PDA

View Full Version : Kinberly Pierce: Stop-loss (2008)



Chris Knipp
03-29-2008, 02:35 AM
Kimberly Pierce: Stop-Loss (2008)

Kimberly Pierce, who gave us the impressive Girls Don't Cry, is back with an intense, in some ways crude, sporadically riveting, but most of all horribly muddled drama about Iraq war soldiers. There are plenty of reasons for this to be an anti-war movie, but it winds up rah-rah. You could almost say Pierce doesn't know what movie she's making, because things just don't add up. The fundamental flaw is the premise itself, stop-loss, the government's current system of returning selected soldiers involuntarily to another tour of Iraq war duty to make up for the fact that there aren't sufficient numbers of available fresh troops and there's no draft. This bureaucratic injustice, for which there is essentially no redress, just isn't enough of a theme to hang a whole complex war story on.

When protagonist Staff Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) comes back to Texas with his two best buddies, who were over there with him, there's a parade and he gets medals. But before that we've seen him in an ugly pursuit of insurgents in Tikrit who strafed his checkpoint from a speeding car. King leads his unit into a narrow congested block of houses and an ambush. The insurgents are waiting in apartments and on rooftops to pick them off and several of his men are killed and one of the best loved, Rico Rodriguez (Victor Rasuk) loses an arm and a leg and his sight.

Back home, Brandon botches a speech after the parade, but his pals have much worse problems. After they all get very drunk and start brawling at a dance hall, Brandon's burly best pal Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) beats up his girlfriend Michele (Abbie Cornish) and digs himself a foxhole in his skivvies out in front. Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Leavitt) is a continual drunk who's expelled by his fiancée, drives into a lamppost on his way over to Brandon's, and shoots up his wedding presents with a rifle. The men's ways of straightening each other out in these circumstances invariably involve physical violence.

It's obvious there's more than a little PTSS going on here, but the loud music and the drumbeats keep hinting to us that these are just boys being boys.

When Brandon's told he's been stop-lossed and must report back for Iraq in short order, he can't bear it. He's done his duty, he's served well, but he's had enough. He goes to his superior officer and in front of the lieutenant curses the order and the President. He's taken off to the brig, but on the way there assaults the MP's and escapes in Shriver's jeep, eventually running off on a journey to Washington with Michele to see the Senator who congratulated him, stopping off on the way for a visit with Rodriguez.

Things start to go wrong structurally on the journey; maybe the movie was never coherent. Tommy's story back home keeps popping in and out, but it seems to have wound up missing some big pieces. Brandon and Michele jump from place to place with no clear sense of logistics; sometimes Brandon, whose scar from a fight heals with astonishing rapidity, seems to be a ghost.

He's cracking too, as shows when he attacks some car thieves calling them "hajis" and shooting them, after getting badly knocked up himself; later he dives into a motel pool to rescue Steve, but it's only a big towel. It's not certain if we're seeing how the Iraq veterans carry the war home, or how the movie's relying too much on violent and crazy incidents in lieu of meaningful dialogue. The Texas drawls are laid on awfully thick, and so is the corn pone atmosphere. Phillippe, Gordon-Leavitt, et al., nonetheless handle their heavily telegraphed moments with grace and conviction. Phillippe gives his role, surely his most challenging yet, just about everything it's got. Unfortunately his character winds up being more bluster than thought.

In the end the Senator isn't available to help an AWOL soldier, and Brandon's left with the choice of going back or hiding out in Canada. He pops up in Manhattan, and later on the Mexican border. Again, the logistics are ghost-like.

"Stop-loss" is certainly an unsavory tactic. Supporters of the war would say it's necessary, and in coldly practical terms maybe it is. But the point is that when it comes to the complex issues of this war and of the soldiers' situations it's really a red herring, and beside the point. Pierce's movie constantly touches on those larger issues, only to wind up by dodging them. Any thinking person has to walk out of the movie wanting to take a hint from the soldiers in the story and smash something. Pierce undoubtedly meant well, but she latched onto the wrong wagon here. The result is especially frustrating because this is a movie that makes a stab at relating Iraq war combat to soldiers' life back home, it dramatizes post-traumatic dysfunction briefly but vividly, and it has more energy, emotion, and mainstream appeal than any of the recent spate of movies on the subject. The camaraderie of the young soldiers, their turmoil and violence, their inability to function back at home, couldn't be more palpable. But in the end this is really a faux issue-movie. The final payoff isn't just a cop-out; it's inexplicable.

Chris Knipp
03-30-2008, 01:20 AM
STOP-LOSS: A REAL OR A FAKE ISSUE?
I am expressing myself telegraphically in my review: "Stop-loss" is a matter of real concern to soldiers who have served bravely and successfully in Iraq but do not want to go back beyond their original tours. Soldiers are getting screwed with this practice. You can be completely gung-ho and still honestly feel that. There are soldiers in hiding or over the border fighting extradition because of it. If you go to the movie's website, there are a lot of soldiers and ex-soldiers who are concerned about this issue, though some think you should just suck it up and deal with it. Pierce deserves credit for making Brandon King a completely creditable soldier--even though he made an unfortunate error of judgment, which we'll get into later--so that his non-acceptance of "Stop-loss" shows you can be completely loyal and dedicated and not accept it.

On the other hand, "stop-loss" is a fake issue because the real issue is the war itself. It's also fake because Pierce does not really mean to question it--nor is there any way for a soldier to fight it. There is no solution to it other than to bring back the draft after 35-odd years--or, better yet, wind down US military involvment in the Middle East.

BRING BACK THE DRAFT?
What about bringing back the draft? If as surveys clearly indicate Americans no longer support the Iraq war, consider it a mistake, and want US soldiers out, which has been true on some level for years now, then it makes sense that reinstating the draft in the country would bring a huge public outcry against the war. As long as it's volunteers, things aren't so touchy. Even the volunteers are not up for returning to extra tours beyond the ones they signed up for. Hence: Stop-loss. It is a cynical strategy, and it wouldn't be at all surprising to find arch noncombatant chicken hawk Dick Cheney the one directly behind it.

The issue is important. It's just that the movie raises far larger issues which need to be addressed in another way, and it's irritating how Pierce and Block use the stop-loss situation to give a pretense of this being an issue movie, when it is primarily a love letter to soldiers, 21st century style.

COMPARISON WITH THE DEER HUNTER
This movie has been compared to The Deer Hunter, and that's interesting--though a bit of a distortion. Actually Deer Hunter is a very different kind of film, far more complex, and also involving some of the outstanding American film actors of their generation. It was more powerful, more successful artistically, and also more false than Stop-Loss--and hence more pernicious; Stop-Loss will not gain great acclaim for its kinds of falsification; it's just more of a misfire. But in a vague way the two films are comparable, because both are powerful films based on false issues. Stop-loss isn't the real issue: the war itself is. In The Deer Hunter the Russian roulette game was a complete fabrication that falsified the Vietnam war experience, and veterans of the war protested at it. "Stop-loss" will probably, alas, just fizzle. Time will tell, but when I went to see it on a Friday evening in Berkeley's main downtown cineplex, the auditorium wasn't even half full.