Oliver Stone once gave a wonderful insight into telling which war you were watching in a movie if you took away the title, the names, and the dates. He pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a WWII movie because the troops were always going somewhere. The GIs always had a destination. They were going to Berlin, or they were going to a guard a bridge, or they were going to do something anything. He then pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a Vietnam movie because the troops endlessly went in circles, didn't really accomplish anything, and usually ended their fights by calling in airstrikes.
Ridley Scott's 'Body of Lies' I think will provide a blueprint for movies about the war on terrorism. By the looks of this film, and previous movies about the war on terrorism, this war isn't going to be very entertaining. A movie that is true to the war on terror, like this movie, will be very complex technically and morally, will have convoluted story lines and, for the most part, elusive enemies and far-sighted hard to reach goals. Because this movie resembles something like truth, it is sometimes hard to get through. For half the movie, the enemy isn't clearly defined and is incredibly hard to identify. Leonardo Dicaprio, a CIA agent on the ground, and Russel Crowe, his boss in D.C., go to very great lengths simply to find out what the enemy is doing. After several failures, they stage a super elaborate plot to get to a terrorist responsible for bombings in Europe. Still then the plot goes haywire. The point seems to be that no great expense in technology and good will across the ocean in D.C. will ever compare to actual ground experience and intelligence from allies in the base region.
The ally in this region, who is continually blown off by the ultimate know nothing arrogant boss, Russell Crowe, is a Jordanian counter-terrorist minister named Mark Strong (He's Middle Eastern even if his name lies opposite). He's morally corrupt (has torture rooms) but is perhaps the only hope for an effective strategy in such a FUBAR place. (The middle east in this movie is a wasteland covered in garbage and sand being roamed by wild scurvy dogs) Unfortunately the only way it seems to get anything done is to involve innocent civilians in the process. This usually gets them killed. When the Russel Crowe character says "no one in this mess is innocent," it sounds like something he needs to constantly repeat to himself in order to sleep. When Dicaprio gets tortured near the end of this film, a part of me thought he certainly deserved it. He certainly did horrible things to get there.
This movie is tough to watch at times, but I give it a fresh review because it is ultra competent and provides a real on-the-ground look at the war on terrorism. (I would bet the entire thing was shot in the middle east. Some of the war torn vistas seem dangerously close for any film crew) The story makes sense even though sometimes Dicaprio's character seems offset with different principles. Its hard to reconcile the renegade man who would sacrifice innocent civilians and outright challenge government authority with the guy who takes the Arab nurse out on a couple of dates. This is a character with a divergent mind. The role called for a great, maybe impossible, performance. I think Dicaprio's take on it wasn't entirely plausible. Crowe on the other hand was as good as it could be. I heard he gained fifty pounds to play this role. That I think was unnecessary. Unless the character is Oscar worthy stuff (Like Raging Bull or Monster) you really shouldn't be putting yourself through that sort of punishment. It helped the character but this movie doesn't deserve that sort of commitment.
As for Ridley Scott, he has once again proven that he is an ultra-competent director. I don't recall the last time when he did something truly significant (maybe Thelma and Louise) but in the last decade he has been building a list of good (not great) movies. (American Gangster, Kingdom of God, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator). This one certainly updates the war movie genre to current technologies and complexities. It is probably the best movie to come out about the war on terror, but, looking at the track record, that doesn't say much. Still, with the way this war is set up, an easy narrative is going to be hard to come by.
No comments:
Post a Comment