Consider the Source


I just wanted to bring this up because I feel that many of the people who are posting on this board are under informed and might take a different view of the film if they knew all of the facts.

The man who wrote this movie, Sen. James H. Webb jr. (D-VA) is a highly respected novelist, journalist, politician, Marine, and Historian. He just recently ran and was elected to the Senate in Virginia where he defeated the Republican encumbent based solely on a campaign to "Bring Our Troops Home". Webb's ONLY son is currently a Rifleman in the 6th Marine Regiment and is serving in Iraq as we speak. James Webb opposed the Invasion of Iraq and has been a VERY outspoken opponent of G. W. Bush since he assumed the office of the Presidency.

James Webb is often misunderstood and misrepresented because he was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, because he is one of the most highly decorated Marines of the Vietnam War, because he is a 1968 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, and because he is a belligerant and pugnacious individual. He wrote Rules of Engagement not to tell a story about wasting Islamic jihadists or to glorify the US Marine Corps. He wrote this story as an indictment of our current political/military stance throughout the world. This story could be set at any time from the late 1980s to the Present Day. The US often gets caught blundering about the world carrying out the self appointed task of the international policeman, no arguement there, but occasionally we do do the right and humanitarian thing. Ask the survivors of the 2004 Tsunami, ask the survivors of the Phillipene mudslide/avalanche, ask the survivors of the Sri Lankan typhoon, ask the people of Kosovo.

What Webb illustrates I think, very well, in Rules of Engagement is that the Hawkish Bureaucrats of Washington (Sokol) are all about sending the men and women of the US Armed Forces into Harm's Way and then more than willing to pull the rug out from underneath them if tragedy strikes. Webb does his best to remind American Commanders throughout the world that there is always somebody waiting in the wings to critique their every move and their every decision from the safety of a Washington Office or CNN Broadcast desk. At the same time he does his best to Champion the men and women of the armed forces by trying to show the multitude of dangerous, difficult, and deadly positions that they are so routinely placed in by Washington DC. Sometimes you have to choose between to very bad options, but American Warriors are trained, were trained, and will always be trained to make a decision and then ACT. Childers first did it in Vietnam in 1968 as a young 2nd Lt and he does it 30 years later as a Colonel. Even though sometimes there is no right answer, there is always somebody waiting to charge you for what you decided to do.

James Webb has another movie set to come out next year titled Whiskey River which I think many people here will enjoy as it takes the point of view of a Father attempting to rescue his son from the madness of the war in Iraq. As a veteran of the invasion of Iraq I myself am very interested to see this upcoming film. I just wanted to make clear that Jim Webb is not a mindless voicebox for G.W. Bush, nor is he a warmonger, nor is he without experience or vested interest in subjects such as these.

"I'm goin' to war...with every one of them carpetbaggin' sons a B!#+c#es!"

reply

James Webb is definitely the man. He really does show the COMPLEXITY of the post-modern international relations issue, the military, and war.

I hope to be as amazing a man as he is, someday.

reply

[deleted]

Oh my God!! Those changes would have turned that movie around 180!!!!
Do you know how the version you're reffering to ended?

Thanks

reply

...and the ending text explaining that the bad guys will be punished was also added after sneak previews.
The ending was the same, Childers was innocented. But there was going to be always a doubt.
In his audio commentary or in recent interview Friedkin doesn't even talk about a future director's cut. It's a shame.

reply

"innocented"?!

reply

From what you said, the original script would have made for a better movie. I'm guessing it probably would have been more realistic too. (We went from watching the angry mob throwing rocks to them firing weapons and overrunning the embassy pretty quickly.)

Still, I think it was a decent movie. Has Webb commented on this before?

I guess I'm naive, but I'm still stunned by comments that this movie was racist and didn't raise larger questions about politics and how our military is forced to deal with the types of conflicts we deal with in the 21st century.

And should the demonstrators/snipers in the movie be more pissed off at their own governments than they are with the US?

I'm cautiously optimistic about Iran - I keep hearing that the Iranian people love the US, but their leaders are the idiots. I don't know to what extent that is true and I don't know how skewed their election results were, but of the few Iranians I've known, all of them have said they are Persian and not Iranian.

30 years after the Iran-Hostage crisis, it would be cool to see a revolution there which resulted in a non-religious democracy.

reply