Green Zone

I had a friend in University named Kate. Amongst Kate’s many endearing quirks was the way she told a story. Nobody told a story quite like Kate. All her stories were filled with urgency and exuberance as if this were the most important story anyone has ever told. She would often burst into a room and say something like, “Oh my God, you would not believe what I just saw. I was walking down the street and there was a guy and he had a big dog.” And just when you were bracing yourself for this incredible reveal like the dog attacked three men or jumped on top of a moving bus or maybe did a soft shoe routine to Puttin’ On The Ritz, it occurs to you that this is the end of the story. There was a guy and he had a big dog – that’s it.

So years went by and just when I became convinced I would never hear a Kate story ever again, I saw Green Zone.

The latest offering by the duo that brought you the last two Bourne offerings (Director Paul Greengrass and leading man Matt Damon) genuinely believes that it has an important story to tell. It has all the markings of an important war movie which also boasts relevant social commentary. Except, in the end, it really doesn’t offer either.

Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller who leads one of the first teams on the ground charged with the responsibility of finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in the early weeks of the 2003 Iraq War. Miller quickly becomes frustrated when all of his attempts to score the big find play out like Geraldo at Al Capone’s vault. In a word – bupkiss. Miller is vocal about his belief that they are acting on shoddy intelligence. His superior reminds him that his job is to execute order, not question them and he is quickly shut down.

One day while executing routine orders, an Iraqi civilian approaches Miller with information that Saddam’s inner circle (but not Saddam himself) is gathering in a house nearby. Miller rounds up his team to see if they can capture these men and get some genuine intelligence on the whereabouts of the WMD’s. They are able to capture some of the men and get a good lead on Saddam’s top general who would be able to give them answers. Just when Miller is about to get the information, a special forces team descends upon the scene and takes the captured Iraqis away from Miller. Miller is pissed and wants to know why they would do this.

He soon learns from a wise old CIA Middle East expert (Brendon Gleeson) that there are some higher-ups who don’t want the mystery of the missing WMD’s solved. Damon must choose between going along with his assignment or breaking off and finding answers to his questions. This is about the point where the movie has my keenest interest. I am intrigued at the prospect of a war film where the forces of antagonism come not from the foreigners but from within a faction of the same side as our protagonist. I am sure that Miller will lead us through a web of political intrigue as we learn new and more shocking revelations. But alas, it goes no deeper.

I will say SPOILER ALERT here although really there is not much to spoil. Miller has his suspicions confirmed that …wait for it…the U.S. government lied about the presence of WMD’s in Iraq. Gasp! At this reveal I wanted to superimpose a clip of Claude Rains from Casablanca so he could announce that he was shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling going on here! We are made to feel like this revelation should be shocking and mind-blowing. The problem is once Miller has this piece of information, the rest of the movie plays out like another Bourne movie.

Miller has to get to the Iraqi general before the special forces team so he can bring him in and tell the world the truth – that there were never any WMD’s after 1991 and he told the Americans this in the weeks leading up to the war. Miller knows the special forces team wants to kill the general so he can never reveal this truth. So the third act plays out like another generic action movie where it’s a race to see who can get to him first. It’s not terrible but it’s nothing close to the level of political intrigue.

And that is my biggest problem with Green Zone. It wants to come off like it has something important to say but it never does. There are glimpses where it appears like it is trying to. Amy Ryan plays a Wall Street Journal reporter who broke the big story about the WMD program. Miller has a scene with her where he chastises her for accepting the government’s story on the existence of WMD’s without verifying the facts. I think this is fertile grounds in which to explore the notion of journalistic responsibility and the culpability of the media in the days leading up to war. Perhaps if the media were not so intimidated and actually asked the tough questions, it would have been difficult for the U.S. government to sell the phony WMD’s story. But sadly this movie doesn’t explore this notion any further than the aforementioned scene of Miller wrist-slapping.

In the end this movie comes off as preachy about the sanctity of honesty in making the case to go to war. And while it wants to be lauded for taking a tough stand, it strikes me as a more than a bit nauseating. It’s like sitting through a two hour movie whose point is that hot lunches for orphans are a good thing. My question is – where was this movie in 2004 or 2005 when Bush was still popular and people weren’t a hundred percent convinced that the WMD story was a hoax? Coming out with this tough political statement now, in this current political climate, just strikes me as weak.

So if it doesn’t work as a war movie, or political thriller, or action movie or social commentary then what exactly is Green Zone?

Just a story about a guy standing there with a big dog.