Entertained but Angry - Green Zone

The first half of last night's double bill was Green Zone.  I was really looking forward to it.  I like Greengrass's work and Matt Damon's always solid.

The film I saw I found very entertaining.  It certainly looked very real (to someone who has never been to Baghdad, granted).  The story was gripping, kept me involved throughout.  There were numerous upsetting scenes but I don't suppose war is ever pretty.  Damon was good in his role.  It was a little obvious at times, rival agencies vying for power.  That may be exactly how it was though.  It wouldn't surprise me at all.  It was the 'bad guy - nice and polished' 'good guy - dishevelled but hard working' that took it a little too far for me.
It also fell foul of the compulsory chase scene.  This was better than most but I  do find them boring after a few minutes.  Also the ends were all tied up far too neatlly with a nice little Hollywood ending bow.

As an entertainment piece I'd give the film 4 out of 5 stars.

My major problem was (rant begins) that the director held far too much power.  He was making a film to put his point across.  Not a documentary which would have done pretty well to get that point well and truly home.  But making a 'movie', which takes actual facts and occurrences then bolsters the director's view with fiction.  Packaging it all in a nice box that hints at it all being true.  I left the cinema very uneasy.  Greengrass knows that he's famous for putting true events on screen.  He knows that the majority of the cinema-going public is gullible and believes what it sees on screen and never thinks to check facts.Then I listened to him interviewed on The Film Programme, podcast from BBC Radio 4.  (Available on the BBC site or Itunes, dated March 12th)  This really raised my hackles.  The man is not on the same planet as I.  The interviewer was questiong him on whether he was concerned that people would see the film and believe that it was all fact.  His answer -

"I believe in if you consider the full arc of this debacle in broad terms what we portray is basically what happened."

So he's claiming it is pretty much the truth?  Even though he has no access to 'the truth'.  he then goes into a rant on how the Iragi war damaged US/UK power in the world.

His reasons for making the film -

"What I wanted to do was find a story, find a way of bringing a broad audience to consider this subject. What you're trying to do is create a genre piece, a thriller.  You know because if you're going to get a broad audience the reality is you have to operate within the genre."

So you want to bring things to people's attention?  Documentary audience too small, truth not 'thrilling' enough?  Let's make a story up!

When the interviewer had the cheek to use the word 'fantasy' in connection with his film -

"I don't think it's a fantasy.  I think that's unkind.  What you're saying is 'Can I demonstrably prove that the events exactly in this film occurred?' No. obviously not.  It's a movie.  the point you're going is 'If you push that too far then it's propaganda', which I've never made. But of course the most interesting place to be, the reason why I've always liked putting pieces where the fact and fiction collide is because it's a sort of area of limitless creative possibilities.  It's capable of abuse, of course it is, and we all know those pieces that have been made where your audience looks and feels that this is propaganda.  But equally there are many, many pieces where that place has the deepest truth because you can say 'didn't it happen a bit like this?' 'Couldn't you just believe that this story happened?'  It's good and necessary and right that those kinds of issues get explored in popular cinema and that's what Green Zone is."

So Mr Greengrass, you're not interested in facts?  More interested in 'the deeper truth' that you made up.  Made up to prove your point.  This film is propaganda for what Paul Greengrass believes could have happened.  God knows we already know Iraq is a complete mess.  Probably a lot of what we saw on screen is true.  The fact that the director's ego got in the way of an honest film really sends him down in my estimations.  It seems we have an ego to contend with Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.  In their world we don't have truth, we have their 'deeper truth'.