, William can fit what-

ever 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 hes been through-- decides to leave his fam-

ily 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 en-

emy 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 en-

tirely fictional scene does more than enough to demonize the enemy, 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.

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 invade Iraq. While marketed mainly as an action movie, this

film's primary focus is on the bureaucracy at play in the aptly titled “green zone”, or

allied territory in Iraq. The film follows Roy Miller, an officer for the United States mili-

tary. Over the course of the narrative, the officer unearths 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 really exist.

This movie suggests government corruption at the highest level– spinning a fabri-

cated narrative that has the necessary level of logic and plausibility required to con-

vince 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 federal 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 towards the govern-

ment. It can be argued that this is just as -- if not more -- damaging form of propa-

ganda. Both have the indisputable ability to shift the public’s perception of controver-

sial 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 speculation. 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 Gen-

eral, 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; a young person who is going to see his first R rated movie– Green

Zone. Without possessing any prior knowledge regarding the Iraq invasion, this par-

ticular audience member is very likely to accept this as a historically accurate ac-

count 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 incredibly 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 cin-

ema is the 2016 movie War Dogs, directed by Todd Phillips. Unlike the aforemen-
tioned 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 mili-

tary as a private contractor. This practice is seemingly innocent enough at first, but

starts to become quite shady once the duo land an otherwise un-fillable 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 indica-

tive 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 development 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 portrayed 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 likeable- goofballs? 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– basing

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 somewhat 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 nothing 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 incompe-

tent. While trying to pass off Chinese ammo as the much less illegal Serbian kind,

the two essentially dupe the pentagon. In the end, it is their own greed that does

them in; by refusing to pay the workers at the repackaging plant, Epharim is ex-

posed by his creditor. This leads to the investigation and inevitable 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 mod-

ern examples 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.

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 un-

derstanding of the truth. While it is widely known and accepted that the violence in

Iraq was less than warranted, it is important 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 presented in pop-

ular media for inaccuracies– not the duty of the director to omit them.

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