To mark my finally watching that fantastic mini-series, herewith some recon Marines in the new banner image, splashing about in the Sea of Japan. This rather fine photograph is by Chief Petty Officer Ty Swartz and is part of the DoD’s collection.
Generation Kill
Previous post: Information warriors
Next post: US Army Capstone Concept
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
While such things as impressions from films are obviously subjective, as a recon Marine veteran, I have to add my 2 shillings worth.
While I concede the technical accuracy (weapons, equipment, scenes etc.) and the acting are excellent, the obvious “agenda” of the series is little different from the other offerings of the same genre (Platoon, FMJ, Heartbreak Ridge, Rules of Engagement, Tour of Duty, Jarhead etc.) where those in leadership are largely portrayed as incompetent at best and homicidal, self-absorbed sycophants at worst.
The pernicious aspect of this mix of technical accuracy with fantastic character development and plot lines leaves the uninitiated and naive audience with the impression that such fiction is reality. IMHO, this does a tremendous disservice to the vast majority of military leaders who are not like those portrayed in the film and also demeans all military personnel by suggesting they would serve in such a system at all.
There are of course instances in the military of every behavior and personality type depicted in these films and even the horrific acts usually attributed to the US military (as in Platoon or FMJ). The problem is that to concentrate these in the span of a film or miniseries again grossly and unfairly misrepresents the reality of the military as an organization and its operations in the conflict involved leaving the impression that such things were commonplace or routine.
I also realize that these films and shows are often quite popular with the troops who enjoy both the action involved (that again is usually well crafted with the requisite amount of pyrotechnics etc. that Americans cannot seem to get enough of) and the frequent scenes where the incompetent, glory-seeking or psychopathic officers and NCOs get their comeuppance from their subordinates etc. Rather than “validating” these films and shows in some objective sense, such popularity instead demonstrates the deftness with which those who make these productions can manipulate audiences to accept their social and political agendas.
That’s drama for you. Don’t get me started on Braveheart or U-571…
Hah! As I said, much is in the “eye of the beholder.” I just grew disgusted with the Vietnam-era tripe and admit to having a very low threshold as a result when the military is portrayed “dramatically.” Cheers!
I take it you feel the same way about the books.
Not necessarily-depends on the books. At least in most books context is better developed so as to help avoid the distortions of cramming what are essentially vignettes into a 2 hour film that so easily mislead the audience into generalized impressions.
The mini-series is excellent, but the book covers a lot of unexplained details. According to Mr. Wright, most of the battalion’s officers were on their first combat operation, and consequently were a lot more jittery than the grunts. Knowing David Simon’s other work, I’m willing to bet that he focused on the bureaucratic incompetence more than he should have, but the primary source material backs him up.
I stand by my posts. While in the case of Simon’s book, primary source material may “back him up,” his account remains but one man’s perspective and as you imply, perhaps a predisposed one at that.
I suppose it is always a factor in many such works, and especially dramatizations based on them, that, like incidents at airports, crashes sell more than safe landings. Thus there is an incentive for some to cast a certain light on events and the resulting “source material” will naturally follow that light.
Having literally suffered at the hands of incompetent (or on a few rare occasions, worse) leaders at times during my service, I am by no means a defender of any officer or NCO who acts in the egregious manner that some did in his book, whether intentionally or due to inexperience etc.
I still contend, however, that his book and the ensuing mini-series, like so many others, suffer from the same weakness as the others I cite in that they do not provide a legitimate statistical sampling of negative portrayals of the military to justify the generalizing that so often occurs in the minds of readers and viewers. If this was an inadvertent consequence of this “art form” it might be a little easier to overlook but such generalizing is one of the consequences often intended by those authors and film producers.
A lot of stuff in Nate Fick’s book also coincides with instances and descriptions and sentiments from Evan Wright’s book.
So you have two sources with similar events, one from the POV of an actual officer, and one from a reporter.
LW:
Point taken but that still does not change the fact that much depends on which books one uses to then dramatize and what the intentions/perspectives of those producing such dramas wish to convey to the viewers. I think it is naive to think that the producers of such films are generally “neutral” in this regard.
My experience with and study of those with an “artistic” bent tells me that most artists are usually trying to convey something to their audience in addition to the bare “art” they present, whether it be some emotional response or something more such as a social or political point. It is not surprising then that in the context of the modern genre of “military” films, there are various “messages” that the producers are trying to convey.
When a 2 hour film includes a predominance of situations that depict the military (or some aspect) in a certain light, one may expect that at least some of the viewers will take away the belief, feeling etc. that the producers “intended.” Sometimes this is quite purposeful on the part of the producers and in other films it is almost subconscious in that it flows from their own biases about the military that they may even consider to be “pro military.” For example, there are films (Generation Kill and The Wire for example) where the producers emphasize their respect for the soldier/Marine and the things they did in a particular situation. Woven into the plot, however, in ths same limited timeframe are numerous instances of
LW:
Point taken but that still does not change the fact that much depends on which books one uses to then dramatize and what the intentions/perspectives of those producing such dramas wish to convey to the viewers. I think it is naive to think that the producers of such films are generally “neutral” in this regard.
My experience with and study of those with an “artistic” bent tells me that most artists are usually trying to convey something to their audience in addition to the bare “art” they present, whether it be some emotional response or something more such as a social or political point. It is not surprising then that in the context of the modern genre of “military” films, there are various “messages” that the producers are trying to convey.
When a 2 hour film includes a predominance of situations that depict the military (or some aspect) in a certain light, one may expect that at least some of the viewers will take away the belief, feeling etc. that the producers “intended.” Sometimes this is quite purposeful on the part of the producers and in other films it is almost subconscious in that it flows from their own biases about the military that they may even consider to be “pro military.” For example, there are films (Generation Kill and The Wire for example) where the producers emphasize their respect for the soldier/Marine and the things they did in a particular situation. Woven into the plot, however, in the same limited time frame are numerous instances of what I consider to be aberrational (when compared to the entire context) behavior, ranging from incompetent to criminal, usually by officers and senior NCOs. As a consequence, what can we expect the average (one without military experience especially) viewer to take away from such a portrayal? It is in this sense that I think it unfair, especially since the industry for making such films is not especially open to any contrary view.
Just watched it too, recently. Thought it was great entertainment.
Of course those who follow KoW know better than to be misled. ;-)
a related read is “One Bullet Away – The Making of a Marine Officer” by Nathaniel Fick. He was the platoon commander featured in Generation Kill. think he is with CNAS now…
“The pernicious aspect of this mix of technical accuracy with fantastic character development and plot lines leaves the uninitiated and naive audience with the impression that such fiction is reality.”
Is this not the case with almost every artistic response to war? Should Tennyson have been reprimanded for not producing “realism” in his poetry, despite the fact that his poem is probably what most most Brits think of when someone mentions the Crimean War (if they even know what that is!). Can Coppola be criticised for creating a highly biased image of the Vietnam War, even though Apocalypse Now probably informs public perception of Vietnam (of generations following) greater than any historiographical, balanced academic work? Generation Kill aside, any artist, writer, photographer or film maker uses their perception of reality to create their works. Their raison d’etre is to take reality as they perceive it and produce works to make points that they want to make. If they (in a free society) are considered okay to do this, why should the military or conflict be exempt from such treatment?
In terms of blurring reality and fiction, I think Generation Kill is a continuation of a very long running process, the difference being that audience expectation of “reality” has had the bar raised significantly. Consider the difference between the landing sequence in “The Big Red One” and “Saving Private Ryan”, both are works of fiction, but in their respective days, both were considered to cut pretty close to the bone in terms of realism. Looking back on The Big Red One, it looks almost comical compared to “gritty” modern war movies. In turn, I think “Band of Brothers” makes the semi-heroic combat scenes in Saving Private Ryan look kinda comical. I think there are dramas to come that will purport to be more “realistic” than Generation Kill, but such “authenticity” is only used to make a point. No film can ever capture the complete experience of being a soldier or being in combat, but they can convey the director/writers’ ideas on the subject to the audience. I mean, despite the fact that “All Quiet On The Western Front” depicts a lot of events that were probably common in the First World War, do we still watch that movie for its authentic depiction of soldier life, or for the point its director was trying to convey?
Jack – I think that’s right – thanks for the post.
I wonder though about libel, particularly in a litigious society. HBO has plenty good lawyers, I’m sure – and the script will have been gone through very carefully. Has anyone sued?
You make some of my point more eloquently than I. The ever increasing technical (I think it is called “production values” in the trade) realism of the productions enhances the opportunity for such films to be veritable “Trojan Horses” for facilitating and in the eyes of the viewer, validating, whatever value judgments etc. are being conveyed. As shown in the actual statements of some of those involved in such productions, this effort is for some films (and the books from which they come) quite intentional whereas others perhaps less so. Furthermore, given the strong feelings and opinions across the humanistic, moral, legal, sociological and political spectrum, warfare (especially the irregular kind) rightly generates, it is understandable that in other cases a film (or book) will be slanted in some direction in terms of the effect desired on the viewer (reader) even un/sub-consciously by the producers or author. This phenomenon is not necessarily nefarious since it is often the case that the producers/author have a genuine (in the sense of their personal experience and/or research) perspective that shapes and colors their creative efforts on film or in print.
For example, if one has had experiences (and/or undertakes research) that involve incompetence, self-serving or illegal conduct etc. among military leaders, depending on myriad factors (the personal qualities of the observer in terms of education, professional experience, personality, social and political views etc.), that person can have a far different view of “reality” than someone else coming at the same things from a different perspective or pre-disposition.
In the context of “Hollywood,” (in the broad sense to refer to the industry that creates these films and the surrounding “culture”) I think it fair to say that often such perspectives (whether the result of actual experience, research etc. or mere bias resulting from personal issues and/or the “liberal” milieu of those involved in making such films) are skewed toward the negative in terms of the “military” (I use the term generically to encompass the culture that involves things often seen in Hollywood as negative such as discipline, motivation based on values beyond self etc., or operations that may be seen as illegitimate or wanton). Thus, it is not surprising that so many of the films that deal with the military have these repeating negative themes or undercurrents woven into an otherwise well-crafted drama.
As you point out, the modern military film stands in stark contrast to those of the genre of “in your face” propaganda military films of the WWII and Cold War eras where the “production values” were such that the average viewer could discern a degree of unreality in the production. For example, the closing scene of the epic Sands of Iwo Jima where the Marine squad is clustered about the body of the heroic Sgt. Stryker in the middle of a very hot battle, standing erect and eulogizing their fallen hero without so much as one errant Japanese bullet to interrupt the dialogue. Such excursions from the grim, arbitrary and impersonal violence of real combat served to buffer the otherwise fairly blatant “message” being conveyed by the film (the epic struggle between the good “us” and the evil “them”, allies vs. axis, west vs. east etc.) so that the viewer at least often saw it for what it was.
Today, however, the increasing technical skill of the producers of military films, affords them a powerful vehicle with which to mix almost imperceptibly whatever “values” messages they want to impart on the audience. It is this aspect that I was trying to point out.
It’s important to realize that GK (both book and film) present the soda-straw view of a lance corporal/corporal/sergeant level in the USMC. As a lance coolie in the Marines myself, I understand perfectly well that I am seeing only a tiny piece of what is a very broad canvas. Stuff that makes zero sense to us makes a lot more sense from the BC or staff level. Staff NCOs and officers who look utterly incompetent on one level look shit-hot from another, doing different tasks.
GK rings utterly true from my own level, especially in the middle of a deployment where almost everyone gets belligerent and disgruntled. But it’s important to realize that that it’s only partly true, from one perspective.
Well stated. I hope none of my posts taking issue with the portrayal of officers and NCOs suggest anything but the greatest respect for the “Lance Corporals” of our respective armed services.
I see what you mean, but I tend to disagree. Realism in films is used mainly to help the user suspend disbelief. The problem being that once a film has set a bar for realism, films that follow run the risk of being noticeably unrealistic, when in fact all films, bar documentaries are unrealistic by definition. Films like Halls of Montezuma were the Saving Private Ryan of their day in terms of audience expectation, hence I would argue that they have had just as much “trojan horse” effect as contemporary movies have on contemporary audiences. When such films were made, audiences had very little access to battlefield footage, therefore they were not able to jump on youtube and see what a real firefight is like. Therefore in terms of the line between “reality” and fiction, I’d argue that the line has not always been so defined (though it is plain to see in many films) since audience expectation of reality has changed in the last seventy years.
Regarding subconscious bias, I think this is in no small part due to the nature of the medium. Drama needs its characters, and hard working, normal people are pretty boring on screen. Think about the role of “boss” characters in films in general, when was the last time that the owner of the fast food restaurant that the protagonist works in wasn’t a jerk? When is the boss of the detectives actually a nice family guy who wants to work his 9-5 and not cause too many problems for his staff? Drama works because of character flaws, personality clashes and interesting, quirky personalities. If you look at the roles that people play in war movies, they don’t tend to be too dissimilar from drama as a whole. If war films had authentic NCO’s and officers, they would be about as dramatic as a fly on the wall documentary about the day in the life of a McDonald’s restaurant.
In the wider cultural context, that is “Hollywood is anti military”, I’d agree, but then I’d couch that with the fact that Hollywood is against many facets of western society. Soldiers might be violent thugs, incompetent officers or repressed symbols of humanity, but anyone involved in finance is greedy, politicians are reprehensible (unless they are Harrison Ford in Air Force One), prison guards are sociopathic killers and cops are either corrupt or alcoholic or both. Outside the bubble of the summer blockbuster, Hollywood hates almost every person that isn’t a hard working “average joe” (be they blue collar or white collar). In terms of values, what Hollywood hates more than anything is authority, and that’s probably why military organisations get short shrift, as do any other controlling work environment. The actual values you listed are common to any positive film: The hero takes a knock, picks himself up off the floor, dedicates himself to something and uses his newfound skill or sense of self to benefit his friends and family (and most likely get the girl in the process). That plot could be Karate Kid, Teen Wolf or Saving Private Ryan.
Teen Wolf – now you’re talking!
I think we agree on more than we disagree. As I have repeatedly said, much of this is inherently subjective and largely unquantifiable. As for your observations in your first paragraph, my perspective was colored in large part by my own recollections of the films of the 1940s-50s where we were thrilled by the overt patriotism and courage of our stalwart military depicted in them, I do not recall we ever forgot that we were watching a drama. I do not think this is necessarily the case with more modern films (for example, there are many who fervently believe many of the works of Oliver Stone are essentially documentaries due to his deft mixing of actual footage as well as doctoring it to include fictional characters). On second thought, perhaps this says more about the nature of our “culture” today than it does about the extent to which modern films are used as propaganda!
I haven’t seen the mini-series, so I can’t commit on it but I have two thoughts.
One, the title is idiotic. I hope they explain it, but if we’re in generation kill, then what the hell was “The greatest generation.” They killed so many more people.
Two, war films often get stuck as propaganda. Either anti-war propaganda like redacted, or more glowing pro-military films like were prevalent in WW2. America has a wonderful military filled with dedicated soldiers, a good war film will show this. Those soldiers are also human, humans make mistakes, and a good war film will show those mistakes as well.
The best are is truth, and the truth isn’t black or white.
I believe the title is in reference to the MTV culture that the American soldiers who went to war in Iraq grew up in, not the number of people they killed. To quote Evan Wright himself: “I think people were shocked that people in the marine corps today don’t talk like Tom Hanks in a World War II movie, and the truth is marines who are 22 years old actually are steeped in the same culture as 22-year-olds who are not in the marines.”
The best documentary on the subject I’ve seen is Soundtrack To War, which is up here for free:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7548006816297243731#
If you don’t have time to watch the whole thing, skip to about 3.20, when the tank operator is talking about hooking up Tupac to the comms system!
I’ve actually written about the soundtrack to war back at my blog. Is piping tupac into the comm system any different than Spartans banging their swords on their shields? Or medieval troops marching to drums? Music and war go together.
The title then is still equally silly. Our culture isn’t more or less violent than 20, 50, 100 years ago.