« But Will We Still Have To Watch "The Twenty?" | Main | DC Bloggers Meetup »
August 17, 2005
Grunts
Via the Gunner Palace website: I've been working on my conference paper (yeah, I know, it's just a week away), and I've been thinking about how representations of the war have been framed. These questions are no doubt informed by the recent history of war coverage in the United States, dating back at least to Vietnam's status as the first "living-room war," and certainly through the criticism of the U.S. media for its uncritical coverage of the first Gulf War, as well as more recent failures of the major media outlets to challenge the Bush administration claims about WMDs in Iraq. Of course, it's probably worth emphasizing that these questions about war coverage have a much longer history (the Vietnam film as a response to the heroism portrayed in World War II movies), but these question about representing war persist, especially when it comes to the portrayal of the American soldier. Most TV rpodcuers claim that by portraying the soldier, or "grunt," they are remaining politically neutral.
In this context, Cynthia Littleton's Hollywood Reporter article illustrates this logic very effectively:
Fighting the global war on terrorism is vexing enough in real life. Fighting it on the small screen from a highly politicized point of view would be a tactical mistake, according to a group of top television writer-producers.The panel, I believe, should raise some important questions about the politics of representing war, but Kinsley's claim that texts that identify with the grunts are making an anti-war statement seems wrong to me. I think that Kinsley is implying that by identifying with the soldier, we become more aware of the absurdity of the war and of the harmful Bush administration policies that endanger the men and women of the military. But I don't think identification is that simple, and Kinsely's claim relies on the assumption that the troops have a more authentic experience of the war than anyone else.Steven Bochco, co-creator and executive producer with Chris Gerolmo of FX's Iraq war drama "Over There," said during a panel session Monday that they sought from the inception of the show to keep its focus on the lives of "grunts" on the ground and not on larger questions of U.S. foreign policy, morality or geopolitical concerns.
Panel moderator Michael Kinsley, editorial and opinion editor at the Los Angeles Times, suggested that the lack of explicit discussion of the politics of the war in Iraq among the main characters in "Over There" was in and of itself an anti-war statement given the show's gritty portrayal of the chaos and carnage enveloping those grunts. But Bochco and Gerolmo disagreed.
"It seems to me that if we make an overt political statement in 'Over There' about the war ... then immediately the debate becomes not only about policy, but it becomes about our politics, Chris' and mine, as opposed to a discussion or a provocation about the human consequences of war," Bochco said. "The moment we become overtly political, half the audience dismisses us and doesn't pay attention to us because they disagree with our politics. And the other half discuss us ... in the context of our political leanings. And that's just not what my goal is with this show."
But I also think that Bochco's response--taking on the cloak of political neutrality--may be even more misleading. I don't think Bochco is being disingenuous when he argues that he didn't want to alienate "half the audience" by making a show about policy, but it seems perfectly clear that any approach to the portrayal of war will inevitably have political consequences. Choosing not to look at policy would seem to be an implicit acceptance of those policies. In short--because I should be writing the paper, not blog entries--these claims about "political neutrality" have dominated war coverage, and that neutrality has often been channeled through claims of offering a "grunt's-eye-view" on the war, a claim that necessarily gives me reason to pause. That being said, I don't think that a film or TV show that identifies with soldiers necessarily supports a pro- or anti-war position, although Kinsely's reading of Over There as anti-war rings pretty false in my opinion.
Posted by chuck at August 17, 2005 2:42 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wordherders.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fpl/4441
Comments
Thought:
Compare Hollywood depictions of the "grunt" with Soviet Realism depictions of the "worker".
Observation:
Studs Terkel _Working_ doesn't have any interviews with soldiers or armed forces personel.
Second Thought:
Compare Hollywood depictions of the "soldier" with Soviet Realism depictions of same.
Posted by: Francois Lachance at August 17, 2005 5:06 PM
I have watched the three episodes of Over There that have aired thus far, and I think you're exactly right that the simple fact of identifying with the grunts doesn't make the series anti-war. In fact, I'd say the show seems to lean pro-war--though it's not clear-cut enough that I'm ready to stop watching the show. Yet.
The soldiers in the series are not uncomplicated, but they are certainly the people we're intended to identify with--they're mostly good looking and trying to do the right things and they're in constant danger. And the show doesn't portray chaos in the sense that, say, M*A*S*H* did--like the COs have no clue what they're doing and soldiers and civilians are simply dying unnecessarily. Instead, you get all kinds of chaos that shows that the soldiers are in extremely dangerous circumstances and that they need all the support we can give them.
In the second episode, they work at a roadblock and the second car that comes through they shoot up, killing everyone inside. The Sgt. seems like a son of a bitch for ordering the men not to touch the car. But it turns out the men inside really were terrorists and had boobytrapped the car. Then the third car comes and races at them and they shoot it up too, killing a couple and a little girl. There is a moment of feeling sympathy for the civilians, but it turns out they were diversions employed by the terrorists and dangerous too. The next car they stop and capture a terrorist. In the next episode, they bring the prisoner to be tortured and interrogated, including threatening to rape his sister, but all of that torture is shown as justifiable and acceptable. The colonel who's torturing him is smart and heroic, even if a little crazy, and even his tactics largely consist of outsmarting the prisoner and pointing out that Americans can't really mistreat him--he threatens to turn him and his sister over to the Pakistanis, who aren't going to be concerned with the Geneva Conventions and civil rights like we good Americans are. And as a result of his tactics, the prisoner reveals that he is a terrorist and knows where the stolen Stinger missiles, which are a massive threat to US troops, are hidden.
I think I'm very slightly exaggerating the extent to which the series has served as an apology for US troops killing innocent civilians and torturing people, and there are some competing strands that can be seen as critical of the war. But for Kinsley to argue that the show is by definition anti-war because it's about soldiers is just too stupid.
Posted by: Scrivener at August 17, 2005 6:54 PM
I haven't seen the show, but from the previews I've seen, it seemed more politically complicated that Kinsley was implying.
You also raise an important question in terms of the portrayal of the Iraqi civilians, suggesting that the film *may* serve as an apology for killing innocent civilians, and that's something I've been trying to interpret in one of the documentaries I'm discussing. It's often unclear whether the film is affirming the soldiers' suspicions of Iraqi civilians who are likely innocent.
Francois, your comments remind me that soldier docs often tap into these social class representation issues (the soldier as a Regular Guy). Very interesting point about Terkel's Working, which I still need to read. And any excuse to go back and look at Soviet realism is also fine by me....
Posted by: Chuck at August 17, 2005 11:09 PM