The Kingdom

This was, despite being terrible in certain predictable ways (like how all of a sudden an FBI evidence response team is able to conduct awesome commando operations in unfamiliar terrain against a numerically superior force) also definitely had its artfully-done-thriller qualities. But politically . . . wtf was happening? For the vast majority of the movie, it seemed as if at last conservatives had gotten the right-wing war on terror movie they've been craving -- the one where awesome go-getter, ass-kicking agents of American hard power need to take down some terrorists and, even worse, pansy bureaucrats and state department types.

Then at the end it takes an ideological swerve so sharp only a professional driver on a closed course would dare attempt it all the way into the domain of outright moral equivalence. Baffling.

Comments

It's a Michael Mann movie, isn't it?

Posted by Clark | October 5, 2007 11:34 AM

Produced by Mann, directed by Peter Berg.

I read the ending as less being about moral equivalence as a denunciation of the urge to revenge, which is understandable, universal, and ultimately what drives the conflict forward.

For the deranged section of the right wing, there was not nearly enough Arab-bashing in the previous 2 hours. See Debbie Schlussel's attempted review. Also, the idea that law enforcement officers should be sent to apprehend terrorists and succeed by working successfully with foreign allies rather than a unilateral military invasion is somewhat subversive of the right-wing narrative.

Posted by tequila | October 5, 2007 11:58 AM

What tequila says. As nutty as it is, the movie accomplishes exactly what I think the director intended: my redneck brother-in-law intensely identified with the Saudi cop and, as a result, got into the world even of the terrorists in a way that I would never have expected otherwise. He was still thinking about it a week later.

Posted by DCBob | October 5, 2007 12:05 PM

It had that "Team America, World Police" edge to it. Notice how the American team totally demolishes an entire civilian neighborhood trying to rescue the hostage.

Posted by mq | October 5, 2007 12:40 PM

Also, there was a subtext that the terrorists had a point: they were living in a repressive regime supported by the U.S. The whole tone of the movie was that it was sort of questionable whether Americans belonged in such a foreign place at all.

It was ideologically incoherent, but much less right-wing than I had expected.

Posted by mq | October 5, 2007 12:42 PM

So, was it just Syriana for the illiterate?

Posted by Thunderlips | October 5, 2007 12:53 PM

Re "it seemed as if at last conservatives had gotten the right-wing war on terror movie they've been craving -- the one where awesome go-getter, ass-kicking agents of American hard power need to take down some terrorists and, even worse, pansy bureaucrats and state department types.

Then at the end it takes an ideological swerve so sharp only a professional driver on a closed course would dare attempt it all the way into the domain of outright moral equivalence"
-------------
Sounds like a documentary of the Bush Administration.

Posted by Don Williams | October 5, 2007 12:54 PM

Those who understand Syriana are merely literate? Maybe in the sense that you'd have to read the script to actually understand it.

Posted by Quietus | October 5, 2007 1:35 PM

Syriana for the illiterate

Isn't Syriana Syriana for the illiterate? Or at least the hard-of-thinking? H-E-double-Jesus-Fuck, that script was written with a sledgehammer.

Posted by Senescent | October 5, 2007 1:46 PM

"it seemed as if at last conservatives had gotten the right-wing war on terror movie they've been craving" -- see Norman P.'s film review in the Weekly Standard: "One for the Good Guys: An action thriller that approaches reality."

Posted by Other Ezra | October 5, 2007 2:04 PM

Jason Bateman was good. Loved the Pixies shirt.

The movie would have been twice as good if Will Arnett had been in it.

Posted by chris | October 5, 2007 2:15 PM

The buried hook in "Syrianna" is that it was in a universe where Israel doesn't exist, i.e. there was no Jew/Israel/Zionist excuse for bad behavior.

I've never seen it mentioned. So, if it was written with a sledgehammer it's because some people might need a sledgehammer.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 5, 2007 2:15 PM

This was so obviously a Peter Berg movie, almost like "Friday Night Terrorism." The guitar songs that sounded "explosions in the sky"-esque, the shaky cameras and telephoto zoom lenses, and the quiet heartfelt "saudis are people with families too scene" could've been ripped from FNL.

Posted by Adam Conner | October 5, 2007 2:26 PM

Haven't seen it yet. Might see it this weekend.

Since it's about terrorism, I SHOULD see it - then I can give pithy comments about how everybody involved was an idiot.

From the trailer, it seems a lot of RPG's are used, anyway. And of course the FBI guys appear to be armed with MP5's or variants, if my identification was correct.

Never take a 9mm subgun to an urban firefight. Not enough penetration. You take a 7.62x39 weapon to an urban fight. If there's no civilians around, you take a 7.62 NATO to an urban fight.

Also, I find it difficult to understand how an FBI forensics team suddenly also has expertise in FBI SWAT tactics, let alone urban guerrilla warfare. I mean, I assume the FBI does cross-training, but, I kinda doubt it's that good.

But as for the FBI wrecking an urban neighborhood, hell, US cops do that every week somewhere. Look at the SLA case in LA - they used SIX HUNDRED COPS to take down, what, five or six people? Anybody remember Waco, where they used armored vehicles, and allegedly an attack helicopter (illegally) from a nearby Army base to take down a few people and fry a bunch of kids?

They had a case in New York years ago when some armed robber was surrounded by a bunch of SWAT guys who proceeded to shoot up the neighborhood. When informed that the bullets were penetrating nearby tenemants, the cops dismissed it - until they were told it was THEIR bullets.

The armed robber was one of the few criminals who could actually shoot properly. He capped a few cops and managed to escape.

One of the cops said, "It was like his bullets had eyes on them." Which led combat handgunning expert Evan Marshall to quip, "You don't suppose he aimed, do you?"

A study done in New York showed that NY cops only hit what they're aiming at 25 percent of the time. The only reason there are any cops left alive in NY is that the average criminal only hits what he's aiming at 11 percent of the time.

So if you practice enough so you can hit what you're aiming at 50 percent of the time, you can pretty much kill cops with impunity (as long as you're wearing the same body armor they do.)

Of course, it's better to be a sniper and just pop them from a distance.

Back to the movie: hey, Jennifer Garner is in it. Can't argue with that, even if she does act like a nitwit on Leno. She was okay in "Elektra" (but Terrence Stamp was better.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 6, 2007 12:18 AM

Hell, back in 1985, the Philadelphia Police dropped a BOMB on an occupied row house and burned down an entire CITY BLOCK--over 62 houses. Killed the 6 adults and 5 children that were in the row house.

Good thing we're the "City of Brotherly Love" --else the Police might done something drastic.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#Confrontation_Leads_Police_to_Bomb_MOVE_House

Posted by Don Williams | October 6, 2007 8:20 PM