A Film Review? Or War Review? (Media Meditation #1)

Restrepo (2010) Movie Poster

I had a pretty interesting media experience last week. I watched a documentary film called Restrepo, which is up for an Academy Award this Sunday for Best Documentary. The film is about a year spent with one particular United States platoon in the deadliest valley in Afghanistan (and some say the world!), called The Koringal Valley. The Koringal is known to be such a dangerous location because of it's known orientation to the front lines between strong United States and Taliban army posts. In short, the Korengal valley is like the line of scrimmage right before the ball is snapped in an American Football game. Just give the players guns, knives, and an extreme desire to kill one another.

Rumor has it that the Korengal Valley takes somewhere around 50% of casualties in The War in Afghanistan...



Here, also is a clip from cbsnews.com with Co-Director Sebastian Junger and Major Daniel Kearney, who plays the biggest role in the film (and in the platoon).



My first response to this flick was to watch it again, to be honest. We've seen plenty of footage of the war from the perspective of CNN, NBC, ABC broadcasting groups. But those perspectives are biased to a higher degree because of the direct subjectivity of American soldiers as victims and Taliban soldiers as the suspects. But one of the many successes in Restrepo is the attempt to stay as unbiased as possible. The reason I use the term "attempt" is because, of course, its impossible to keep a lack of prejudice in making an American film about American soldiers. But in Restrepo, both sides of the spectrum are respected. The only prejudice presented in the film is the straw-man-like strategy that puts the viewer on the filmmaker's side indirectly. For example, directors Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger include clips of United States soldiers meeting with the elders from the area village, giving the image of cooperation between two much different groups of people. This was a way for the filmmakers to give the viewers an option as to whether they would like to side with the Americans or the Taliban. In a way, it can be seen as a persuasion technique, but in another way it can be seen as a production technique; adding a level of emotional connection to both sides of the battle, which gives the filmmakers a wider percentage of acceptance.

Co-Directors Sebastian Junger (left) and Tim Hetherington

It's never fun to think of films such as Restrepo as being a media campaign or a one sided war strategy to win over the respect of those Americans who are avidly against the war. But thinking realistically, worse things have been done to persuade the hearts and minds of fellow Americans. The 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was seen by a large majority of the population to be a persuasive technique used by the U.S. Government to get more men to enlist in the United States Army during World War II. Whether or not this was FDR's scapegoat strategy to obtain more soldiers is obsolete. My point is that there is always the possibility of a deeper strategical plan.

This comes around to the point of ethics. Where do we draw the ethical line when we are talking about persuasive techniques? When we are using bandwagoning, and humor, and timing, and repetition... ;) to persuade a population, it is generally a fair trial. But when we start to use big lies, and testimonials, and name calling, we are reaching a bigger issue and moral dilemma.

American Soldiers at O.P. Restrepo

Regardless of it's controversies (which, by the way, have not been public controversies, just those in my head) Restrepo has my vote for best documentary and I recommend watching it before Sunday!