bnorthup
03-11-2003, 01:23 PM
Tears of the Sun (R)
At the Circus
2.5 stars
The US invasion begins – on the screen
By Brent Northup
The timing of “Tears of the Sun” is haunting and disconcerting. A film about American Navy SEALs being sent to a distant country to liberate innocent victims from a reign of terror is being released on the same week as a UN vote on possible war in Iraq. Coincidental timing? Since Hollywood rarely does anything on time, it probably is merely accidental. But conspiracy theorists could have a ball with the release of this film at this time.
The tale finds Bruce Willis quite believably cast as a duty-bound soldier carrying out his mission in Nigeria to “rescue” a doctor and two nuns – and escort them to safety away from murderous rebel forces. The mission complicates quickly when the doctor insists on bringing other innocent people along also. The entire movie is a cat-and-mouse adventure film with the slow-moving pack of sweet people being chased by not-so-sweet villains.
As a film, “Tears of the Sun” suffers both from a flat cast that provides Willis with little support and from a one-dimensional script that never gets beyond the tired “can they escape” plot line.
But it’s not the story that’s intriguing in this film, but rather the political subtext. There are at least two contradictory themes playing out in “Tears of the Sun.”. An anti-war message and a pro-war message are interwoven into the same fabric.
As an anti-war film, “Sun” shows brave soldiers dying on a mission of questionable worth. The killing starts at the outset and never stops – and there’s no indication that this mission diminishes the bloodshed. Numerous sympathetic characters die, pawns sacrificed in a game where the heroes aren’t allowed to checkmate the opposition.
As a pro-war film, “Sun” turns these Navy SEALs into bona fide American heroes who dare to go where others won’t tread to protect innocent lives. What’s more, they successfully complete the mission with far fewer casualties than one might expect – and with disproportionate enemy casualties.
The film could easily be shown at the White House as evidence that American liberation of oppressed people through force is a viable option, which can be accomplished at a small price.
So what to make of all this?
First, as art “Sun” leaves much to be desired and can be safely skipped by film buffs. “Black Hawk Down” was much better.
But “Sun’s” politics simply can’t be ignored – nor should they be. Rather than oversimplify the film, I’ll boil “Sun” down to three illuminating moments.
The first moment occurs when the soldiers are being flown to battle. They are told only what they need to know and asked to risk their lives on foreign soil. Their reaction is telling: they accept because they are well-trained principled men who are prepared to honor their promise to die for their country. That scene reminds us of the quality of human beings who serve in our Armed Services.
The second moment involves the American escape from enemy pursuit. These Navy SEALs, despite towing slow injured people, are able to elude and ultimately destroy a large enemy special unit. Along the way, they come to the aid of a village being “cleansed” by rebel troops. Although there are deaths in these encounters, these scenes have an edge of patriotic fantasy to them – realistically, the rebels should have won these battles and wiped out the American unit. In short, war is romanticized and American risk is minimized. That’s a dangerous message that encourages fruitless waste of magnificent men and women.
The final moment is simply a profile of Bruce Willis as the journey ends. His face is dirty, unshaven. His eyes are empty. His heart is numb. To his credit he shows the cost of war well, simply by letting sadness overwhelm him as he completes his task. There’s no trace of “Rambo” here. Willis underplays his role, and in so doing dignifies soldiers. His sad, tired eyes reminds us that the cost of “victory” is enormous on the souls of those who survive.
My politics are pro-soldier and anti-war. My respect for taut, refined troops such as the Navy SEALs is absolute. But my respect for those who determine where and when the SEALs will risk their lives is very conditional – far too often fine soldiers from the likes of Sidney and Rudyard are asked to die needlessly. They do so willingly because they grow ’em loyal, strong and proud in small town Montana! But, truth be told, these brave young men and women are needed more on the farm, than in the desert. Spread that extra water on our dry Hi-Line lands, rather than filling canteens in Iraq.
At its best “Tears of the Sun” reminds us of the price of war – the word “tears” of the title is a welcome and sobering reminder. At its worst, “Sun’s” overly optimistic body count encourages us to waste good young lives. Overall, “Sun” is worth seeing if, for no other reason, to spill a bit of blood onto the all-too-sanitized debate over an approaching war.
END
At the Circus
2.5 stars
The US invasion begins – on the screen
By Brent Northup
The timing of “Tears of the Sun” is haunting and disconcerting. A film about American Navy SEALs being sent to a distant country to liberate innocent victims from a reign of terror is being released on the same week as a UN vote on possible war in Iraq. Coincidental timing? Since Hollywood rarely does anything on time, it probably is merely accidental. But conspiracy theorists could have a ball with the release of this film at this time.
The tale finds Bruce Willis quite believably cast as a duty-bound soldier carrying out his mission in Nigeria to “rescue” a doctor and two nuns – and escort them to safety away from murderous rebel forces. The mission complicates quickly when the doctor insists on bringing other innocent people along also. The entire movie is a cat-and-mouse adventure film with the slow-moving pack of sweet people being chased by not-so-sweet villains.
As a film, “Tears of the Sun” suffers both from a flat cast that provides Willis with little support and from a one-dimensional script that never gets beyond the tired “can they escape” plot line.
But it’s not the story that’s intriguing in this film, but rather the political subtext. There are at least two contradictory themes playing out in “Tears of the Sun.”. An anti-war message and a pro-war message are interwoven into the same fabric.
As an anti-war film, “Sun” shows brave soldiers dying on a mission of questionable worth. The killing starts at the outset and never stops – and there’s no indication that this mission diminishes the bloodshed. Numerous sympathetic characters die, pawns sacrificed in a game where the heroes aren’t allowed to checkmate the opposition.
As a pro-war film, “Sun” turns these Navy SEALs into bona fide American heroes who dare to go where others won’t tread to protect innocent lives. What’s more, they successfully complete the mission with far fewer casualties than one might expect – and with disproportionate enemy casualties.
The film could easily be shown at the White House as evidence that American liberation of oppressed people through force is a viable option, which can be accomplished at a small price.
So what to make of all this?
First, as art “Sun” leaves much to be desired and can be safely skipped by film buffs. “Black Hawk Down” was much better.
But “Sun’s” politics simply can’t be ignored – nor should they be. Rather than oversimplify the film, I’ll boil “Sun” down to three illuminating moments.
The first moment occurs when the soldiers are being flown to battle. They are told only what they need to know and asked to risk their lives on foreign soil. Their reaction is telling: they accept because they are well-trained principled men who are prepared to honor their promise to die for their country. That scene reminds us of the quality of human beings who serve in our Armed Services.
The second moment involves the American escape from enemy pursuit. These Navy SEALs, despite towing slow injured people, are able to elude and ultimately destroy a large enemy special unit. Along the way, they come to the aid of a village being “cleansed” by rebel troops. Although there are deaths in these encounters, these scenes have an edge of patriotic fantasy to them – realistically, the rebels should have won these battles and wiped out the American unit. In short, war is romanticized and American risk is minimized. That’s a dangerous message that encourages fruitless waste of magnificent men and women.
The final moment is simply a profile of Bruce Willis as the journey ends. His face is dirty, unshaven. His eyes are empty. His heart is numb. To his credit he shows the cost of war well, simply by letting sadness overwhelm him as he completes his task. There’s no trace of “Rambo” here. Willis underplays his role, and in so doing dignifies soldiers. His sad, tired eyes reminds us that the cost of “victory” is enormous on the souls of those who survive.
My politics are pro-soldier and anti-war. My respect for taut, refined troops such as the Navy SEALs is absolute. But my respect for those who determine where and when the SEALs will risk their lives is very conditional – far too often fine soldiers from the likes of Sidney and Rudyard are asked to die needlessly. They do so willingly because they grow ’em loyal, strong and proud in small town Montana! But, truth be told, these brave young men and women are needed more on the farm, than in the desert. Spread that extra water on our dry Hi-Line lands, rather than filling canteens in Iraq.
At its best “Tears of the Sun” reminds us of the price of war – the word “tears” of the title is a welcome and sobering reminder. At its worst, “Sun’s” overly optimistic body count encourages us to waste good young lives. Overall, “Sun” is worth seeing if, for no other reason, to spill a bit of blood onto the all-too-sanitized debate over an approaching war.
END