Gunner Palace - "Prominent" Reviewer Gets It Wrong

Posted By Blackfive

Ken Tucker of New York Magazine reviews Gunner Palace and gets it all wrong.

Watching Gunner Palace, I initially wondered whether the filmmakers, Michael Tucker (no relation) and Petra Epperlein, were like the people who used to spit on Vietnam veterans when they returned home. Their anger—in this case, about America’s invasion and subsequent “rebuilding” of Iraq—seemed gravely misplaced. Instead of criticizing the Bush-administration policies their film so clearly detests, Tucker and Epperlein train their cameras on the people involved in this engagement who have the least power. These are, of course, the soldiers, who are made to look, most of the time, like irresponsible fools.

What do we see? Brash soldiers, many not yet out of their teens, running rampant in the bombed-out remains of Uday Hussein’s Azimiya Palace. The 2/3 Field Artillery, known as “The Gunners,” spend their downtime swimming in the huge pool once owned by the deposed dictator’s son, golfing on his putting greens, and swilling Snapple while complaining about the lack of alcohol. At other times, they slam their Humvees into the gates of Iraqi citizens’ homes, barking out orders laced with obscenities, and then ridicule the quaking family members—so-called blacklisted Iraqis suspected of working with Hussein loyalists. We see U.S. soldiers making crude jokes about the barren country they’re stuck in...

If you read the review, you will find that Ken Tucker had the exact opposite reaction that I did at every single step of the way along the movie's path.  He also has a minor socialist diatribe in the review about the poorly-educated masses serving in the military. 

I would highly encourage you to see the movie and judge for yourself.  As I said before, it's not pro-war and it's not anti-war, it's just about war.

And I think it's horrible (and talk about irresponsible) that Ken Tucker uses "the people who used to spit on Vietnam veterans when they returned home" opening line.  If anything, you walk away wanting to remember the Gunners - every one of them - for their individuality and for their commitment to each other amidst the horrors, the surreality, the ambiguity and the crap of war.

Michael Tucker honors that sentiment in the film while staying true to what the troops each believe (and they all have different opinions just like any other group of Americans).

Perhaps if Ken Tucker got of his snobby, psuedo-intellectual, left-wing high horse, maybe he'd want to remember them, too.

Update 8:45PM CST:  Looks like Blackfive is in the Movie City News - probably due to David Poland of The Hot Blog who takes issue with Ken Tucker's characterization of the movie - Poland does a much better job than I of pointing out the obvious miscues read by Ken Tucker.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/1975057

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gunner Palace - "Prominent" Reviewer Gets It Wrong:

» Gunner Palace from A&W
I couldn't disagree more with (Ken) Tucker, but the fact that he was able to take away such an impression from this film speaks to Michael Tucker's success: [the film] is truly ambivalent, and lets the soldiers speak for themselves. [Read More]

Comments

[Beth]

"..you walk away wanting to remember the Gunners - every one of them - for their individuality and for their commitment to each other amidst the horrors, the surreality, the ambiguity and the crap of war."

Yes!! Yes!!!!! I've never heard it stated better! Thank you for articulating what I've struggled to. And...

"...snobby, psuedo-intellectual, left-wing high horse..."

Again, yes! I had the same reaction to those who fail to see and value the personalities, wonderful humor-as-coping-skill, courage, and perseverence they brought to the basic insanity of their situation. I'm so angry that someone could look at those soldiers as victims, or powerless or somehow inferior due to their education. It's classist and arrogant, and they deserve better than that!

[dick]

Blackfive,

You know that will never happen with Ken Tucker. If he actually did that then he would have to cope with the reality that he is lacking in certain departments that some find important and he could never do that. Instead he will paint the young mlitary who are making up for what he lacks as being the ones lacking. Sorry, Ken, we already figured you out and the picture ain't pretty.

[SoupNazzi]

Sent this to Mr. Tucker:

Mr. Tucker,

As a former Marine, I feel the need to defend the film makers of “Gunner Palace” on some of your criticisms.

Although I have yet to see the film, there are aspects of your review that I feel are off the mark.

“…many are poorly educated; they enlisted for lack of any other options in life.”

How do you know this? Did you interview each soldier individually? The idea that the majority of the military comes from poor families is a canard that continues to be trumpeted by those who have never served in the military. As for them having no other options in life… Bullshit. The military is not the last option people have. It may be the easiest option, but hardly the last.

In Vietnam, yes, a large majority of the people who served were from less fortunate families and minorities.

But, that paradigm no longer holds true.

The all-volunteer military isn’t a refuge for the nation’s poor and under-educated. If anything, the current military is one of the highest educated in the history of the United States.

Do poor people still join the military? Yes. Do less-educated people still join? Yes. But I would question that the majority of the military is less-educated.

The majority of the enlisted men and women I served with had high school degrees, and some even had college degrees. A majority came from solid middle-class families and had many options available to them. Most were like me, and weren’t ready to do another 4-8 years of school.

“The result is a portrait of self-pitying rowdies.”

With all due respect, but if you did a film on any branch of the military, where the majority of the participants were between the pay grades of E1 – E5 (Private – Sergeant,) this is typical behavior. Out in the field on a training exercise, you’ll hear the enlisted complaining and hating it out there… Back in the barracks, you’ll hear the enlisted complaining ad hating it there.

This is nature of the enlisted person. There was a saying in the Marines: “A bitching Marine is a happy Marine.”

As for being rowdy, well heck yeah. These are teenagers. But, I have seen frat-boys and college jocks act as rowdy on campus. I’ve seen teenagers still in high school act rowdier (“Jackass” anyone?) It’s the nature of being a teenager/young 20-something.

Finally:

“By contrast, Gunner Palace too often makes the grunts look like mean slackers…”

Slackers. Quite a strong word, especially in the military.

Anyone who has served in the military, or knows anyone who has served, knows that there is a lot of down-time. “Hurry-up and wait” was a popular mantra when I was in, and from my understanding, still is.

Soldiers cannot be on combat patrol 24/7. There has to be down-time to give them time to decompress from the stress of combat and even the thought of combat. That means there is free time. What are soldiers supposed to do over in a country where the culture is difficult to understand? Where they are not allowed off-base in their free time? They get creative, play video games, swim in a pool, rap… They do whatever they can to entertain themselves.

As for being mean, well, unfortunately, that is the nature of combat, especially in Iraq. In no way do I condone what can be construed as being “mean,” but when your enemy could be in the car driving next to your hummer, or working on your base, or sharing tea with you in a meeting with a Sheik. It increases the stress for the individual soldier when they are unsure as to who the enemy is and where they might be. Unfortunately, this stress can cause a soldier to become jaded and less-caring. Does this excuse acts of meanness? No, but I can understand.

I think many of the soldiers from the film would find umbrage with your review and feel it is off the mark. I know from talking with friends who served in the military, and have seen advance screenings of it, many feel it is a very good film. And many do not feel that the film “openly” criticizes Bush-administration policies like you suggest. Nor do they get the impression that the film makers were the type of people who spit on returning Vets from Vietnam.

This film isn’t about the policies of the government, nor is it supposed to be a diatribe about the people in power (…the people involved in this engagement who have the least power.) It’s about the soldiers. Plain and simple.

[Ben Bauman]

The education and training of the average military member is higher than in our society. He viewed the whole film through his "liberal" template and could not even think to see it from another perspective. He's an idiot and a stupid asshole.

Cdr, VFW 9949

[Walter Neill]

Saw the movie last Friday, in part due to your recommendation. Though I personally thought the maker of the movie had some anti-war sentiments (the cheery AFRN announcements juxtaposed with the realities in Bagdad), I thought the movie as a powerful portrait of the US soldier, neither propoganda for or against.

[SoupNazzi]

Mr. Tuckers Reply:

Mr.:

Thanks for your e-mail. You make a lot of points that are unquestionably true and sensible, and I agree with nearly everything you say. In fact, much of what you write is the basis for my criticism of the film:

•the "many" that I refer to are those who were interviewed by the filmmakers--I wasn't making a blanket statement that many in the military are poorly educated, but rather that these were the men & women the Gunner filmmakers selected.

That's why I mentioned the excellent Frontline documentary "A Company of Soldiers," which presented a greater range of the enlisted

•"The result is a portrait of self-pitying rowdies.":

Again, this is a criticism of THE FILM, the way it was edited, not the men & women themselves. To emphasize them "blowing off steam" in a way that is disproportionate to the hard work they do, seemed a major flaw of "Gunner."

The same goes for my "mean slackers" comments---I was saying that the movie is edited and presented in such a way as to lessen a viewer's sympathy for the hard work the military is doing.

Again, I think "A Company of Soldiers," which is full of scenes of our military in action, not just in off-hours, gives a much better idea of what goes on day to day.

If these points did not come across in my review, then I accept blame as not writing more clearly, and I will strive to do better next time. But I think we are essentially in agreement about the hard work and dedication of the enlisted military.

Again, thank you for writing.
Best to you,
Ken

[j]

you can tell ken tucker
that for this vietnam vet-he can kiss my american made,american born butt
sf pcterm2

[Cool Blue TacJammer]

Ahhh, the 'company' of soldiers. American born really an issue? By made, do you mean like a made man thing or should I go with funny city names like NEW York?

[Rita]

Very good comment on "Gunner Palace". I am a middle of the road person, who served in the Air Force, went to College and consider most of the people I worked with in the military very intelligent and capable. What I could never understand from the "far" left was their snobbish, intellectual attitude towards others. The main philosophy of the Liberal is for the "common man", and to help with social reform for "all" people. Who says that a Left-Wing liberal is intelligent? Far left is totally non-consistant with the major form of what a Liberal Democrat is meant to be. It's sickening how society acts today, and those of the far-left are truly ignorant, and one-sided. The lack of respect for "all" people is inherent in today's far-left liberal minded people. I thank God on a daily basis for our great men and women in our military. They are the true meaning of "freedom and liberty" for ALL. Without those great men and women, the world would never have known "Freedom" or the "Rights of All Men and Women" Thanks guys, for everything we have in our daily lives, and for your great dedication to this country.

[Losing Faith]

"you walk away wanting to remember the Gunners - every one of them - for their individuality and for their commitment to each other amidst the horrors, the surreality, the ambiguity and the crap of war."

I haven't seen the film yet (definitely plan to), but I know from an interview on AAR that the above quote is exactly what the film maker wanted people to take away from this film. These poeple became his friends from before he started shooting. He was there making a different film and went back to make this one. The possible anti-war elements are only there from the natural anti-war sentiment people should take from war. War is an awful situation we should never enter into lightly.

"Perhaps if Ken Tucker got of his snobby, psuedo-intellectual, left-wing high horse,"

"What I could never understand from the "far" left was their snobbish"

"He viewed the whole film through his "liberal" template"

Why does this have to have anything to do with being left or liberal? I'm definitely left of these commentors and most certainly liberal. I already have a different view of the film then Ken Tucker going into the film and I'm sure the film isn't going to bring me over to his view of it. I'm so sick of all the blanket statements that go on on both sides of the political spectrum. I see it more from some people on the right though. Why is this? What's the point? Do you really want to be able to hate a huge group of people that badly?

[Senta]

Who said we are from the right? I don't believe in the rhetoric from far-right or far-left. Too me, they both are the same. It's the people in the middle who get stuck with the BS from both sides. That is where the complaints are....

[AJackson]

So far, the distributor has it in FOUR theatres (www.imdb.com). I hope they decide to distributes it a little more widely; or I'll have to wait for the DVD.

[MilSpouse]

Here's an interesting article about the "spitting on vets" issue: http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/

I've always been curious about this, since I wasn't old enough then to notice, but I never recalled anything except respect for the vets I knew. Interesting read, and something to put it all in context.

[Wild Bill]

Heh. You shouldn't believe what you read in Slate.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002304.html

[alex kudijaroff]

Some one tell me why the left wing , liberal
reviewers all love this documentary, i.e. the
ones quoted on the Gunner palace website or the
rotten tomatoes.com movie reviews for example?

[l weed]

Gunning for redundancy
Film Review: Gunner Palace
By Will Scheibel - The Daily Iowan
Published: Monday, May 2, 2005
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

** out of ****

Here's a film with a lot of talk but nothing especially relevant to say. Gunner Palace, a documentary by Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein, may have been worth a look had the likes of Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) and Control Room (2004) come later, but now the film seems redundant - and also monotonous and repetitive.

Tucker and Epperlein spent time with the 2/3 Field Artillery Division (a.k.a. "Gunners") of the Army's First Armored Division during visits to Iraq over the course of the last two years. They recorded the day-to-day routines of these young men, varying from the mundane (pool parties, horseplay) to the life-threatening (raids, eruptions of gunfire).

The soldiers' home base is the "Gunner Palace" to which the title refers: remains of Uday Hussein's mansion that housed many a shindig in his time. During their stint in Baghdad, the soldiers turn the palace into an R&R haven for swimming, golfing, listening to rap, and partying down.

These ragtag guys are mostly a foul-mouthed, inarticulate group of Neanderthals, and, at first, the film appeared to be nothing more than an American military-as-bully polemic. Ultimately, the film leans towards the antiwar direction but doesn't offer the heavy-handed indictment we were led to expect.

Instead, the film is more about the life of American soldiers, told from the inside, and their daily fight for survival. Still, anyone who has seen Apocalypse Now (1979), Platoon (1986), or Full Metal Jacket (1987) - or even talked to a veteran - has probably heard all the points made in the 85-minute running time. We see how the men's naïveté turns to cynicism and eventual disillusionment, with the obvious conclusion that, yes, war is hell.

Tucker and Epperlein also portray the soldiers as confused boys lost and losing in an adult's game, with no real concept of what they're supposed to be doing in Iraq. Moreover, the troops in the film are oblivious to the history and culture of Baghdad, making it all the more difficult for them to understand their demonized "enemy." If this stuff sounds cliché, that's because we've heard the rhetoric a hundred times already (either from Michael Moore, or in the news, or even in classroom discussions).

Maybe if the soldiers in Gunner Palace were a little more likable, it would be easier to stomach their story. But watching these dudes onscreen is like spending an hour and a half in your high-school locker room, as those asshole jocks swear and snap at each other with wet towels. The horror ... the horror.

E-mail DI film critic Will Scheibel at:

leonard-scheibel@uiowa.edu

[Walt]

If the gov't skools had Vet's come to the skools and talk about the reality of the war in Iraq, vietnam, korea, mabye even WW2, more young men and women would enlist or go rotc in college.
They then would know what to expect "over there".
My humble opinion is that part of our education in gov't skools and colleges is to hate America and the people that keep America "alive".