James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
Green Zone is either the next in a series of intelligent, expertly crafted Iraq-war films – the most recent one being multiple Oscar-winner The Hurt Locker - or it is the fourth Bourne film, reuniting director Paul Greengrass and leading man Matt Damon for the third time. The comparisons are too obvious to ignore, and expectations were suitably high, especially as Greengrass is one of the best British film-makers working today.
Green Zone takes us into another theatre of war, that in Iraq immediately after the American invasion. Both U.S. intelligence and Britain’s ‘sexed-up’ dossier apparently confirmed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. From our better-informed position seven years later, we already know that no WMDs were found. It is therefore no surprise at the beginning of the film when Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon) and his team come up empty in a series of raids. Despite this prior knowledge, Green Zone still manages to work as a suspenseful political thriller.
It is the action sequences, however, that are the most successful, and we would expect nothing less from a director whose car chases and combat scenes in the last two Bourne films were truly invigorating. From the very beginning of Green Zone, Greengrass launches us head-first into a Bourne-like scenario, only this time is it the American invasion of Iraq told from the Iraqis' perspective. The hand-held camerawork and gritty cinematography give it a documentary feel without it ever becoming confusing. One can always sense that Greengrass is completely in control of his art, even amid the carefully constructed chaos.
The film doesn’t exactly demonise the Americans involved in the war, but it certainly doesn’t do them any favours. One soldier describes a crowd of protesting Iraqis as “pissed off” because they don’t have any water, somewhat of an understatement. Another tells Miller that “reasons don’t matter”, they’re just there do a job, something which hits a nerve in the UK as the film’s release coincides with the Chilcot Inquiry into the causes of the war.
The Americans are also shown in conflict even with each other. One altercation ends in a brawl between American forces in front of the watching Iraqi civilians: a spectacle that is, frankly, embarrassing. There is also dissent among the various American administrators present in Iraq. Unusually for an Iraq war story, especially given the allegations surrounding the CIA’s treatment of its detainees, one of the good guys is CIA man Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson). He becomes an ally to Miller when Miller tells him of his suspicions regarding the WMD intelligence.
Miller starts out genuinely believing the intelligence supposedly locating the WMDs, and looks both disappointed and bemused when there are none to be found. Nowadays WMDs has become an almost risible term, a by-word for governmental failure, so it’s easy to forget that they ever seemed a serious threat. Miller is just following orders he trusts in order to “save lives”, a mantra that he repeats and in which he truly believes, only to feel betrayed when the intelligence turns out to be suspect.
Pleasingly the Iraqi characters in the film are subtitled speaking their own language, instead of an awkward ‘foreign-accented’ English. But neither they nor the Americans are given a free pass. The film is all shades of grey, morally as well as visually. Sure, some of the American soldiers are brutes, and some of the Iraqis aren’t exactly saints, but war always brings out humanity’s ugly side.
Iraq war films have never achieved big box-office in the U.S. – The Hurt Locker was the lowest-grossing film ever to win Best Picture at the Oscars. But as Matt Damon said in an interview in The Sunday Times, no one in the U.S. is talking about Iraq because they are losing more men in Afghanistan. This film will probably get more attention than previous efforts in this sub-genre because of the names involved, but one can’t help but feel that we’ve seen it all before not only in other Iraq war films, but also in the last two Bourne films. It is certainly an intelligent and well-constructed film, but it’s also exactly what you’d expect from this team of film-makers. It’s not likely to bring anything new to the Iraq war debate, so just enjoy it for the talent involved.
You must log in to submit a comment.
