A Meandering Messenger, Yet Another Iraq War Film
The Iraq war has been a near constant source of inspiration for Hollywood screenwriters eager to have their say on the subject. Some of their films made very little money. Others drew a wave of brickbats from critics. A fair amount fell squarely into both camps, leaving audiences less than eager for more.
Most shared a predictably liberal viewpoint of the war and its backers.
The Messenger tries a different approach. The movie zeroes in on the officers assigned to tell families their loved ones have died on the battlefield. It’s a dicey subject for a feature film — what could be more depressing than watching ordinary people hear their sons and daughters will never return home again? And how can a screenwriter tell such a story while avoiding old ideological debates?
The Messenger, which opened in select cities on November 13, does a noble job of avoiding those pitfalls, but it still can’t help showing soldiers as being irrevocably damaged from their time spent in combat. Even if the soldiers fought in a war that was over in a matter of weeks.
Ben Foster stars as Will, a troubled young sergeant and Iraq war hero assigned to inform families when their sons or daughters were killed in action. He has no formal grief counseling experience, so his superiors assign an older, experienced officer named Tony (Woody Harrelson) to walk him through the process. The two visit the homes of a number of families, ready to deliver a standardized message along with their mechanical condolences. It’s an arduous mission, one Tony appears rigorously suited to handle. He’s the kind of soldier who obeys any order, no questions asked.
Stick to the script. Don’t get too close to the families in question. Offer follow-up assistance and then leave as soon as possible. Tony insists Will follow the rules set before them, like never touching the NOK (next of kin).
Your conviction that some films are ideological while others aren’t, disqualifies you as a serious film commenter. All films are constructed from and transmit an ideology. Ignorant people like you are unaware of this fact as long as the ideology mirrors the one that you are most comfortable with. Its only those ideologies that stray from the script that stand out to you as ideology. Clown.
Moho: Your self-righteous pomposity and totally uncalled-for rudeness disqualify you as a serious commenter. What an unpleasant character your comment reveals.
henryflower: “Totally uncalled for rudeness”. Ha, I practically imagined you honking your runny nose into a tear-soaked hanky while writing that.
I have to agree with henryflower, Maho is a pretty rude person. Certainly uncivil. While he may be correct about all movies being ideolgocial, he is unable to restrain himself from being rude instead of stating the fact.
All of you are wrong. I am the one who is correct.[about what?]
oh, I know![no you do not!] yeah, i know. [Do not fear, for they
do not understand] well that is obvious. [insert vitriol now]
Methinks Moho doth protest too much. The intensely ad hominem nature of his critique of Toto’s review leads me to conclude that he shares the same ideological slant of the makers of the whole series of movies about the Iraq war which appeals to dozens of movie-goers nationwide.
Stergeye;
The intensely ad hominem nature of his critique of Toto’s review leads me to conclude that he shares the same ideological slant of the makers of the whole series of movies about the Iraq war which appeals to dozens of movie-goers nationwide.
This is because you’re illiterate.
This movie’s less ad nauseum than ‘Brothers’. The preview is a blatant theft, modern spin of ‘Coming Home’ with a minor tweak here and there..
Originality be damned!
Moho, though obviously an ass, is correct, in that no film, or pice of art, can be produced without the insertion of ideology – it is impossible to reject one’s life experiences in the process of subjective expression. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it simply is the state of things.
Personally, I clearly see a liberal bias in this film: a characterisation of soldiers being physically, mentally, and emotionally crippled and tainted, though statistics show that soldiers, regardless of whether or not they have combat experience, are far less likely to have emotional and mental complications than their civilian counterparts by a factor of 1/100. Likewise, they are far less likely to engage in socially destructive behavior, such as criminal acts, by a similar factor).
Furthermore, the film seems to be yet another disparaging jab at the public in order to further erode their emotional support of ALL United States war fronts (The liberal population does not support the Afghan front – they were simply to cowardly to say so at the outset).