Matt Damon as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller in Paul Greengrass's Green Zone. [Photo: Universal Pictures] Green Zone

Green Zone ½

by Nick Schager on March 9, 2010   Jump to Comments (4) or Add Your Own


When it comes to modern action directors uninterested in spatial lucidity, Paul Greengrass has gotten off pretty easy, despite the fact that his two Bourne films' faux verité handheld cinematography turned every fight and chase centerpiece incoherent. It seems that if no one calls you on it, there's no need to change, and thus it's no shock to find the director's Green Zone employing the same gritty-jitter aesthetic as his prior two collaborations with Matt Damon. In this laughably preposterous slam-bang military saga set in '03 Iraq shortly after invasion, Damon is Chief Warrant Officer Miller, assigned to find WMDs by following classified, supposedly vetted intel that, as he goes from site to site, turns out to be dead wrong. First puzzled and then suspicious about the source of this info, Miller brazenly questions his higher-ups during a debriefing and, upon meeting resistance, goes rogue to discover the truth about Iraq's weapons programs and our reasons for going to war. All the while, he flashes the cocksure bluster and invincibility of an '80s action superstar tasked with the revisionist-history fantasy mission of righting real-world wrongs with nothing but his courage, know-how, and might. In essence, he's Rambourne.

In imagining an alternate reality in which a lone hero uncovers—and exposes to the public back home—that no WMDs exist and that the U.S. military manufactured intel to invade Iraq, Green Zone recalls not only Stallone's Vietnam-conquering army superhero, but also The Kingdom, which similarly treated the Middle East as a playground for ludicrous genre-movie crash and booms mixed with political "commentary." In comparison to Greengrass's latest, however, Berg's glossy, ideologically silly work seems like The Battle of Algiers, despite the fact that it's Greengrass who's obsessed with co-opting nonfiction filmmaking styles. As is his penchant, the director never holds a shot for more than three seconds and cuts spastically at all times to generate a false, distracting sense of "energy." In the process, he creates a permanent awareness of the camera that keeps one at arm's length from the action. It's as if Greengrass doesn't trust his images, which is understandable considering the mundanity of his compositional sense. Yet framing issues are secondary to his maddening disregard for coherence in his frenetic skirmishes, shot in blurry handheld, often in darkness, and chopped to pieces in the editing room so that characters' geographic relationship to one another, and the progression of incidents within a given scene, are wholly indiscernible.

Narratively speaking, Green Zone's rage against the U.S. war machine is not only five years too late, but simplistic, its censure screamed with all the subtlety of Shock and Awe and its schematic layout of good and evil (with a miscast Greg Kinnear as the stand-in for the U.S.'s intel-fudging evil) so reductive as to be simultaneously risible and insulting. Based on Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone, Brian Helgeland's script partakes only of kindergarten-grade analysis, replete with a Wall Street Journal reporter (Amy Ryan) who learns the importance of fact-checking, dim third-act efforts to turn a mustached Saddam general (Yigal Naor) sympathetic—he may have murdered and tortured his countrymen, but he's been victimized by Kinnear's lies!—and countless other make-you-go-hmmmm moments. Everything's black and white and cartoony all over in this Iraq adventure, from Kinnear's villainy (one half-expects to see him eating an Iraqi baby for lunch) to Brendan Gleeson's nobility as a gruff U.S. official, to Miller's on-the-ground civilian assistant Freddy (Khalid Abdalla), whose primary purpose is to be laughed at when a soldier accidentally pulls off his prosthetic leg.

Nonetheless, the film's crude regurgitation of common truths and opinions is ultimately less grating than its spurious attempt to legitimize itself via a docudrama style as inherently phony and unreal as Michael Bay's polar-opposite car commercial sheen. Greengrass's bump-and-jostle attention-deficit cinematography—chockablock with now-hackneyed sights of hooded detainees and suspects being tortured by bald meathead U.S. grunts, all of which are carelessly tossed off as shorthand supporting evidence for the story's prime argument—appropriates elements from verité filmmaking and TV news reportage without successfully replicating those modes. Faithful mimicry, however, isn't the pressing issue; it's Greengrass's use of his formally cruddy techniques for mere superhero fantasy, resulting in a disconnect that's jarringly disingenuous. Haphazardly shaking and spinning his camera drums up just self-conscious, artificial liveliness (not to mention nausea), which comes to a head during a climactic nocturnal chase through Iraq streets that's so visually muddled and hideous as to warrant a permanent, preeminent place in film school 101 classes. With unchecked fervor, Greengrass shows no respect for cause and effect, for how images and plot points cogently go together, thereby negating our own interest in how the pieces of his clichéd, scattershot film correspond.


  • Director(s): Paul Greengrass
  • Screenplay: Brian Helgeland
  • Cast: Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan, Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs, Yigal Naor, Khalid Abdalla
  • Distributor: Universal Pictures
  • Runtime: 115 min.
  • Rating: R
  • Year: 2010



Comments

Gromit on March 12, 2010, 07:47 PM

"but also The Kingdom, which similarly treated Iraq as a playground"

The Kingdom take place in ...well, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

editorGCP on March 15, 2010, 12:34 PM

I think, though they've provoked some good discussion, that these Slant comments sections have really just left room for people to nitpick and criticize the writing at hand; seriously, guys, this is easily some of the finest work published on the internet, and, hell, nobody's perfect.

Erbear423 on March 27, 2010, 10:21 PM

This is the first movie I've ever walked out of in my life. After 30 minutes of non-stop camera shaking, I started to get severe motion sickness and asked for my money back. I think it's funny how directors like Paul Greengrass talk about how jittery handheld digital camerawork adds to a film's documentary-like sense of realism, when in actuality, it does the complete opposite. It takes me out of the story and makes me aware that I'm watching a movie. In real life, when I look at something, it usually tends to be in focus and standing completely still, so their comments about "documentary-style realism" are all a bunch of B.S. Greengrass should go to a hardware store and stick his head in a paint shaker sometime, so that he can experience firsthand what viewing one of his movies is like.

Aaron Scott on April 7, 2010, 04:24 AM

I dig Greengrass' jittery camera for certain things, like the daytime chase scene on foot in the Bourne Supremacy. It was definitely too much in Green Zone, especially with the grainy nighttime shots. I was occasionally seduced by the style even in this context, thinking "perhaps Greengrass is trying to make me feel just as disoriented as a soldier sprinting through an unfamiliar neighborhood with bullets whizzing by and thirty pounds of gear on...and it's working." But feeling like I'm a solider in Iraq doesn't necessarily make for the best way to tell a story. For much of this movie, I was attempting to give Greengrass credit for things that didn't make sense. "How can Damon just do whatever he wants whenever he wants? I guess Greengrass is just making a point about how poorly planned the whole operation was." But no. Greengrass' operation is also poorly planned, which is just ironic, not impressive (or enjoyable). Besides the camera work, it's hard for a lefty not to love the political message, but it was executed amateurishly, in a "my first overtly political film" sort of way. Freddy's play in the third act spoke for itself; he didn't have to turn to Miller and explain what his actions meant. It sort of ruins symbolism if you have to explain it.

Add Your Own

Login to post comment

or Create an Account



Giveaway

Malcolm X
Newsletter