Maybe it would upset director Errol Morris, and maybe it wouldn't, but I watched STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE with a cool, emotional detatchment and intellectual curiousity.
I expected this to be an anti-Bush, anti-military, anti-Iraq war piece of left-wing, Liberal Hollywood, biased "documentary." And while there were a few moments where that feeling surfaced, I was pleasantly surprised to find a documentary that, for me, was really about two things more prominently featured than the mistreatments at Abu Ghaib. And that is that STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE is first a documentary about the psychology of photography: why people take photographs and the power they hold. Second, it is a documentary about the rules of war and conduct of the soldiers in battle.
Was there inappropriate behavior on the part of American soldiers working at Abu Ghraib? Absolulely! And yet, I found it difficult to sit in judgment of the soldiers interviewed and discussed who were involved, not because I lack a moral compass, but because I firmly believe that it is easy for us civilians to sit in judgment of their actions when, in fact, we have no idea what that was like.
The quote from the film that haunted me throughout the second half of the documentary and beyond came when one soldier was asked if he didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. Of course it was wrong, he responded, "but in war, the rules change." Only us civilians can sit in judgment on that.
Another key quote for me came towards the end, when another interviewee mentioned that the photographs were "of humilation, not torture" and explained that there was torture, but that the torture happened off-camera. This interview can be linked to a key visual moment in the film when a higher-ranking officer goes through a series of photographs and distinguises between them as to which ones were punishable offences as and which were "standard operating procedure."
I think the audience was meant to be enraged by how many of the moments depicted in the pictures were technically "legal," but my mind stayed focus on the nature of war. Again, I'm not saying I condone all of what took place. And, as a matter of fact, a few of the interviewees come off as unremorseful -- it is hard to feel sympathetic for them. But I keep coming back to the concept that we have no idea what that was like.
Congratulations to you if you think it's wrong for our military to humiliate a prisoner by making him strip naked and put women's panties on his head as a means of getting him to talk. If we were doing that to someone as a means of getting critical information necessary for our safety, it seems justifiable to me. What I liked best about this film was the part that was not political, and that was the philosophical debate over photography itself. I found the most amazing thing about all of this not to be the notorious lapes in moral judgment on the part of the soldiers towards the prisoners, but instead, the empty, reality-TV-inspired lack of consciousness in documenting all of these moments on camera. And not just one camera. Three cameras. WHY?
Why would you take these pictures? Why would you want them? Why do people film themselves having sex? Why do people document their bowel movements on their blogs and expose their every privacy online to complete strangers? STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES doesn't answer that, but it sure makes you think about it.
The biggest criticism I've read about the film is that it's too glossy...there are too many visual effects and cool graphics and stagings that some say take away from the horrors. I actually LIKED many of these moments because, for me, they kept the focus on the concept of photography itself. And for someone who like his documentaries to be a little less politically biased than the typical Hollywood far, this allowed me to enjoy the film more than I might have otherwise. A compelling documentary from an award-winning master of the form.
2.5 out of 4
No comments:
Post a Comment