War happens to be the phenomenon with greatest discrepancy between how it is portrayed in Hollywood films and how it is in real life. That was especially so in the period between the fall of Berlin Wall and the fall of WTC towers, during which Hollywood’s prime audience in USA and other Western countries was least likely to be affected by it directly. In those time war was something abstract, either portrayed as something noble and epic like the “good” Second World War or something rather banal like cheap video game depicted by CNN during Desert Storm. Films that were trying to deal with serious ethical issues related to armed conflict were quite rare. Rules of Engagement, 2000 action drama directed by William Friedkin, was one of those few interesting films and it also showed how the proper treatment of such subject was difficult if not unachievable.
The story for the film was developed by Jim Webb, former US Marine officer decorated for his service in Vietnam War and politician who served as Navy Secretary under Reagan and, after production of this film, as US Senator. The plot begins in 1968 in Vietnam where US Marine Lt. Terry Childers (played by Samuel L. Jackson) saves the life of Lt. Hayes Hodges (played by Tommy Lee Jones) in a way that involves clear breech of Geneva Conventions and other rules of handling prisoners. Roughly three decades later Childers has advanced to the rank of Colonel and is now handed most delicate missions, like providing security and preparing possible evacuation of US Embassy in Yemen, which is besieged by mobs of protesters. Childers is exposed to sniper fire that would claim lives of his men, but he nevertheless carries out his task and evacuates Embassy staff. The only problem is that during the event he ordered his men to open fire on protesters, resulting in deaths of 83 civillians, including women and children. World’s public is horrified with the carnage and US government, led by National Security Advisor Bill Sokal (played by Bruce Greenwood) decides to turn Childers into scapegoat. Colonel is accused of mass murder and brought to military tribunal, where the prosecution is led by capable Major Mark Biggs (played by Guy Pearce). Childers claims innocence and takes Hodges, now Colonel serving in JAG, as his defence counsel. Hodges is close to retirement and doesn’t have much of reputation as a successful atteroney, but Childers claims that only someone who was under enemy fire can truly understand his actions.
Although career of William Friedkin left much to be desired in decaades after his early 1970s triumphs with French Connection and The Exorcist, this film was greeted with high expectations. Friedkin partially met them by structuring film around three very different time settings – war in Vietnam, incident in Yemen and courtroom proceedings in America – and using different cinematographer and different style for each of them. Good editing managed to put all them into coherent whole, although some segments vary in quality; first part, which features intense military action, is the most impressive, while the second might be disturbing over the scenes that feature killing of children. The third part of the film, on the other hand, is the least interesting and doesn’t look that different from standard courtroom thrillers and dramas that Hollywood produced at the time.
Friedkin was fortunate to have very good cast at his disposal. Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones, known for decades-long career of character actors, have built enough charisma and experience that they can easily play leads and, consequently, their distinctively non-Hollywood looks allowed them to play the same characters as old and young men without having to use heavy makeup and other tricks. Their characters aren’t particularly drawn out, apart from being portrayed as dedicated professionals who sacrificed most of their life to military careers, but both Jackson and Jones play them very well. Guy Pearce as their younger but equally professional colleague is also quite effective. On the other hand, Bruce Greenwood and Ben Kingsley (who plays US Ambassador in Yemen), reduced their performances to caricatures of sleazy Machiavellian politicians, while Anne Archer play completely redundant character.
While technically well made to a certain degree, Rules of Engagement ultimately suffers because of the script that treats delicate and complex subject of war crimes with a subtlety of a bull in a china shop. At first glance, some ethical dilemmas, Rules of Engagement look a serious attempt to portray modern world, in which the line between solider and civilian, just like the line between hero and villain, is very thin. Stephen Gaghan in his first script tries to present the notion that there some situations during actual combat when the actual truth can’t be ascertained, at least not with the absolute black-and-white moral clarity expressed by intellectuals and politicians far from battlefields and direct consequences of certain bad choices. If Gaghan and Friekdin kept this moral ambiguity throughout the film until its very end, Rules of Engagement could have been a remarkable film. Unfortunately, like so many Hollywood directors in 1990s, Friedkin succumbs to American chauvinism and does so in a way that would make the film utterly unconvincing. The audience is led to believe that Childers is the only of dozens of all US servicemen at the scene with ability to clearly assess the situation; film authors also claim that the attack by well-hidden snipers can be easily stopped by massacre of massed people at the street and, finally, the only videotape of the event just happens to be the one to confirm Childers’ claims in the most convenient manner passible. Friedkin in this film very graphically shows what modern US weapons can do women and children, but apparently doesn’t have any qualms about such practices being justifiable, with Arabs, very much like according to racist sentiments of late 20th Century Hollywood, being portrayed as horde as religious fanatics that can be dealt like the gloves off.
Rules of Engagement is because of that very disturbing film. It was even more disturbing for the author of this review, because its premiere in Croatia coincided with very public and divisive debate about possible war crimes committed by Croatian side during 1990s conflicts in former Yugoslavia. Many people in Croatia find the idea that anyone should answer for his action in just and noble war insulting and some participants of the debate even quoted Rules of Engagement as argument for such claims, mistakenly believing that the film had been based on real events. At the end, Rules of Engagement showed not the past, but the future. Events that occurred in nextz decade in places like Abu Ghraib or certain videotape that caused huge trouble for certain Australian activist showed that the real life is actually much bleaker, messier and uglier than authors of Rules of Engagement could imagine.
RATING: 3/10 (+)
Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com
Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/
Leofinance blog @drax.leo
Cent profile https://beta.cent.co/@drax
Minds profile https://www.minds.com/drax_rp_nc
Uptrennd profile https://www.uptrennd.com/user/MTYzNA
Unstoppable Domains: https://unstoppabledomains.com/?ref=3fc23fc42c1b417
Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax
Bitcoin Lightning HIVE donations: https://v4v.app/v1/lnurlp/qrcode/drax
Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax
1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e
BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG
ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7
