The Badger Herald

ARTSETC.

‘Stop-Loss’ wins for war vets, raises policy concerns

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Stephen Christensen:

'Bank Job' heist movie shortchanges viewers (March 13, 2008)
Student groups sing for charity (March 6, 2008)
UW's 'Don Pasquale' best of year (February 29, 2008)
Musical avoids regular pitfalls, stumbles with sound (February 25, 2008)
UTA production follows new path (February 15, 2008)

by Stephen Christensen

Monday, March 31, 2008

When I first saw the flier for “Stop-Loss” fall out of my newspaper weeks ago, with the header “MTV Films” plastered across it, I admit that I scoffed. This movie, purporting to be about the Iraq conflict, would likely look more like “Step Up: Baghdad” than a war story if MTV was involved, but this was not the case.

The movie has its share of problems. In its quixotic quest to explore the varied lives of Iraq war veterans the movie gets somewhat confused, suffering from a few continuity problems and overwrought drama. However, director Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”) displays such talent for capturing the vibrancy and sorrow of her young actors that the cliches are forgivable, leaving the audience with a compelling and elegant examination of war that considers its intrinsic complexities.

“Stop-Loss” stars Ryan Phillippe (“Breach”) as Brandon, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“The Lookout”) as Tommy and Channing Tatum (“Step Up”) as Steve, all as young soldiers returning home to Texas from a particularly harrowing tour in Iraq where they saw a number of their good friends killed or maimed. The friends have already decided how they will spend their time once they are able to get out of the service, but upon returning to the United States their lives begin to fall apart.

Brandon finds out he’s been stop-lossed, meaning that the government has extended his duty in Iraq due to a hidden clause in his contract. Steve and Tommy both suffer from extreme post-traumatic stress disorder. Steve acts manically, drinking excessively and digging foxholes in his front yard, while Tommy also develops a serious drinking problem and alienates his wife. Brandon goes AWOL and futilely fights the backdoor draft while Steve and Tommy struggle to live life outside the army.

For all its drama, the film’s continuity problems detract from this story. The characters appear to hop from location to location, alternating residence from their small hometown to their backwoods ranch. Brandon takes three days to travel by car across the state of Texas, then drives all the way to New York City on the fourth day to then turn around and drive right back to Texas the next day. This is physically possibly, but he does it with such ease — especially for a fugitive — that the director and writer could have come up with a much more plausible scenario with just a little more work.

But the larger problem with the movie is that every soldier they profile ends up suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and obvious alcoholism. Even Brandon, the level-headed leader of the group, begins to suffer from visions and flashbacks. The movie thus can mire in melodrama as the young men constantly freak out and scream at each other and their loved ones.

However, whenever the movie seems as though it is about to get way too over the top, Peirce and her young actors display an uncanny ability to ground their melodrama in sincerity. The pain of the floundering Tommy seems so real that it is uncomfortable watching his life spiral out of control as his wife leaves him and he can no longer find meaning to life without the regiment of the military. Victor Rasuk, who plays Brandon’s comrade horribly maimed in Iraq, delivers his performance with a simple yet contemplative quiet that is both refreshing and profoundly heartbreaking against the backdrop of Brandon and Steve’s fury.

Where this movie succeeds most, however, is in its careful handling of the multifaceted social and political implications of the war for its veterans. Peirce makes few concrete statements about the war. It is clear that she stands very much against the institution of stop-loss, but after that her bias becomes fuzzier.

Her soldiers don’t enjoy the knowledge of possibly being responsible for the deaths of civilians, yet they accept that it is a truth of the war. Steve decides to reenlist, feeling that life inside the military is safer than life outside the military. It’s not that he’s a killing machine, but rather that he finds comfort in his brother soldiers and the life they offer him. Brandon does not wish to continue fighting the war, but at the same time he never regrets that he went on his first tour and never condemns the war outright.

Almost every issue associated with the war on terror is considered in this equivocal manner. Peirce is not, for the most part, trying to disseminate her personal politics. Rather, she is like a painter subtly shaping, shading and highlighting her portrait of war so that the audience may stand back and see its full textures and hues.

So, while the film may have a few drawbacks, it tackles the new issues this war raises in some very effective ways. Peirce effectively lends a face and a voice to a war that the public often struggles to understand, justify or accept. It is not a perfect voice, but it is a good attempt at finding a narrative for the veterans of this endless war.

3 1/2 stars out of 5

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 31, 2008 @ 7:21am):

Rightwing: Bring on the draft if this war is so important. I'll be expecting you in the front of the line....yeah, didn't think so.

Anonymous (March 31, 2008 @ 9:41am):

What is possibly left to say about a poorly produced, poorly acted, poorly directed, and very poorly written anti-war film that defames our troops.? What's left to say that hasn't been said about the dozen or so that came before? The only new angle here is that we're told Stop-Loss is co-written by a conservative. Either this poor guy was steamrolled flat in story meetings or it's true that Hollywood's idea of a conservative is someone who only kinda hates President Bush.

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/?p=9482

But thank God for Stop Loss...

...because soldiers aren't capable of living in the cold cruel world outside the hellish military cocoon.

At least that's what the LA Times wants you to believe.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/archives/2008/03/30/#029855

Anonymous (March 31, 2008 @ 11:32am):

Stop-Loss is hardly an anti-war film. It's definitely a pro-solider film. For once Hollywood has taken on a script that can speak in light of the solider, not the citizen and think there's plenty to be said about that.

Get off your pompous pedestal and get a grip of reality, not just what you think the world is.

Anonymous (March 31, 2008 @ 2:13pm):

According to recent Army statistics, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so � a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent of the annual stated goal. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal. Facts.... not fantasy... or lies.

Was this factual and positive information, indicating exceedingly high troop moral, included in the film? Well of course not! "Stop Loss' is an anti-military/antiwar/anti US government film. Like 'Horton Hears A Who', 'Stop Loss' is a work of fiction. Unlike 'Horton Hears a Who', 'Stop Loss' will be seen by few, make little money, and be acclaimed only by those of even less education and intelligence than 'Hortons' youthful audiences.

Post traumatic stress syndrome, acting maniacly, and drinking heavily describes at least half the UW students after finals week! And yet you survive... and even dare to think you are the 'future of America'.

The high participation rates in ROTC programs across the country, the high enlistment rates from the general population, and historically unprecedented re-enlistment rates of Afghan and Iraq war veterans show emphatically that middle America is voluntarily 'on the front line'. To all of our Veterans, your service is deeply appreciated!

Anonymous (March 31, 2008 @ 2:25pm):

I find it hard to pass judgment on the soldiers' experiences after the war, as I have not experienced it myself. However, I was in attendance for the pre-screening of this film in November, and a great many of the other attendees were soldiers themselves. They reacted positively to the film, saying that it reflected much of what they went through themselves or saw others experience.
And to say this is an anti-soldier film seems ridiculous, considering the director's brother fought in the Iraq war and actually played a hand in its development.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.