PDA

View Full Version : What was the "Message" I was supposed to get from "Courage Under Fire"? (Spoiler)


Super Kapowzler
02-27-2012, 06:27 PM
Dear Fans:

This movie is complete bullshit.
If one approaches this movie "the way they want us to POV", we get another "feel-good" happy ending Meg Ryan and Justice for All movie.

But the problem is that Meg Ryan never earns the Medal of Honor that she is awarded. To wit:

#1 Meg never displays ANY act that goes above and beyond the call of duty. Neither Damon's or Phillips' versions of said events include any remarkable action displayed by Ryan. She died in combat, big deal it comes with the job.

#2 The two eyewitness versions of events sharply contradict eachother. Damon's account comes from someone who lied on the first statement,(she did not cry, lies about sending the letter), goes AWOL and is a heroin addict. This is the testimony that earns Ryan her medal. Lou's account to the contrary stays on record after the train incident. He never admits the SAW-gun-to-the-gut treatment he gives Ryan.

#3 The Blackhawk crew's testimonty is not eyewitness.

#4 Ryan's leadership is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE during the events at night, especially evident when she relieves the SAW gun from the gunner(shows pride, personal agrondisment). She is neither qualified with the weapon or in a position to man said weapon because of her injury. This decision puts the entire group in extreme risk. She relinquishes the weapon only after receiving an apology(shows pride, personal agrondisment) and getting the last word in ("there will be a day of reckoning" or some stuipid shit like that), while said enemy has closed within 50 meters of the group. Her need to be right overweighed the safety of her subordinates. Sound like a leader to you? How many whom earned the Medal of Honor had to point a loaded weapon at a subordinate to accomplish a direct order?

The main problem becomes that even the final "truth" scene is still from Damon's POV, not a "universal omnisceince" granted to the observer, meaning that the final scene showing Ryan dusting a shitload of Iraqis, holding the M16 with one hand, and a twenty-round clip that never went empty, is still Damon's version. After they left her, nothing is for sure.

Now, when Denzel puts his Silver Star, (awarded to him for killing his buddy), on her headstone, does that mean that both medals are unearned, and the whole thing is another attempt at a second term for the Presidency?

So the message of the movie is that the MoH for Ryan is just as ludicrisp as the silver star denzel got for killing his own men, right?

I hate that bitch. You got Mail, and it's a fuckin' pipe-bomb.

Word.

Isamu
02-27-2012, 07:11 PM
Word.

Battles are a mess and you rarely have a reliable source for how everything went down. The best you can do is interview those who survived and try to reconstruct what happened as best you can. Sometimes we need 'heroes' more than we need to dig up the ugly truth, and shit.

Best new word: ludicrisp - deserving of burning scorn?

Bryan Ekers
02-28-2012, 03:23 PM
Gotta be careful with the agrondisment, though. It can get out of hand.

msmith537
02-28-2012, 04:42 PM
So the message of the movie is that the MoH for Ryan is just as ludicrisp as the silver star denzel got for killing his own men, right?


I think you missed the entire point of the movie.

The issue is not whether Denzel or Ryan deserved their medals. Denzel probably did because his quick thinking probably ended up saving lives. Ryan, probably not. In fact dropping makeshift napalm bombs from a medivac helicopter might even be a war crime.

What was important to Denzel was that people knew the truth, for good or ill, so they could make their own decisions. Who the politicians pin their medals on is theri own business. That's why he tells the family of the man he accidently killed. It's also why he tells Lou Diamond that he's going to find out the truth regardless if he's even in the Army anymore.

Alka Seltzer
02-28-2012, 05:16 PM
What was important to Denzel was that people knew the truth, for good or ill, so they could make their own decisions. Who the politicians pin their medals on is theri own business. That's why he tells the family of the man he accidently killed. It's also why he tells Lou Diamond that he's going to find out the truth regardless if he's even in the Army anymore.

I agree. I thought it was a fairly effective bit of drama, with a few problems. The improvised napalm bomb was a bit absurd, struck me as a misguided attempt to make Ryan's character more heroic.

Yllaria
02-28-2012, 06:21 PM
. . . Best new word: ludicrisp - deserving of burning scorn?

I was thinking Norwegian potato chips.

Typo Negative
02-28-2012, 07:02 PM
#4 Ryan's leadership is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE during the events at night, especially evident when she relieves the SAW gun from the gunner(shows pride, personal agrondisment). She is neither qualified with the weapon or in a position to man said weapon because of her injury. You are misremembering the scene. She doesn't 'relieve him'. He wants to run away against direct orders. She knows she cannot physically stop him from doing it, but she is adamant that he will not take the weapon with him.

But the point of the movie is not whether she deserves the medal. You get the idea that it is political from the get-go.

This is a detective story. One man's search for what 'really' happened.