By Jeremiah Kipp
As First Recon inches its way ever closer to Baghdad, the idiocy of Captain America (Eric Nenninger) continues to push those under his command toward irritation (they subdue a prisoner and he charges in with his bayonet). Meanwhile, those under the command of Captain Encino Man (Brian Patrick Wade) buckle at his strident attempt to make sure no one questions his orders. Meanwhile, Godfather (Chance Kelly) wants to get back in the game. Meanwhile, Colbert (Alexander Skarsgård) and his humvee are headed towards Baqubah, just north of Baghdad, and sustain some fire along the way. In other words, regular viewers of Generation Kill will have more of the same.
I’m trying to keep an open mind. When listening to Philip Glass, the repetitions upon repetitions can either feel like an endless drone, or if you listen for long enough you start to detect variations on the theme. If I went back to the first episode of this series, would I detect slight differences in behavior from Colbert about how he feels about this sweeping machine he’s a part of? Does he seem any more self-aware now than he did before? As for the morale of the marines on the road, it seems to have been steadily sinking, and when they’re faced with escorting fleeing Iraqi civilians along the highway, they're conflicted by (a) how much they are allowed to do to help these people, (b) how little they can do, and (c) how bad this is for their personal morale. How are they supposed to “stay frosty” when they are facing moments that are sure to psychologically scramble them?
The sequence on the highway opens up Generation Kill’s moral territory, where you have to wonder if it’s good for the marines to open themselves up to humanity. As human beings, perhaps, it’s a good thing, but as the killing machines they’re expected to be during wartime, it creates a seed of doubt, and maybe they won’t be as effective when they have to kill an enemy that now has a human face. Lt. Fick (Stark Sands), who has been a buffer between the men and the officers, and a kind of cheerleader and motivator, is frustrated by what’s happening to them, perhaps because he himself always seems to value the good of the men over the good of the military, which makes him a decent human being but, all said and done, maybe not the best commander.
In the midst of all the repetitions and the fleeting glimpses into what passes for a marine’s daily life (much is made of Colbert providing his friends with some Chef Boyardee and a porno magazine), another instance pops up quick, and is just as soon gone, that feels underlined as being part of the overall message. The members of Colbert’s humvee feel like the war is nearing its end, which bugs them because they want to see some combat before it’s over. Scribe (Lee Tergesen) brings up the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction and is quickly shushed—once again, it’s a slight variation from what Scribe usually does on this show, which is react with a “huh, how interesting!” turn of the head whenever something happens, as if a close-up on his character registers that he’s making a mental note, or reacting to a joke someone played on him, or reacting to something goofy, or reacting to bullets whizzing by. When Scribe actually remarks on something, providing an outsider’s perspective, it feels like a Moment.
Readers who have stayed with me to this point must be well aware that I am unexcited by the show, and those rare fleeting moments of good television that I get from it are certainly welcome, but not enough to make me feel like Generation Kill is taking me somewhere, or broadening my cultural horizons, or helping me to imagine what it was like for the First Recon Battalion. I still can’t step out of the series as a dramatic construct, one that shows its gears. And I haven’t been able to separate the mechanics of its storytelling—being a fly on the wall with these young men—with the heavy-handedness of the narrative imposed on it. I feel like the show wants to sustain the immediacy and curiosity of a documentary while at the same time presenting characters, stories, an evolving narrative. And in a way, it cancels itself out.
But in my insistence in wanting to like the show, I've found myself trying to step outside the box a little. I was over at THND editor Keith Uhlich’s place debating about (a) the quality of The Wire (generally superlative), (b) inadvertently insulting him by calling him to task for his frequent use of the Holy Trinity in his reviews (mea culpa), (c) considering The Dark Knight as something beyond Keith’s view of it as reductive depictions of “Order” and “Chaos,” and (d) how heavily worn down our beleaguered (yet stalwart) editor-in-chief has become having to sift through comments and generally getting kicked in the ass for having an opinion about The Dark Knight that is clearly outside the status quo acceptance.
The conversation got me thinking about how to look at the series in a new way. I asked Keith if I could borrow the paperback national bestseller by Evan Wright and see how Generation Kill worked on the page. I found myself quite hooked, and two days later I was over 250 pages in and felt like I was getting something that the show can’t really give us, which is straight up, first hand reporting, told in a uniquely individual voice, slightly ironic, never snarky, with an eye for the tiny details that help the reader understand. The writer not only has a voice, but he’s also present in his reactions to things, and although he’s an observer, the book allows us to get inside his head.
Here’s a passage from page 17:“In my first couple of days at the camp, I’m placed in a tent with officers. I can’t tell anybody apart; they all look the same in their desert camouflage fatigues. Most of the officers seem to be square-jawed, blue-eyed white guys in their mid-to-late twenties. The initial reason I strike up an acquaintance with Lt. Fick … is that he’s easily recognizable. … [He] has a loping, adolescent smile that you can spot from a hundred meters away. He’s one of fifty men to introduce themselves to me … but he’s the only one I’m able to call by name on my way to the mess tent and ask if I can join him for dinner.”
Already, we have a sense of Wright trying to figure out where he is, and latching on to Fick as a recognizable face. When he finally starts getting to know Colbert, the description is equally evocative:“There is about him an air of Victorian rectitude. He grew up in an ultramodern 1970s house designed by his father, an architect. There was shag carpet in a conversation pit. One of his fondest memories, he later tells me, is that before cocktail parties, his parents would let him prepare the carpet with a special rake.”
Wright goes on to describe Colbert’s encyclopedic knowledge of radio frequencies and encryption protocols and weapons, and about the warrior princess babe from Heavy Metal that is tattooed across his back. The point is, we get to know Colbert, Person, Trombley and all the rest of them better through these sharp, incisive X-Rays into who they are, where they’re from, what they’re about.
Of course, you can’t dramatize this stuff because movies and television exist in the present tense, showing immediate actions and behaviors. But the show has sacrificed something so precious from the book, which is not only Wright’s accumulation of details in the day-to-day operations of the unit (which the show gets pretty well), but the way in which he is able to clearly delineate who these guys are and why they act the way they do under pressure. This is something the TV-show strives for, but the book is able to get under the skin of how these guys have been influenced by hip-hop, video games, movies and pop culture, and the way it affects the very way they think. The most the TV show can do is imply thought, and maybe create some dialogue to clarify. The result is we’re seeing scenes, not watching life unfold.
David Simon and Ed Burns did an amazing job on The Wire because they lifted the facts and the characters from real life and elevated them to epic status, placing them on a canvas bigger than they are, expanding the scope of that universe and allowing the dramatic constructs to be challenging moral dilemmas. When you have big characters making big decisions, it equals capital drama. I don’t think The Wire aspires to documentary realism—it takes real problems and makes them as big as possible, to the point that they become larger-than-life metaphors. Does Generation Kill do this? If so, the metaphors teeter over into the obvious, since Captain America and Encino Man are played so broadly, there’s no room for the subtleties that make good drama. And the emphasis on metaphor also closes down like a vice with characters like Colbert and Scribe, who are introspective to the point of being inscrutable.
There’s only one episode left of Generation Kill, and we’re in definite “wrapping up the third act” territory. As Bravo goes up against armored tanks, they are accompanied by Marine reservists, who seem like a bunch of crazy, gun-toting cowboys—and when one of the reservists accuses Sgt. Kocher (Owain Yeoman) of abusing a prisoner, it feels like he is attacking the wrong guy. Will all of these tensions boil over, or will Generation Kill remain with its cards played close to the vest? I’m sure we can expect Encino Man to make a jerk of himself, Captain America to put his men in danger, Colbert to bear the weight of the world on his shoulders, and Scribe to gaze on in wonderment and disgust. As for the subtle variations therein, let’s hope they contain some insights.
______________________________________________
Jeremiah Kipp's writing has appeared in Slant Magazine, Filmmaker, Fangoria and other publications.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Generation Kill Mondays: Episode 6, "Stay Frosty"—Take 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I've very much enjoyed reading your take on Generation Kill. I disagree with it - I haven't enjoyed a series as much as I have GK for quite a while - but I agree with the poster last week that your intelligent discussion of what you find lacking provides additional insight into the series.
It's another indication, too, that all shows aren't for everyone, and it has nothing to do with lacking the ability to understand or "get" a show. (I learned it first with Lost and then with Mad Men, although I continue to watch the latter.) But it's rare that we get to see such a thorough examination of the reasons someone dislikes a series.
Thanks for continuing to share your take on the show.
I totally disagree. This reviewer is a jackass. Why pick up the book after 6 of 7 episodes? Whats the point? Shouldn't you have read it before? Maybe then you'd have some idea of whats going on (in the first few reviews this writer clearly had no idea who most of the characters were or what their ranks were or what they did) rather than writing ridiculous weather pieces talking about the blue and beige palette...
Can you imagine someone reviewing Hamlet who had never read Shakespeare? ("This play sucks. Nobody talks like that." Or reviewing a Knicks game who didn't know anything about the NBA ("Why are all these tall black men and they all seem to just bounce a ball up and down the court")
I went to Vassar and am voting for Obama and this reviewer's effete elitism nauseates me...
I have to agree with your assessment of GENERATION KILL. It's just not doing much for me. I find it difficult to get emotionally involved in the characters. I can barely remember the faces of half of the cast. I've been watching this miniseries since the beginning and it all seems like . . . blah to me. I'm trying to give it a chance by watching each episode, but it feels as if I'm wasting my time.
--- Shouldn't you have read it before? Maybe then you'd have some idea of whats going on ---
The TV show should be able to stand on its own merits. For example, many people enjoyed the TV show HOMICIDE: A LIFE ON THE STREETS without having read the book it was based on.
I turned to the book because (a) it looked interesting after flipping through a couple of pages, and (b) wondered if it would make an interesting counterpoint to the show.
Having finished the book, I did feel vindicated in some ways for my opinions. When Evan Wright is asked what war film would shed light on the experiences of soldiers fighting today, he suggests GROUNDHOG DAY, the film in which Bill Murray is trapped in the same day of his life again and again.
In a sense, my argument that the series is showing something both repetitive and exhausting got backed up by Wright.
Wow, such vitriol among the posters, I'll try to be more gentle! Unlike you, I'm really enjoying the series, in fact so much so that I've acquired the book and am now reading along. Agreed that reading the book makes the characters and situations much more understandable, but I was getting quite a bit out of the show before I picked up the text.
I guess where I part ways with you, is that you seem to be looking for a traditional dramatic arc (if I read the posts here correctly) and you're a bit frustrated that nonesuch payoff appears to be likely. Maybe I'm not nuanced enough in my ability to critically dissect the show, but I wouldn't really expect a traditional dramatic arc here--if there was one wouldn't it be more happenstance than by design? Some real-life events do provide that sort of structure, but Ray Person's personal growth (or lack thereof) isn't something I would necessarily associate with the act of invading a country.
What I'm really enjoying are the interactions of the troops, and, as you mentioned in one of your earlier blogs, the feeling of authenticity that the series is delivering.
In any case, I've enjoyed the series, and your take on it.
Second commenter here.
There is no comparison between Homicide Life on the Streets and this. That was a book that was used as a jumping off point for a tv show that ran for 7 seasons (and a two hour movie). This is a book that is being faithfully translated to the screen as a non fiction tv translation (not as a jumping off point)that lasts 7 episodes.
Your comparison here is as ridiculous and inappropriate as your reviews...
Jeremiah asks: "If I went back to the first episode of this series, would I detect slight differences in behavior from Colbert about how he feels about this sweeping machine he’s a part of?"
Yes. The scene in episode 6 where Colbert pretends (going insane?) to be a ballerina does represent a "slight difference" in his behavior from episode 1 where he is the baddass Iceman fresh off success in Afganistan. That is the latest of many examples. Colbert's warming up to Pearson's singing is another example throughout the series.
The primary characters that are changing in the more traditional dramatic sense are Colbert and Fick. They also seem to represent the two most competent soldiers in the series. That tension should spark dramatic interest.
I think the lacking context is appreciating this series in relation back to situation in Iraq we now face. I agree with your assessment of how The Wire took real characters but then used drama to elevate them to epic status. GK is different in that we know where the epic is going -- Iraq 2008. Like in Afganistan, soldiers like Colbert were ready to win this war -- and that including winning the hearts and minds of civilians. Unfortunately, small things -- the lack of enough armored humvees, accidentally shooting civilians, the inability to round up Iraqis trying to surrender, military leaders who are over their head or scared, or commanders that seem more concerned with "getting in the game" -- all of this (and much, much more) work against this goal. Where are these small depictions going? Episode 7 seems to be pointing to finalizing how this war was probably lost (without engaging the debate about whether "the surge" is truly succeeding) in these first few weeks when -- despite Mission Accomplished -- the hearts and minds of the Iraqis were lost. It is from these military parameters that I think character development and change is best viewed. Our heroes are military minds. Their perspective is changing as they experience events on the ground.
Yes, Colbert and Fick are surrounded by stereotypical characters representing different emotional characteristics. This is not uncommon in war stories. It would be interesting to see what your thoughts were about the characters in The Wire six episodes into the first season. Sure, five seasons of episodes allowed all of the bit characters some development and nuance. Offhand, I would argue that the following characters were just as "obvious," "broad," and lacking "subtlety" after six hours of programming as the ones you seem bored with in GK: Rawls, Herc, Judge Phelan (who played a big role early with McNulty), most of the Barksdale crew save Avon, D'Angelo and Stringer.
Ultimately, I do not think GK is trying to accomplish what you want it to. Of course, art is in the eye of the beholder. As opposed to The Wire, I think GK is attempting to provide what you call "Documentary Realism." For me, this series compares favorably to other depictions of the Second Iraq War (Jarhead comes to mind). How are we now fighting wars? Cinema can uniquely show this. Sure, Simon and Burns do not have the luxury of having Colbert make a big (drug) bust on al Sadr or something grand or epic like that. But, they chose this book for a reason. First and foremost, this series is about reporting what it is like to be one of these soldiers in this new "generation kill." This is not the crew in Saving Private Ryan (for starters, we do not have a draft any longer). On a deeper level, the series is reporting the events that led to our losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Characters like that Colbert and Fick definitely thought we could have been successful -- so their transformation into cynicism is a more powerful indictment of what went wrong. From these two perspectives, I think Simon and Burns have produced a great piece of work. It is unfortunate that I have not seen any of the ramifications of this "reporting" entering the political debate about Iraq. Oh yeah, Obama is too much of a celebrity and McCain has 12 houses ...
A friend was with 3/4 kilo and the main battalion. The Devil Dogs had more confirmed kills than any other unit in country at that time. This recon mission mirrors a true clusterfuck. Between command and leadership its a wonder they got out of kuwait. I can see now why during they invasion cnbc.com who had all special forces listed did not list fore recon marines.
The true heros are the marines from 3/4 who ran the gauntlet and took bahgdad, then went back and kicked ass in operation Phantom Fury. These guys are a bunch of sorries who missed the whole game.
Post a Comment