Flicked Off: “Green Zone”
I have seen the last four Paul Greengrass movies and the latest, “Green Zone,” which I’ve finally watched, made me want to give up consuming fiction entirely. This is a story that in its key points intentionally sticks close up front to some very real, very serious issues-the great political lie of the invasion of Iraq, the falsification or at least very extreme inaccuracy of military intelligence regarding the Hussein regime’s weapons and also the outrageously damaging involvement of major newspapers in spreading that misinformation. One of the most important topics of our time, right? And Paul Greengrass took those facts and made a lone hero cowboy shoot-em-up.
As one of the real soldier-consultant-actors in the film wrote: “Paul wanted to create an action thriller that would not only make the audience feel like they were with us in Iraq but also take them on an adventure filled with political conspiracy and a hero against all odds. After talking with Paul I felt less anticipation that this would be an accurate portrayal of the MET teams and more of an action-packed thriller set in Iraq…. Since this film, my friends and family have all been asking me the same question, ‘How much of ‘Green Zone’ was true?’ The short answer is very little.”
Then what purpose is the film? The film is simply an action thriller tarted up with gravitas, and people’s lives. He used these topics to make what he thought would be a blockbuster. It’s a thriller: he wanted to inflame people’s lusts to see someone shoot people. I’m sure Greengrass feels very strongly about the political topics, though! I do too! Ideally, I’d like someone to make sense of it, and convey information about it! Why wouldn’t he want that?
When Tony Scott reviewed the movie in the Times, he wrote, of the patented night vision, low-light, shaky faux documentary camera style that makes the two Greengrass Bourne movies indistinguishable from Green Zone: “Mr. Greengrass has never been interested in technique for its own sake.” Right! He’s interested in this technique for a reason: to convey the lie of “this is real” and “you are there.” This is fake. This is pornography. This is, really, total bullshit. And I would seriously stop consuming fiction right now, in protest, for real-except I’m in the middle of a pretty decent Alastair Reynolds book and that I don’t want to give up! It’s about a team of people searching for terrible weapons in the middle of an endless war? Except it’s set in the year 2605 and it’s NOT AN ALLEGORY. It’s.. made up! Fiction! Just like United 93 and Green Zone really are.
I did not think I could be more offended by a movie than I was by United 93, Greengrass’ historically based (obviously) death porno film about 9/11. His made-up narrative about the (real) terrible things that happened on that flight was about as realistic as Snakes on a Plane. And his “style” was pornography then and it’s even more foul now. Why do we want to have works of art that make up lies about important things? Why could that possibly be a good thing? It’s a deep and senseless blurring of the historical record, for starters. Tony Scott concluded this: “it has the rough authority of novelistic truth.” Well, that’s nuts. Authority is what Greengrass is grasping for, sure. And he conveys it, with his tricks and his incredible recreations of Baghdad and all that. But truth, no matter what James Frey says, doesn’t have gradations.
