Denby On Stop-Loss

As usual, he's wrong. Yes, Stop-Loss is somewhat better than the fall's run of anti-war films, but no, it isn't really any good, and Denby makes a series of increasingly implausible claims on its behalf: That it "won't be easy" for audiences to ignore (so far, they don't seem to having much trouble), that it "may become the central coming-home-from-the-war story of this period, just as The Best Years of Our Lives ... became central to the period after the Second World War" (I sincerely doubt it), and most implausibly, that its affection for its military characters "may make Stop-Loss popular with both liberals and conservatives."

To understand what makes this last claim implausible, it's helpful to look at another Denby statement about the movie: "Surely," he writes, "no male director has gone further into the hair-trigger anger and pathos of the American warrior caste." I can think of a few male directors who might argue the case, but even if he's right the line still gets at why Stop-Loss, despite its affection for its military characters, won't win many fans who don't already share Kimberly Peirce's biases and politics. Her film conceives of the American military caste almost exclusively in the terms that Denby describes, depicting its protagonists as prisoners of their "hair-trigger anger and pathos"; it loves its soldiers, but it ultimately condescends to them as well, approaching them with a mix of pity and protectiveness rather than respect. As Reihan put it, Peirce "seems to think of her subjects as overgrown children, complicated and tragic, yes, but not ready to withstand the rigors of adult decision-making." This is obviously better than thinking of them as crazed killers running amok, or plaster saints martyred for the folly of Senator Tom Cruise. But it's still something well short of three-dimensionality, and the truth.

Comments

I will say it one more time: when will Mr. Douthat, who constantly disclaims against the politicization of movie reviews and the influence of a person's ideology on their opinion of a movie, actually give credit to a movie that doesn't share his politics? He complains and complains about politicized movie reviews, and then every other post is an assault on a movie that he feels is insufficiently conservative.

It's really breathtaking, the hypocrisy here: when Dana Stevens doesn't like the politics of a movie, and says so, she is a typically joyless liberal insistent on inserting her politics into everything. When Douthat doesn't like the politics of a movie, it's righteous umbrage at those out-of-touch coastal elites who make movies. (He hates those coastal elites, does Ross Douthat, New Haven-raised, Harvard educated editor at the Atlantic.)

Posted by Freddie | April 3, 2008 10:51 AM

Freddie-

Ross won't. Ross won't do that for the same reason that he won't condemn torture--he's a coward. He's a careerist who needs to maintain friends over at NR so they can publish his movie reviews. He's a dressed up hack.

Posted by rickm | April 3, 2008 11:31 AM

for the same reason that he won't condemn torture

Or discuss Iraq.

It's disappointing. I read Rod Dreher for a while, but wound up being put off by his snarky tribalism. He's entitled to it, of course, but it's not anything you can really engage with. Ross is obviously quite a bit smarter, but he's not about to say what he thinks about anything, for fear of leaving a non-PC paper trail.

Daniel Larison is a very engaging social conservative. It can be done. But the price that he has to pay for engaging in honest conversation is relegation to The American Conservative. Which, in Ross's view, is like totally uncool compared to NR.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 3, 2008 11:45 AM

A guy I work with in his mid twenties has just been activated for another tour of duty in Iraq as a marine reserve. He has served one tour already.

Except this time he has his first child, a three month old daughter.

Everyone is at a loss for words.

Posted by Real Life | April 3, 2008 12:22 PM

Ross,
Everyone’s-a-griping! Let me say, I’m inclined largely to agree with you; films that deal only with the horror of war and not the reasons why it sometimes is necessary raise important questions but may fall short of persuading thoughtful viewers. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s remotely disrespectful toward our troops to suggest that good decision-making may be difficult in situations like those prevailing in Iraq—these are complex situations of urban combat in which one doesn’t speak the native langauge or understand the nuances of tribal and sectarian politics. There is real moral ambiguity here—e.g., a thousand accidental tragedies are waiting to happen—and film does a real service in putting it into the public consciousness. (Our mainstream political discourse certainly doesn’t seem to have accepted the job. Nor does the average American ever see much Iraqi filmmaking or television? Then again, how much do we see of actual soldiers and Marines speaking to us either? More voices are needed; more films, not fewer! So in general, I would say—leaving aesthetics aside—that Pierce et al. are offering something valuable but incomplete.)

Posted by jason | April 3, 2008 12:28 PM

Hi Ross,

I'm reading your Atlantic RETURN OF THE PARANOID STYLE essay & must say I feel the same way. A decade ago, when I was in my 20's, I loved paranoid 70's films. There's a time and place for everything. Surveying the post Iraq intervention cinema landscape I thought a certain spirit was woefully missing & I sought to fill the void. I took it upon myself to visit northern Iraq and wrote a fictionalized account of the trip in novel form, which I am adapting into a screenplay. We'll see how well my earnest, pro-American tale is received.

Best regards...

Posted by Scott Moshen | April 3, 2008 12:41 PM

rickm writes: "Ross won't do that for the same reason that he won't condemn torture--he's a coward. He's a careerist who needs to maintain friends over at NR so they can publish his movie reviews. He's a dressed up hack."

It's the same reason he still links to (and cites admiringly) Steve Sailer, former National Review Racism Editor. I guess once you've been Swimming With Buckley you can't see how polluted those waters are.

I'd like to watch Oliver Stone's forthcoming Dumbya Bush biopic with Ross just to see his Rovian lizard-brain kick into gear.

By the way, what exactly are Ross's credentials or standards for deciding what a "three-dimensional" portrayal of a soldier would involve, or what the "truth" would look like? He never says. As a film critic, he does a good impression of a dishonest military recruiter.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 3, 2008 1:37 PM

" I took it upon myself to visit northern Iraq and wrote a fictionalized account of the trip in novel form, which I am adapting into a screenplay. We'll see how well my earnest, pro-American tale is received."

Well, I can give you three answers:

1) That you saw the need to describe your film as "pro-American" does not imply that the script has a strong ideological component and you consider war critics to be "anti-American." Rather, it indicates that you're a clear, cool, objective observer untainted by bias and your view is fair and balanced, unlike those damn leftist screenwriters.

2) When your script is not made into a feature film, it will be conclusive proof that Hollywood is controlled by Leftists Who Hate America. Their decision will have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of your script.

3) If it does get made into a feature film, Ross will deem it the best movie ever made about Iraq. This will be because it achieves a much higher technical and thematic quality than all the other Iraq movies, and will have nothing to do with his impression of the film's political message.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 3, 2008 1:59 PM

Ross,
"...but not ready to withstand the rigors of adult decision-making."
Yeah, decision making in the war zone/community policing environment in Iraq is a lot like juggling working late or getting your kid to soccer practice on time.
No wonder we still under diagnose PTSD's.

Posted by carsick | April 3, 2008 2:07 PM

Boy, LaFollete, I'm not sure if you're taking issue with Ross or with me, but you seem to be reading a lot into my short blurb that isn't there. Best of luck to you, but talk about jumping to conclusions...!

Posted by Scott Moshen | April 3, 2008 4:23 PM

Well, Best Years of Our Lives was overrated too, and doesn't stand up at all. Boring film full of dull platitudes.

Posted by Eric Blair | April 3, 2008 6:47 PM

Ross, do you know any people in the military?

Posted by Korha | April 3, 2008 7:50 PM

There's something horribly wrong in Ross and Reihan's analysis--yeah, lots of soldiers join for economic reasons, but the military just isn't like a civilian job where you can just walk away if you change your mind about it without being tossed in the brig. We made indentured servitude illegal for a reason--not because we're treating workers like children, but because we're treating workers like human beings.

Yeah, I realize that the circumstances of war mean that the military just can't work if people could just walk off the "job". But the fact that tours of duty would be thrown out of any civilian court if enforced by private contract implies a social compact: the soldier agrees to answer his nation's call for an extendable period of time, and the nation agrees only to make that call when it's truly necessary or worthwhile, that we won't simply squander their time and lives away. I don't think I'm infantilizing anyone when I point out that we're failing to uphold our end of this implied contract, and yes, that constitutes a betrayal of trust.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 3, 2008 9:15 PM

My two cents:

I think that Ross believes that any discussion of "the troops" must lean heavily on the idea that they are selfless defenders of American freedom. I grant that "the troops" are that, but each individual soldier may not be, or the story is much more complicated than that. Ross wants each director to demonstrate that they love the troops first before they attempt to portray the other side. I think for Ross any war movie must contain a hagiography of the troops. I lived in college that had a weekly influx of neighboring soldiers, and they were the wildest, sometimes vilest, and violent group of people in a bar or club. Hell some of best friends in college were in the military and they were immature, dumb, and made bad decisions, putting on a uniform didn't change that. We are talking about 18-25 year olds for goodness sakes. Some soldiers join the military for a job, and yes others do it to defend their country, and some do it for no real reason at all. Your not a lefty if decide to focus on one side of the story. That is why all of those John Wayne WWII movies are so horrible, except for nostalgia. They never really "three dimensionalized" the soldiers. Some how if movies reverted back to the Fighting Leatherneck days, Ross wouldn't have any complaints.

Also, I have to say that I find Ross' movie reviews to be tedious and completely over determined. The same goes for Chris Orr over at TNR. Political Geeks do not make good movie critics, and I willing to start a petition begging Ross not to give us another one of his "hey this movie wasn't conservative enough" reviews

Posted by MLP | April 3, 2008 9:40 PM

MLP writes: "That is why all of those John Wayne WWII movies are so horrible, except for nostalgia. They never really "three dimensionalized" the soldiers. Some how if movies reverted back to the Fighting Leatherneck days, Ross wouldn't have any complaints."

Of course he wouldn't, but a better comparison would be to Wayne's odious "The Green Berets." Being a propaganda tool is one thing during a just war. Being one during a horrible mistake when people are dying for no good reason at all is disgusting.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 3, 2008 10:14 PM

Freddie,

Why don't you wait until a liberal makes an intelligent, engrossing, nuanced film that doesn't share Ross's politics before asking that question again? Because you can't claim that Ross is against a movie because of its politics when the movie has so many faults independent of its politics.

Posted by Fred | April 4, 2008 12:56 AM

It's a little partisan, in that Ross doesn't search out "Left Behind" movies to criticize, but mostly sticks to awful movies that criticize Iraq, or possibly the Catholic church.

That said, the movies all sound relatively awful. Where's the "Three Kings" of the W-world?

Posted by J Mann | April 4, 2008 9:02 AM

Why don't you wait until a liberal makes an intelligent, engrossing, nuanced film that doesn't share Ross's politics before asking that question again?

I thought Children of Men was such a film. Certainly others might disagree on aesthetic grounds, but if I remember correctly Ross's objections were 100% political.

It's strange that that movie is even considered lefty, anyway. I thought the central themes were essentially conservative and Christian. But there were a couple moments (admittedly the weakest in the movie) where it alluded to contemporary politics, and that was apparently too much for Ross.

Posted by Brendan | April 4, 2008 10:59 AM

Not that these were mainstream features, but has anyone seen Turtles Can Fly? Voices of Iraq? Iraq in Fragments? Great films. Far more in touch with sentiments on the ground than any of the other titles I've seen, thus far, bandied about.

Posted by Scott Moshen | April 4, 2008 1:21 PM

Scott Moshen writes: " Far more in touch with sentiments on the ground than any of the other titles I've seen, thus far, bandied about. "

For the sake of the fate of your screenplay I hope you're a better writer than your use of the old fogey term "bandied about" suggests, Scott. But I'm curious about your great experience "on the ground" in Iraq and why you think it gives you some sort of expertise about the "sentiments" there. Since you're not being forthcoming about much you're really not communicating effectively - which makes your pissy response to LaFollette's quite reasonable post even pissier.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 4, 2008 6:14 PM

Banned Moe Larry and Jesus,

Why you're fixed on picking a fight or how you think it is constructive is beyond me. Have you seen the movies I mentioned?

Posted by Scott Moshen | April 5, 2008 10:18 AM

"Why you're fixed on picking a fight or how you think it is constructive is beyond me. Have you seen the movies I mentioned?"

I've seen "Voices of Iraq." So what?

Why you refuse to provide a context for your comments was my question, Scott. One more time. LaFollette's comment to you was quite appropriate given the context of this blogsite. If you're new here you may not realize it, but Ross's film criticism gets a lot of flak here because it's all done in service of his One True Party. Your gee-golly "earnest, pro-American" post was crying out for LaFollette's comment IN THAT CONTEXT.

Capisce?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 5, 2008 2:10 PM

Despite criticisms of the movie "Stop Loss", good and bad, I think there are uncritical "patriotic Americans" who believe what they are told about the need to protect their homes. If only for this reason, the director provides a point of view held by countless numbers of American soldiers once they have served two, three and four times in Iraq. Similarly, the film provides a point of departure from the commonly held views of their families, as well.

Posted by jacquelyn washington | April 5, 2008 2:29 PM

Banned Moe - you are not the kind of person I like to have a conversation with. Your quickness to attack knowing so little about me speaks volumes about you. I can’t take your point of view seriously.

I have been to Iraq. I remain in touch with Iraqis as well as with Americans who are in Iraq often, inclining me to concur with Ross's essay’s sentiment that the current stream of Iraq War American films is disjointed from Iraqi perception of what we're doing there, which does Americans and Iraqis both a disservice. We’re discussing films about Iraq so I called attention to Voices of Iraq among other films which are educational because they provide insight into the Iraqis, whose point of view I keep in mind when I vote and when I contribute to the culture. You're "so what?" reiterates that you're more interested in having a pissing contest which to me is a waste of time.

I do not imagine that my appraisal of your m.o. will penetrate. You were prepared to assume you knew who I was before I contributed a third comment. I can't imagine you behave this way in your face to face dealings with people. That you do so here inclines me to believe you're compensating for something.

Posted by Scott Moshen | April 5, 2008 6:04 PM

Scotty boy, you seem bound and determined to say absolutely nothing of substance. You still have said absolutely nothing which indicates how you think things are going in Iraq, or that shows you have any position at all about American activities in that country. You also have completely sidestepped my question about the nature of your experiences in Iraq.

The only clue you have given thus far is your "earnest, pro-American" line, which LaFollette reacted to quite appropriately, as I have said.

If your screenplay is as bland and pointless as your comments here I suggest you send it to Kirk Cameron, the only actor in America who could possibly do it justice. Maybe you can get a non-speaking role as a spittoon or a potted plant.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 5, 2008 6:22 PM

I thought Children of Men was such a film. Certainly others might disagree on aesthetic grounds, but if I remember correctly Ross's objections were 100% political.

That was a great film Ross and Chris Orr misjudged, but I don't think it was political so much as being too attached to the P.D. James book and therefore missing things they might have seen if they had evaluated the movie in it's own terms. They weren't alone, though--it was an apparently superficial movie that actually had more under the surface than it's harshest critics realized.

Most political movies are bad, so even though Ross hates all of them, but he usually manages to find legitimate aesthetic reasons to do so. I don't think he did this time, though.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 5, 2008 10:46 PM

Moe:

How dare you suggest any sort of comparsion between Bill Buckley, establishment hack, and Steve Sailer, who, whether you think he is a racist or a truthseekre, at the very least is obviously serving his own agenda and not someone else's.

Posted by Glaivester | April 6, 2008 11:51 PM

More specifically, Moe, how can you suggest that Douthat gets any mileage from mainstream conservatives from his apparent approval of Steve Sailer? I don't think that he is widely admired in the mainstream circles or by the current National Review. In fact, I was under the impression that he was a vicitm of one of NR's purges.

Posted by Glaivester | April 6, 2008 11:57 PM

Glaivester hiccups: "How dare you suggest any sort of comparsion between Bill Buckley, establishment hack, and Steve Sailer, who, whether you think he is a racist or a truthseekre, at the very least is obviously serving his own agenda and not someone else's."

and:

"More specifically, Moe, how can you suggest that Douthat gets any mileage from mainstream conservatives from his apparent approval of Steve Sailer? I don't think that he is widely admired in the mainstream circles or by the current National Review. In fact, I was under the impression that he was a vicitm of one of NR's purges."

Sailer's one of the GOP's undercover agents, quietly pumping out racist sewage that gets noticed by the usual suspects. There's a reason why his insane attack on Michelle Obama took place - it was a trial balloon for more visible, but just as risible GOP racist attacks.

I'd guess that Sailer was nice to Ross when Ross was buzzing around the NR offices during his "swimming with Buckley" days, and Ross is drawn to crypto-racism (note his big TV/welfare duchess nonsense) so Sailer appeals to him on that score.

Sailer's a marginal creep but he's still got the old school ties to the Gross Old Party.

As an aside, Glaivester, you shouldn't post while drunk, because it makes your posts even less literate than usual. I know the 40th anniversary of the murder of MLK is holy to you creatures, so you've been into the hootch for days, but it really doesn't work for you.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 7, 2008 12:20 AM