On the Culture Show tonight, there was an interview with director Sam Mendes about his latest film Jarhead, based on the novel by Anthony Swofford, which deals with the experiences of a GI in the first Gulf War. Asked – inevitably – if the film was intended to be a comment on the current situation in Iraq, he said, no, he regarded it as an apolitical film, but, well, much of the film is about the idea that the fighting somehow never arrives; the soldiers are psyched up for battle, and the catharsis never comes, so to that extent it does kind of resonate with the current war, which is a war against a phantom enemy. There were no WMDs….
No surprise at all, of course. Such a view is so commonplace in these circles that it’d be extraordinary to hear anything different, and the interviewer, Andrew Graham-Dixon, merely nodded – well, of course, absolutely.
A phantom enemy. Saddam – one of the most horrific tyrants in modern memory, started two wars on neighbouring countries, genocidal attacks on the Kurds, unspeakable tortures against his terrorised population, defied UN Security Council resolutions, was clearly intent at the earliest opportunity to acquire WMDs, but – sigh – no, no actual ready-to-use WMDs were found by an invading force that Saddam could be pretty sure was coming months in advance. Just a phantom enemy, a scare cooked up by the neo-cons….
Nothing against Sam Mendes, really….excellent director, I liked American Beauty, and from the reviews of Jarhead I’m sure he’s right in saying that it’s no anti-war polemic. Married Kate Winslet. Talented guy. It’s what you’d expect someone like him to say – which is the depressing part. How did it get to the point where it’s so unexceptional when a leading cultural figure comes out with this stuff that no one would even think of suggesting there might be an alternative view?
Leave a Reply