[Dryerase] The Alarm!--Film Review: Three Kings

[The Alarm!Newswire]

Three Kings:
Reflections of the Gulf War before the Sequel
 
By Michelle Stewart
The Alarm! Newspaper Collective

“For many critics of the war, however, the problem of representation of 
Desert Storm went well beyond questions of censorship or adequate 
reporting. The dynamic of saturation live coverage led to a discussion, 
especially in academic circles, of the Gulf War as the first postmodern 
war. This was the first time, it was sometimes said, in which 
representation of the event was the event.”—Melani McAllister, Epic 
Encounters.

On Friday, November 8, a 15–0 vote at the UN resolved that weapons 
inspectors would go back to Iraq on a mission to ensure that Hussein 
doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction (or any of the fixings 
thereof). Here we go again—back to Iraq. With the scars of the last 
invasion not yet healed we enter once again. Whether it is under the 
aegis of weapons inspections or outright military aggression, one thing 
is certain: it is Desert Storm, the Sequel.

I say sequel, because in a sequel, you are often introduced to many of 
the same characters and themes. Whereas we entered with Bush, Sr., we 
are recommitting under Bush, Jr. Colin Powell was then the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff; today he speaks of policy and tactics as the 
Secretary of State. In the first war, Ariel Sharon was a prominent 
military official in the Israeli government and advocated for a 
non-passive response to Iraq’s aggressions. Today, Prime Minister 
Sharon says he will not allow Tel Aviv to be attacked without response. 
Twelve years ago, Bush, Sr. and other prominent individuals in the US 
government tried to create a rallying call, stating, “the Iraqi people 
need to rise up against Saddam Hussein,” words that are being muttered 
once again, on the cusp of the new war. But twelve years ago when the 
“Iraqi people” rose up against Hussein, the US responded by abandoning 
them as it pulled out of Operation Desert Storm.

The Gulf War was only the first example of media saturation. Could we 
have imagined the way 9/11 was handled had we not experienced the media 
event that was the Gulf War?

“War is only possible when we allow a fictionalized other or enemy to 
be constructed for us out of all of the lies that make certain we 
realize how different other lives are from ours, and how threatening 
that difference is. If we think of our lives as constituted in 
opposition to what we are not, then we find ourselves threatened by all 
difference” (Jill Stauffer, War and Peace Small Time). Taking this into 
account, and adding to it the historical relationship between the 
Middle East and the US, the ripple effects of Orientalism and the 
post-9/11 mindset, we begin to see that the sequel may indeed be more 
vicious than Desert Storm.

But what does this have to do with a movie released three years ago?

Director David O. Russell came across the script for Three Kings in 
1996, and decided to do an 18-month rewrite of John Ridley’s work. 
Through his research, Russell was able to integrate into the script his 
reactions to the media coverage, the fall-out of US withdrawal during 
the “democratic” uprising, US military policies on racist language and 
the personal narratives of Arab participants living through the war. In 
his attempt to “unpack” the Gulf War, Russell generated a different 
approach to the action/war film both through his writing and 
experimental film techniques. In doing so, he allowed his film to be in 
dialogue with much of the Gulf War discourse.

In his research, Russell spent considerable time reviewing media 
coverage and decided to appropriate some techniques that would be 
easily identifiable to his viewing audience. Russell mixed contemporary 
studio techniques and angles associated with CNN’s coverage of the Gulf 
War to create an intentionally, fragmented viewing experience. He 
further pushed this feeling of fragmentation by experimenting with the 
filming style to create a grainy, surreal look. From the opening of the 
film, the viewer is challenged with these various production 
experiments. The dialogue and subject matter of the film’s central 
investigations are also challenging, and concern the democratic 
uprising that was not supported by the US. Russell makes it his chief 
priority to question US policy that allowed for the withdrawal during 
this critical moment: “Most people themselves didn’t follow what 
happened, so the characters themselves are confused…it’s Iraqi 
Insurrection 101…we didn’t know about this here in American so it gets 
played to us via Mark Walberg, Spike, Cube and George” (Three Kings, 
“Commentary”). Using his characters in subtle ways he instigates 
dialogues and conflicts to illustrate critical aspects of the war that 
were left largely—or wholly—undiscussed. Assisting in this dialogue is 
the supporting cast. In scouting to cast the film Russell went to 
Deerbourne, Michigan and San Diego, California (areas with high Iraqi 
immigrant concentrations) and cast from the community those who bore 
witness to the event he was retelling. The supporting cast became 
informal advisors alongside the military advisors and the Arab 
Anti-Defamation League.

A discussion of Three Kings cannot be complete without a brief moment 
spent on the issue of violence and gunshots. The director of the film 
spent some of his research time looking at medical writings that 
explore the effects of violence on the body. When doing this research, 
he happened upon a picture and explanation of the trauma a body goes 
through in the wake of a gunshot wound (Three Kings, “Commentary”). 
This part of his research became another key aspect in the film. 
Throughout the course of the film, Russell approaches each scene 
involving violence with a variety of techniques. In some scenes, 
Russell slows the entire film down to show each shot fired and where 
the bullet hits; in other scenes, he makes specific use of graphic 
close-ups shots to illustrate the effects of the bullet inside the 
body. And often if violence is a probability in the scene, the camera 
begins to use close-up shots of all of the guns that would be involved 
if violence erupts. In the editing room, Russell maintained his 
attention to the gun, by demanding that the sound mixers not amplify or 
alter the sound of the gunshots. It is common in Hollywood studios to 
use a generic, loud gunshot sound. Russell insisted that the sounds of 
the guns be left as “natural” as possible. He believed that the lack of 
amplification lends to the eeriness of the sound—to which I would agree.

So, the next time you are at the video store and happen to be in the 
Action section, take a moment and locate this film. It is a departure 
from the genre and a film that serves to open up discussions about a 
war fought twelve years ago that is being rehashed today. Many of the 
themes of Desert Storm are beginning to reemerge. And so, in the case 
of this film, it is interesting to view Desert Storm through 
Hollywood’s eyes.

I have heard it argued that Three Kings is an anti-war testimony. Three 
Kings must be identified for what it is: it is a compelling Hollywood 
film that addresses a contemporary event. With that in mind, the film 
can be seen as a participant in the discourse surrounding the Gulf War. 
After viewing the movie, you decide if this is an anti-war film, or 
simply a film that raises compelling questions about Desert Storm.

Three Kings was an interesting Hollywood moment in which the action/war 
genre was manipulated to allow for a compelling script to thrive on the 
big screen. This was a fleeting moment that should not be 
over-idealized but rather consciously recognized.

Three Kings stars George Clooney, Mark Walberg, Ice Cube and Spike 
Jonze. David O. Russell is both the director and screenplay writer. The 
film is available at your local video store.
 
      All content Copyleft © 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where 
noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in 
whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or 
by government agencies.