Was privileged to be at the premier of this film at the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center in Columbus, GA. I admit, I was apprehensive going into the film, which was shown on consecutive nights. I was concerned that it was going to be gory and be politically slanted one way or the other. I was pleasantly surprised on both fronts.
The film is in four episodes, and features a journalist who embedded with an element of the 3rd Infantry division during the Surge in Iraq. He joined the soldiers 90 days from the end of their deployment, as they were being redeployed on their Surge mission. Instead of getting his story and going home, the journo stayed with the soldiers for all 90 days, until they came home. He also checked in with them stateside.
The format is very open; the journo asked questions and let the soldiers answer. Parts were funny, parts were sad. All were thought-provoking.
In a Q&A after the film with the journalist and several of the soldiers in the film, the point was made (by both sides) that the Army didn't censor the film at all. Another point the journalist made: he is an ex-pat who has worked in Europe for many years. The news culture he comes from sends him out to film, and then the story is written from what the pictures show. This film is a product of that style. He says that in the U.S., we tend to write the story and get supporting pictures.
The film is in four episodes, and features a journalist who embedded with an element of the 3rd Infantry division during the Surge in Iraq. He joined the soldiers 90 days from the end of their deployment, as they were being redeployed on their Surge mission. Instead of getting his story and going home, the journo stayed with the soldiers for all 90 days, until they came home. He also checked in with them stateside.
The format is very open; the journo asked questions and let the soldiers answer. Parts were funny, parts were sad. All were thought-provoking.
In a Q&A after the film with the journalist and several of the soldiers in the film, the point was made (by both sides) that the Army didn't censor the film at all. Another point the journalist made: he is an ex-pat who has worked in Europe for many years. The news culture he comes from sends him out to film, and then the story is written from what the pictures show. This film is a product of that style. He says that in the U.S., we tend to write the story and get supporting pictures.
