people who say this is only propaganda are wrong - Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion

[–] trpdean 19 years ago

Bluez, I quite agree with you. This "propaganda" stuff is silly.

The movie makes it utterly obvious that the people in the crowd were shooting away. Does that seem realistic? Of course - all around the world, one has seen militant crowds shooting at people.

In fact the movie probably doesn't raise ENOUGH of a question about whether it was right to shoot in the crowd. It's so obvious that it was right when we see so clearly that dozens and dozens of people in the crowd - old, young, everyone - are firing away with machine guns and rifles. There were FAR more people shooting from the courtyard than from the roof opposite.

Every single soldier in the world would have fired into that courtyard if they'd seen what Jackson saw. And any court in any country looking at that videotape would immediately acquit.

I sort of wish they had raised MORE of an issue - e.g., let's say NO ONE ever sees anyone in the crowd OR on the roof opposite firing - and the camera shows nothing -- but somehow Marines are being killed on that roof by fire coming from somewhere they can't figure out - so the Marines fire into the crowd and the firing stops. That would raise more interesting questions, I think.

reply

[–] dbmctague 19 years ago

I think people are calling it propagandic because all of the arabs in the film are portrayed as liars and gun-toting manics. Not even the children are spared.

Think about it if Yemen made a film about their soldiers guarding their embassy in the United States. Furthermore, think how you'd feel when all of the americans in the film are portrayed as liars and all the kids are portrayed as hate filled gun-toting killers.

I think you'd be a little angry too.

reply

[–] gonepostal72 19 years ago

So i guess you've never seen those pictures of those Arab kids dressing up like suicide bombers? Or maybe those videos where the little kids are holding weapons and shouting out cheeerful little songs about the evil Jews, America is the Great Satan, things like that?

reply

[–] zap644 16 years ago

Not even the children are spared of violence. But how are they portrayed as being liars and gun-toting maniacs?

I (don't) expect you will back up your assertions with any facts.

reply

[–] Spleen 19 years ago

If they don't like the movie, fine, but calling it "propaganda" is simplistic. The movie came out in early 2000, long before September 11th.

And the film was being called propaganda in early 2000, long before September 11th.

I don't know anyone who says the film is only propaganda. It's many things: a work of fictions, a courtroom thriller, a vehicle for actors, etc. And one of the things the film is, is propaganda.

My first stab at defining when a fiction film is propaganda would be this: it's propaganda when it sacrifices some of its aesthetic value in order to better spread ("propagate") a certain cause, point of view, idea, etc. If the film sacrificed all its aesthetic value then it would be mere propaganda. If, like this film, it sacrifices much but not all of is aesthetic value, it's propganda, but not mere propaganda.

...Oh, and by the way, it does glorify killing a particular group. The soldiers in the film kill Arab protestors and are glorified for doing so. The makers of the film aren't, perhaps, necessarily saying in so many words that the soldiers did the right thing. Glory isn't all that matters. But however much or however little it matters, the soldiers and the things they do are glorified - and not just a little bit, either.

reply

[–] crackajack013 19 years ago

First off let me start by saying I thought this was a very good film, it mixed some military action (yes, it may be questionable action) and court room drama making for an interesting but of FICTION. Is it propaganda? There are good arguments as to how it could be propaganda. Then again aren't most movies filled with ideas that a film maker wants to purvey? As for the glorification of killing a specific group... I would have to say absolutely not. The film makers were trying to place the film into a setting that had to do with modern warfare which just happens to take place in Arab countries. Bottom line place this movie into any other setting and it would still have the same effect. The fact remains out there that in many countries children are armed and driven to kill American forces. In Iraq for instance the children may not be the ones doing the shooting but one minute they will be laughing and playing with Coalition troops taking whatever they are offering and then run off just in time for an attack to occur. There was a good article about occurences of such happenings in past issues of Stars and Stripes and I am sure other news outlets. There is no glory in killing regardless of the reason but there comes a time to kill and unfortunately a time to be killed.

reply

[–] Spleen 19 years ago

There are good arguments as to how it could be propaganda. Then again aren't most movies filled with ideas that a film maker wants to purvey?

I gave my definition of "propaganda" and I believe this film meets it. If we go with your definition, if being "filled with ideas that a film maker wants to purvey" makes something propaganda, then most works of fiction are propaganda, and the term isn't a useful one. But under a more restrictive definition, like mine, Rules of Engagement is propaganda in a way that most films aren't.

(There is a way of interpreting your definiton in a restrictive sense; but if we do that, the problem with with the definition is that we can't tell whether or not something is propaganda merely by looking at it; we have to have some access to the film-maker's thoughts; we have to know what ideas he or she wants to purvey.)

Your claim that the film doesn't glorify the killing of a particular ethinic group is one I agree with. It does display a bigoted attitude, but a mild one, and this mild bigotry is against non-US-people in general, not Arabs in particular. (I'm mindful of the opening Vietnamese footage here.) What the film glorifies is not killing of Arabs or children in particular but killing in the abstract. Like most films about the military, it's a glorification of the soldier's trade. "These people are answering a noble calling," might be one way of putting it. The main character, a thug of dubious morals, has his story presented in much the same way one might present the story of a saint. The killing of foreigners is presented as at worst an unfortunate but necessary component of a glorious profession; the killing of members of that profession - the killing of marines - is presented as a sin, roughly on the order of slaying angels.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] desifir667 16 years ago

no it is not

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20thCentury 16 years ago

...what duty does a government have to stand behind its soldiers when it places them in difficult situations, it shows how civilians can be hurt even if soldiers have good intentions of only hurting or killing enemy soldiers, etc.

It would have been more useful to be educated on the stress our troops are under when sent to foreign cultures and how that can lead to mistakes being made. Long before 1999 or 1899, there have been many incidents of troops firing into unarmed crowds and the excuse used the most is because someone thought they were being fired at by someone in the crowd. Misunderstandings are more frequent when there is a language and/or culture barrier.

What most people dont recall - and no movies to date available to help inform us - is that the rules of engagement for our military continue to get more strict through the years, when after-event investigations prove someone felt threatened and didn't know what to do. So they fired at innocents when their safety wasn't really in danger. Most often though, the stress can make people imagine things that aren't there, like people firing at them. Thats where the rule to attempt making identifications came in.

The point is, these strict rules imposed on the troops are directly attributed to proven cases of wrongful death meted out to innocents of countries our troops are occupying. If we seriously dont want that to be acceptable, and want to convey that to the countries they're in, then those people need to know its not going to be a regular reaction and we conform to some semblance of civilized behavior that they can rely on.

Identifying a problem correctly is imperative, or else it can happen again, and sooner than later. What this unrealistic movie suggests to american audiences is that our troops are always going to be mistake free and the mobs opposing them are always firing first. It is unrealitic to suggest our troops get shafted by civilian leaders that way, with the flakiest examination of facts. They can be exonerated by trials - and most often are. (A recent exception was how the little guys got screwed to cover the civilian leaders, like cheney, for treatments of detainees they authorized at abu gharib)

Now, i dont know if blackwater had any rules of engagement, when they massacred innocents recently because someone thought they were being fired on - when they weren't - but it appears they dont. Getting away with it only make the job harder for the rest of the troops on duty there.

Plus on top of that the courtroom scenes are interesting, with the tension, the murky facts, etc. It doesn't glorify killing any particular group.

If someone said it was propaganda, that wouldn't be for glorifying killings - it would have to be towing the government's story - never doing anything wrong, so nothing to be accountable for. Are you old enough to remember how perfect the soviet union was in their propaganda? They wanted us to know they were always angels following rules and certainly wouldn't glorify killing people they occupied.

Plus, the courtroom scenes sucked very very badly for how poorly the examination of evidence was portrayed. It was a stupid representation of a trial to better juice up a fiction. The prosecutor claimed honesty and fairness, but claimed the missing tape was ok by him. He also used a tone that would only hurt his case to that jury. The ambassador's testimony would have been very simple to impeach and thus destroy that case, by simply having the marines testify too - which is Always done in cases like that. In the real world, i mean.

reply

[–] erikriveros 16 years ago

whoa whoa whoa

no need to get excited...every, and i mean EVERY thread on imdb for every movie made about the middle east has one thread about 'propaganda'...

it's the catchword of a lazy mind...1/2 the people that bring it up have no clue what it means or what real propaganda is, how it is used...

for christ's sake this is hollywood...what you call propaganda, i call the 1st rule of this medium - give the audience what they want....

the only real propanda in hollywood is for corporations via product placement...

propaganda?! castro is laughing....kim jong il is smiling...che is looking up and crying...THEY knew how to use propaganda....

it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

reply

[–] 20thCentury 15 years ago

whoa whoa whoa
no need to get excited...every, and i mean EVERY thread on imdb for every movie made about the middle east has one thread about 'propaganda'...

You couldn't be replying to me because my post was about how flawed the details were in the movie and how that only helped confuse the audience perceptions of what truly goes on in a trial. With all the evidence we saw, there wouldn't have been a problem for the defense - and how cheap the movie was for believing they could make a drama by ommitting so many important facts (or believing we're all that ignorant). Your post seems to be a general statement about the word propaganda and thus should have been directed to another post. If thats true, then read no more.

In the case you think you weren't in error and were addressing me, then you didn't address my main points about what evidence wasn't being presented by the movie. Yours would be a continuation of an argument with someone else.

Maybe you just saw the word 'propaganda' and got exersized about it. The "whoa whoa whoa", suggests the excitement was a projection of your own emotions. Those of us that understand what propaganda is and study it as in interest, never get excited about that word.

But i've seen who DOES get emotional about it - irrationally so too. The nationalists or right wingers, who believe theres no such thing as american propaganda when the spin is pro american. It upsets them to no end at the slightest suggestion of that, real or imagined.

it's the catchword of a lazy mind...1/2 the people that bring it up have no clue what it means or what real propaganda is, how it is used...

The lazy minds are the ones jumping to conclusions, right? It captures their minds whenever they see the word being used, because of the false negative connotation they associate with it. I blame that on lazy (partisan) minds not bothering to look up the definition of the word. The definition is whats "real" - not imagined.

The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect...

What is so evil about this word that makes the right get so exersized? Misunderstanding, is all.

Is "real propaganda" something that only other countries do - has america ever issued any propaganda that you know of?

For christ sake, propaganda is just spin and everyone does it - and will continue to do it in the future. Its how they do it that sets it apart. And believe it or not, everyone lies too. How they do that sets them apart too.

Corporate propaganda is "real" too. I couldn't be honest about my company's propaganda, because i wanted to keep my job. They laid it out pretty thick to keep making the sales. But the predictable truth caught up with them eventually, leaving only the usual fools wondering why things tanked in the end.

for christ's sake this is hollywood...what you call propaganda, i call the 1st rule of this medium - give the audience what they want....

Since fox news is giving their base viewers what they believe they want to hear, then that must be the same thing as propaganda? Close. Fox viewers wouldn't know it because they believe the no-spin zone has no spin in it.

What if the audience understands what spin is and know the movie producers are playing too loose with the facts, in order to paint a flawed patriotic picture? It shouldn't have to be a movie made in england, russia or cuba for it to be alright to call it what it looks like - propaganda. The lazy minds are the ones jumping to false conclusions using partisan logic - like, no movies depicting americans as the good guys can ever be deemed "propaganda".
(Thats a no-spin zone, remember?)

the only real propanda in hollywood is for corporations via product placement...
propaganda?! castro is laughing....kim jong il is smiling...che is looking up and crying...THEY knew how to use propaganda....

There it is - theres no such thing as real american propaganda - only the bad guys do it - because its so negative. right?
The young nazis believed the same thing about their country too. People that think rationally are harder to control. Think about that the next time you see someone using the word "propaganda". (can you handle it?) The definition of the word doesn't justify the emotions being evoked.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] limbsydept 16 years ago

I'm not looking to annoy people, and I know this is several years old, but... aren't all movies propaganda? I'm a film maker myself, and I live by the idea that anything I write is my opinion/view, therefore, propaganda.

reply

[–] 20thCentury 15 years ago

You're right - you could stretch the word to cover almost anything that is conveying an opinion.

Some poster here just doesn't know the meaning of the word and seems to believe it has to be something negative. Possibly because the word is usually a critisism directed at conservative entities. From experience, its often someone on the right who is recoiling against this observation made about something or someone they support. They dont try to see what made someone say that and instead just respond as if their favorite was insulted.

Similarly, if you state how you disagree with that favorite person or entity, it is interpreted to be "an attack". (Their next step is to judge those who disagree as "haters".)

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]