GI Film Festival 2008: Military Service with a Human Face

[thedrifter]

GI Film Festival 2008: Military Service with a Human Face
by James David Dickson (more by this author)
Posted 05/27/2008 ET



"Americans," explained Captain Dale Dyle, "don't want to see our troops portrayed as killers."

Hollywood seems late to understand that message despite the low earnings of movies that trash service in the U.S. military. Lions for Lambs ($15 million), Redacted (worldwide gross: $220, 307 -- not a typo), and Rendition ($10 million) were all consigned to Box Office Death. Stop Loss ($10 million), the story of a soldier who "refuses to fight this [Iraq] war" when ordered to return to active duty, came and went in short order.

How has Hollywood gotten it so wrong? Why has Hollywood chosen to portray the American military as the bad guy?

"They've built an echo chamber," said Phil Strub, Special Assistant for Entertainment Media at the Pentagon.

Film critic Gary Arnold agreed. "These people [who write and produce films] haven't ever served in the military. They don't know anyone who's served in the military. They don't know people who know people who've served in the military."

It was the sense that Hollywood had more an interest in negative -- and not realistic -- portrayals of the military experience that caused Brandon Millett to found the GI Film Fest in 2007. The Fest just enjoyed its second year in operations last weekend.

"This might not be as big as Cannes," Millett said, "but it's just as important. These stories need to be told."

Stories like Grace is Gone, which shows a father's (John Cusack) journey to connect with his children after learning that his wife Grace was killed in duty. Or Fighting for Life, which takes you inside the world of the Uniformed Services University, considered the "West Point of medical schools" and the primary trainer of battlefield medics who are saving more lives than ever before, which is why Iraq War casualties have been relatively modest (America lost 50,000 servicemen in Vietnam).

But the Festival saved its best for last. Director Mitch Anderson spent half of his personal savings to travel the world with one simple question: what would happen if the United States were to withdraw from its commitments abroad?

The World Without US is set in an election year, and William Turner is running for president on a non-interventionist platform. From our military budget of $420 billion annually, Turner argues, half could easily be cut without national security ramifications. The savings would be used to pay for universal health care and jobs for all Americans, and our withdrawal from each and every theater would "restore" America's good name.

But Turner's contributions are mere vignettes; the meat is Anderson's interviews with scholars the world over. The World Without US focuses on the impact of U.S. withdrawal from three theatres: Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

Said Anderson: "People might feel America should do things differently. But no one ever says 'just go home.'"

Using the Bosnian wars as a "test case," Anderson argues that ethnic cleanings in Europe would have been far worse without American intervention. Europe isn't prepared to exert itself militarily, even to aggressors on its own continent. When genocide broke out, twice, on Europe's doorstep, no one stepped up.

"Without America, the killing would have gone on," explained Martin Hutterbrink, a German journalist.

The argument is weaker for American involvement in the Middle East. It's America's relationship with Saudi Arabia that exposes the hypocrisy behind efforts to democratize the region. Asia and Europe depend far more heavily upon Middle Eastern oil than we -- distribution channels our naval installations keep open.

But with troops in Iraq and our ally in Israel, America's involvement in the Middle East will only expand.

America's Asian allies should theoretically be able to defend themselves. Japan is the second-wealthiest nation on earth. South Korea is twelfth. South Korea has twice the people of North Korea and twenty-times the money, and yet 30,000 Americans man the de-militarized zone to this day.

What would happen if they left? China's bugaboo, Taiwan, experts agreed, would fall in less than a month. South Korea is hindered by geography -- with Seoul a mere 40 miles from the border, the nation is vulnerable to a massive attack. Japan might have the worst logistics of all: a pacifist island, with few resources, and a militarist past its neighbors haven't forgotten.

Without America waiting in the wings, the global order wouldn't change -- it wouldn't exist. No one is manning the door in Europe, and the countries waiting to step into any breach in the Middle East (Iran) and Asia (China) don't have our, or anyone else's, best interests at heart.

It's a challenge being the globe’s only "hyperpower," but consider the alternatives. The film closes with footage of a nuclear attack ravaging Japan as President Turner drones on about how America's withdrawal from the world has worked out for all parties.

*****

Media images can be powerful. They're often more powerful and memorable than the written word. But field experience is so much deeper. And this weekend my most powerful lesson in military honor came not from the films, or the panels, but when I lost my wallet -- and about $200 -- in the theater.

I hurried back as fast as possible, hoping that the wallet would still be where it'd probably fallen. It wasn't.

Within seconds of hearing my situation all ten or twelve of the Young Marines in attendance were combing the theatre. Just as I was prepared to consider the wallet lost and thank my new friends for their help, one young lady informed me that my wallet had been found and returned to the front desk.

Not a dollar was out of place. Not even a "finder's fee."

"I can't believe it," I said, equal parts relieved and surprised.

"This is about the most honest group you could ever lose valuables around," replied a parent chaperone of the under-18 group, many of whom will join the service upon reaching adulthood.

Shame that Hollywood can't find these types of soldiers to make films about -- maybe people would actually care to see them.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Tired Superpower
By James David Dickson
Published 5/28/2008 12:07:27 AM

Senator William Turner wants to make his vision of the American Dream a reality. The costs of his program are high. He pledges to pay for them by completely withdrawing the U.S. military from foreign soil.

"If we slashed our military budget in half we'd have funds for fuel-cell plants, homeland defense, and universal healthcare," Turner tells reporters while announcing he's running for president. "Germany, Japan, South Korea -- three of the wealthiest nations on earth. Why is our military defending them?"

Turner, a lightly fictionalized combination of Ron Paul and Barack Obama, then wins and implements his plan. This serves as a vehicle for documentary director Mitch Anderson to explore the question: Just what would the world look like if America withdrew?

To find out, Anderson seeks out the opinions of scholars and journalists from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Here's a rundown of what he finds out, as related by his new docudrama The World Without Us:

Europe: Since World War II, Europe has let the line go slack on security. During the Cold War it was understood that America would deter and if necessary defend against Soviet aggression.

Today, as the European Union boasts the largest economy in the world, America is still defending Europe. The European community, in its various incarnations, has always seen itself as an economic arrangement, not a military one.

So when the Balkans exploded in the 1990s, European national parliaments vainly debated taking action. When France and the Netherlands actually did send troops, they weren't allowed to initiate firefights or defend civilians, thus defeating their role as "peacekeepers." Says Martin Hutterbrink, a German journalist: "Without America, the killing would have gone on."

The Middle East: Critics like Senator Turner say that America's special relationship with Saudi Arabia undermines every word of U.S. diplomats' "democratization" talk. Further, they point out, Kuwait -- the nation America saved in the first Gulf War -- offers universal free education and land to its citizens, all paid for from oil revenues, even as Americans face skyrocketing tuition and high prices at the pump.

America's Middle East policy is certainly flawed, the film admits. The repressive Saudis tarnish America's commitment to democratization in the region. Europe and Asia rely far more heavily upon Middle Eastern oil, yet those commerce lanes are kept open by U.S. naval installations. But September 11 showed that our two-ocean buffer is no fortress. And as bad as things are now, allowing the Iranians carte blanche in the Middle East would be utterly disastrous.

Asia: America's allies in Asia are wealthy and technologically advanced, but threatened by geography.

South Korea, the twelfth richest nation on earth, has twice as many people as its neighbor to the north, and twenty times the money. But with Seoul a mere 40 miles to the North Korean border, the ancient capital city is especially vulnerable to a massive Northern attack. Thirty thousand American troops man the demilitarized zone between the two nations. If they left the peninsula would be up for grabs -- and the North would be determined to win.

Japan is a pacifist nation with a militarist past, a nation whose neighbors haven't forgotten its past atrocities. Having felt the wrath of nuclear weapons, Japan refuses to procure them, either, leaving its defense largely to America. Japan is like a tiger that's been de-fanged, and given its behavior in the 20th century, the world can sleep easier for it.


THE WORLD WITHOUT US ends with Japan being savaged by a nuclear attack from one of its neighbors. Three survivors remain, seeking out others braving the Nuclear Winter. Back in America, President Turner, campaigning for re-election, crows about how America's withdrawal from the world made his country safer and more prosperous.

Juxtaposed against the destruction in Japan, Turner's rhetoric seems triumphal and even heartless. But the real issue, one which Anderson's film does not address, is that foreign critics want it both ways. When America intervenes, it's "interfering." When America doesn't intervene, it is "letting people die," as critics accused after the Tsunami of 2005.

Anderson's film is thought-provoking and well timed. But whether you'll ever get to see it is another matter. Documentaries and docudramas aren't usually commercially viable. Name the last five documentaries you saw that weren't from Michael Moore or about cute penguins.

"They know they'll never see their money back," Anderson said at the premiere screening when asked about courting investors. So he's shifted his focus to television networks. Having spent half his life savings making the film, he wants to reach the largest audience possible.

Ironically, Anderson has found audiences easier to reach internationally than in America. Satellites have broadcast his film all over the Middle East. Two networks in Israel have shown it, and even one in Poland. Save for its premiere at the 2008 GI Film Festival, no one in America has yet had that opportunity.

Ellie