Right. I'll bet there is a lot of 17 year old potential Marine cannon fodder out there who have romantic notions of what combat is. Seeing this might help them avoid ending up as a mugshot on the Newshour.

The R rating is enforced with a wink and a nod. U17s that want to see it will see it. The petition is good pub for the movie.

I just watched the trailer on Yahoo...it's looks like a very good movie.

But you said yourself, that when you chose to, you
could view it and reinforce whatever viewpoint you
brought to the movie.

If that's the case then, even if it is a terrific
film, noone can be expected to see something that
could challenge their prejudices.

Dirk, I don't think people go through life looking for opportunities to have their opinions challanged. What kind of person goes through life looking to be proved wrong anyway? More often than not, people who change their mind won't admit it anyway; they will only admit to being 'fooled' or 'misled.'

As a veteran, I think the main thing that that might surpise views is--

That the level of healthy distain the jr enlisted have for their senior military leadership and their love & trust they have for their immediate leadership who are down in the dirt with them each day.

That the black guys look JUST LIKE the rappin' baggy pants wearing kids we label thugs; the white kids look like the gen-x iPod wearing bunch we wish would get a suit and get serious; of course the Hispanics. Homeboys, Hillbillies & Julio. All of these folk are people we 'respectable' folk blame socieity's ills on whenever we need somebody to blame.

And lastly this movie will prove that the 12+ months tour length imposed on these guys is criminal.

so even if it doesn't change one's mind about the why the US went to Iraq, they is still lots to learn

Steve,

I hope that Gunner Palace will be showing soon in France (where I live). You are doing a service in letting people know about it. Of course I just signed the petition because (as the comments above suggest) young people who might be serving in wars like Iraq ought to know what they are getting into.

I saw recently the important film Machuca, the story of an 11 year old boy and friends in the days before September 11, 1973 in Chile. It is somewhat autobiographical, the director Andrés Wood was 8 at the time. I think it is showing now in the US, and won't say more about it because I hope that you will take the trouble to see it and tell everyone about your reactions. Perhaps some of your readers have already seen it.

A reference:
http://www.labutaca.net/films/25/machuca.htm

Charles J,

Given the verbalizing from the well to do Rightwring on "supporting our troops(1)", their words do not reconcile well with the low social status the enlisted ranks are given within our society and in particular by the elite.

I speak of the elite's predispositions from personal experience. On occasion, I have been mistakenly invited (or regretfully crashed, in my early years) to parties of the upwardly mobile. There, in the safety of their own cliques, I have not infrequently observed the condescending attitudes displayed by the well off toward enlisted ranks.

When I have encountered this attitude, I have too often, offered up that I am one those people. This gets one of two reactions: One, a quickly uttered apology tied to a statement that I must have misunderstood what was meant. Or two, more common, an embarrassed silence, into which some helpful and well meaning lady will try to cover with something like "well...I'm sure you were an effective officer" in an effort to try to regain my status within that group. At this point in the conversation, I feel sadly obligated to disappoint the well meaning woman by pointing out that, I was not an officer, but in fact enlisted...I needed money for college.

In either case the result is the same, stricken from the list. Either you let the defamatory words pass, or take your lumps socially. I prefer to take my lumps, however, I'd be kidding you if I said it didn't hurt.

To be fair to the Rightwingnuts, the liberal elite (and their wannabees) have their version of this snobbish attitude toward our enlisted/underclass troops, which is sometimes displayed on this very comment page. I speak of those who opine versions of "if the bottom rung society "simply" refused to obey orders from the top, refused to fight, there could be no war"

This attitude conveniently forgets that little chapter in history where the most sincere of Bonzes were convinced that an individual could singularly redirect the path of nations. In May of 1966, Thich Nu Thanh Quang, a Buddhist nun, immolated herself in the city of Hue. A year later the Tet Offensive reduced Hue to ruble, the Viet Nam war happily rolled on, uncaring of Thich's ultimate sacrifice for peace. For a western, post WW II take on enlisted soldiers powerlessness, I recommend Kirk Douglas in "Paths of Glory".

A journalist I knew in high school, has called for the resumption of a draft that does not allow the elite to escape duty through counterfeit ruses. He has children that would drawn into the machine of war, he is a very moral person, he knows what will prevent an unnecessary war. Until the elite of the powerful nations feel the sting of war, there is little incentive to avoid conflict from those so empowered to prevent it.

S Brennan

(1) As long as it does not include paying taxes, sending our children, cutting down on gas consumption, or any other form of sacrifice greater than buying a sticker for the car.

Thanks for posting this link. There's nothing more repulsive than censorship in a democracy. It says something when people try to prevent the Socratic dialogue of exposure, interrogation, and examination to occur through censorship. Censorship, to invoke Coetzee, is not about 'taking offense.' It is about "giving offense" to a cultural product, and thereby distorting its meaning in the marketplace of ideas.

Off to sign the petition.

Steve,
this wasn't given a NC 17 rating, was it? I thought R meant that if you were 16 or 15, you just had to get a buddy (usually a friend's older brother) to be the adult guardian. The cries of censorship are a little ridiculous.

Still, I am all for those joining the military to know what they are getting into. As Steve remembers from his past years' experience with the military, the US military needs the best and brightest. A John Wayne movie, war is not.

With regards to Charles J's variuos stereotypes, perhaps he has seen too many movies and needs to see more accurate depictions of our troops. Perhaps he served too long ago? My ten years of service in the Army which ended in 2000 revealed a segment of America that should be emulated throughout the rest of society. Colin Powell was the CEO to speak for several of my years. If the rest of America could be as colorblind as the current US military, we would be all better off.

Charles J,
Sorry, I reread what you had to say. I think I misread your characterizations of the current military. It sounds like you are in agreement regarding stereotypes.

Sean

Sean,

I think Charles point and yours are the same...society is not as color blind as the Army.

That said Sean, in my time, a day did not pass where the words faggot prefaced by words I won't use here were spoken by those in leadership positions and Colin Powell did much to foster this attitude. You will recall high ranking officers testifying before congress that they would be unable to control their men should gays be allowed to serve openly. Their words were eerily similar to those spoken on the subject of integration of the Armed services.

Additionally, invasive investigations leading to discharges had been on an upward and exponential curve throughout the nineties until Bush's Iraq Invasion. Many good careers were ended. With Iraq, the hypocrisy became clear, suddenly bodies are needed and investigations are terminated. In this area of civil rights the Army and Marines is far behind society and very proud of it.

Further, those who were supportive of Clinton's inclusion were targeted. It was made clear their views were unwelcome and the military would be just as happy not have those soldiers around. I took the hints and left, a few years before you joined.

oops,

I posted without seeing your correction Sean, sorry.

Sean I'm glad you reread what I wrote because I meant those words: Homeboys, Hillbillies and Julio's in the best way. These are good kids...not angels for sure but just kids trying to better themselves. J Brennan, I joined because I wanted money for college too. And b/c I knew if I didn't stop running the streets I'd get some girl pregnant & get arrested--in that order.

To be honest I wasn't till I joined the Army that I felt I was really being treated the same as the white guys around me. I felt it was 100% equality of OPPORTUNITY. Matter of fact until I joined the Army I'd never had a serious conversation with a white boy. For the first time in my 26 years of life I had as many white friends as black. It's a sad testimony on American society.

S Brennan I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. American society talks about equality but in the military it is R-E-A-L real. And people on the Right and Left discount the value of enlisted and the role of good NCO leadership. They think it's all about the officers. I've been in social situations and much of what you relate are things I've experienced aslo. People can be incredibly stupid. I'm a retired 1SGT.

It's all about the officers until someone has to take responsibility for highly questionable behavior. Then it's all about the EMs.

Top,

I've enjoyed reading your comments for some time now. It's clear from your rank and demeanor you are an eceptional soldier. Best wishes.

With [additional] Respect,
S Brennan

S Brennan and CharlesJ,

Rank still always has its privileges. The issue of equating (traditional) civil rights with homosexual rights is controversial, and is divisive to say the least. I would rather NOT debate it, as it is really off subject.

With respect to gays in the military, I knew several homosexuals in the Army (rear-echelon unit) during my 10 years in the military. One LTC kept his private life private. He never had to describe where he lived, but if he had said Dupont circle, it would have surprised no one. This was both before and after Gore’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. While the US Army has not embraced gay rights, they are somewhat an equal opportunity discriminator of sex outside of marriage. There were a few officers and enlisted I knew who were prosecuted for sex outside of marriage. In some cases, gays were treated better than heterosexuals caught. The heterosexuals were prosecuted. The homosexuals were kicked out (much preferable to being prosecuted).

The military is not perfect, and certainly mirrors societies’ view on many subjects. Edicts from above such as “don’t ask, don’t tell” don’t change prevailing attitudes and certainly don't change society. Still, talk is cheap. In many ways the military is more progressive than most of society. If you want to see naturally-preserved habitats on the coast of Southern California, environmentalists must look for a military base. The rest of San Diego to LA is developed.

Nobody mentioned priviledges, Sean, I'm taking about respect--

--and not respect from the w/i the military (I always got that) I'm talking about respect from the larger society (who usually limit their so called respect to empty rhetoric that they direct toward troops on a as needed basis) You, being a former officer, probably never had those close encounters of a third kind that Brennan and I are talking about. So it's not about priviledges, its about being respected.

I remember when I made 1SGT this young LT told me I should go to OCS b/c by then I had a degree...I answered why should I because now that I'm Top I'll be telling HIM what to do :-) He was a young, and we were friends, he laughed but he got my point. I taught him just as much as his fellow officers did about how to lead men. I was an NCO b/c I liked being an NCO. It's an important role.

As far as gays, I knew plenty frankly it was much easier for me to deal with the gay women than gay men...my own internal bias--we are what we are and I'm just being honest. But I never drummed anybody out for what they did off duty.

Frankly, I had many more discipline problems with men (and some women) in the unit who thought military life was a open opportunity to sleep with any and every piece of tail they could get their hands on.

But again I want to say no one mentioned priviledges and I'm a bit insulted you would throw that tired line out to us as if we didn't know the difference.

CharlesJ,
don't take offense - I agree with everything you said. The comment "rank still has its privileges" is more an indictment over the unfair treatment of Generals or senior officers caught doing something (that a lesser officer or soldier would be crucified for). Whether you like the statement or not, you know it is true both in the military and outside the military.

Respect and real authority are earned. Young LTs are a dime a dozen, but good NCOs are cherished and the key to an effective military unit. Where do ROTC cadets fit in Steve? I was very glad at Airborne school that I wasn't a cadet and I am sure that CharlesJ would agree? This was a rank that had little privilege. But back to subject - everyone joining the military should know what they are getting into.

Generally speaking I don't have a problem with the senior officers getting special treatment. They are welcome to it. I prefer being with the rank and file.

I viewed Gunner Palace at a screening held in Scotsdale, AZ last night and cannot understand where the R rating comes from for this movie. Perhaps there was a swear word or two? If so, they were transparent to me and definitely not showcased.

If you are interested in seeing this one, we were told it would be in 5 cities on March 4, 11 cities the following week, and 40 cities by the end of March.

I can't say I was enlightened by the movie, but there are several important messages the soldiers are trying to convey to the rest of us that hopefully people pick up on. Much of the film footage is pretty raw which speaks to the authenticity of the conditions it was filmed.

All-in-all, if you have any interest in the psyche of soldiers in Iraq, this should be on your list to see - no matter the rating.

I Just finish watching Frontline, the "F" word was used repeatedly on public airways, but the message of the broadcast was largely supportive to our stated mission there, perhaps that explains the dichotomy in the treatment of the two documentaries.

S Brennan brings up an interesting point about Frontline's broadcast. Here is Frontline's explanation for that broadcast, which seems to parallel exactly the point Mike Tucker (director of Gunner Palace) is trying to convey;

From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/company/faqs/

What is FRONTLINE's position on the strong language that is in this film?

This is a film about young men at war, often in combat, and always in danger. As one might expect, the language of these soldiers is sprinkled with expletives, especially at their moments of greatest fear and stress. As FRONTLINE edited the program, we were judicious, but came to believe that some of that language was an integral part of our journalistic mission: to give viewers a realistic portrait of our soldiers at war. We feel strongly that the language of war should not be sanitized and that there is nothing "indecent" about its use in this context.

PBS stations were given the option of airing an edited or unedited version based on their own community standards. Broadcasting the unedited version carries some risk that the FCC would entertain complaints and levy a fine. Each public television station had to decide for itself whether to take that risk.

FRONTLINE does not believe the expletives used by the soldiers violate the FCC's "indecency" rule. They are not used in a "gratuitous" manner nor are they meant to "titillate" or "pander," which are the terms the FCC uses to determine if there has been a violation. Viewers may be familiar with the recent case of ABC's broadcast of the movie "Saving Private Ryan," which contained repeated instances of strong language, used in the same context as this FRONTLINE film. It was widely reported that a majority of the FCC commissioners decided they would not support viewer complaints about the language in "Saving Private Ryan," and outgoing Chairman Michael Powell concluded that the agency should not take action against the ABC stations that aired it because the language was part of accurately portraying the story about the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II.

FRONTLINE appreciates those stations who were willing to broadcast the unedited version of the film, but recognizes the difficulty any station would have in deciding to take a risk that might result in a penalty. However, we encouraged all stations that could to stand with FRONTLINE because we believe what is at stake here is not only the particulars of this case, but the principle of editorial independence. Overreaching by the FCC is at its heart a First Amendment issue. We think that the editorial integrity of future FRONTLINEs is at risk along with many other types of programs whether art, science, history, culture, or public affairs. Editorial decisions should be free from influence by the government and should be made in accordance with the standards, practices, and mission of public television. We hope you agree.