RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
US, 2000, 128 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Bruce Greenwood, Anne Archer, Blair Underwood, Philip Baker Hall, Amidou, Mark Feuerstein, Nicky Katt.
Directed by William Friedkin.
Rules of Engagement was released in 2000, a year before the attack on the Twin Towers. Made at the end of the 1990s, it reflected the Gulf War of the early 90s, the fears about Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the attacks on American marines in Beirut and Yemen as well as the attacks on American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. The story was written by James Webb, who served in Vietnam and was multi-decorated, who served as secretary for the US Navy under President Reagan. (After the film was released, he stood for the senate and his son served in Iraq.) The screenplay was written by Stephen Gaghan who wrote such films as Traffic and wrote and directed Syriana. There is strong political background to the making of this film.
The film was directed by William Friedkin who won an Oscar for directing The French Connection and made an impact with directing The Exorcist. These seem to have been his peak films and while his career continued for many decades, his films were often dismissed and his reputation as a film director lessened.
The film has a strong cast with actors doing their usual competent roles, Tommy Lee Jones as a Vietnam veteran and lawyer, Samuel L. Jackson as the commander who is brought to court responsible for a massacre in Yemen. Guy Pearce is the young prosecuting officer. Bruce Greenwood appears as the ambiguous national security adviser while Ben Kingsley is the ambassador to Yemen with Anne Archer as his wife.
In the light of September 11, 2001, the film seems even more prescient as well as sinister. After 2001 a number of films explored and dramatised themes of the war against terror – including The Kingdom, set in Saudi Arabia.
The film offers great ambiguities and means a great deal of reflection. The focus on Samuel L. Jackson’s character as brave, decorated highly from Vietnam, rescuing the ambassador and his wife, coming under fire, ordering his marines to shoot into the crowd after some marines died, while there were eighty-three deaths, especially women in children, and hundreds injured. He declared that he saw them firing weapons. No weapons were found. On the other hand, the national security adviser destroyed a tape which indicated that there were armed terrorists among the crowd.
The prosecuting lawyer does not know this and makes a stand about Americans, rules of engagement, defence and the use of deadly force. With the emotional ingredients of seeing wounded women and children, the dying, the film appeals to both head and heart. Tommy Lee Jones portrays an ex-Vietnam officer whose life was saved by Jackson, trying to defend but not being particularly competent. However, he does his best and wins the day.
With the activities of the Americans in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, with the deaths of many civilians, this film is particularly relevant.
1.The film as pro-American, yet the critique of the rules of engagement and their application? Pre-September? 11, 2001? The film seen in the light of those events?
2.The title, the military, marines, the nature of the rules, Childers knowing them by heart, rules for combat, use of deadly force, defence, protection of men? Legal interpretations?
3.The prologue in Vietnam, the role of Childers, the role of Hodges? The trap, the Viet Cong? The officer and his radio man? Silence? Looking? The shootings? Prisoners of war? The report? Hodges and his retirement, his injuries, studying law, not particularly good? Childers and twenty-eight years of a career, decorated highly? The Viet Cong officer later brought into the court, his being questioned by the prosecutor, his being questioned by Hodges, asked whether he would do the same as Childers? His reply that he would? The final salute to Childers outside the court?
4.The background of the 1990s, the Gulf War, Yemen and the facts, unrest, Islamic jihad, protests, terrorists, attacks on embassies in Africa, violence?
5.The locations for Yemen, the embassy, the streets and the square, the hospital?
6.The situation in Yemen? The later information of reports from the ambassador about dangers? Terrorist activity? The ambassador and the evacuation? His wife and son? The ambassador and his fears, under the desk, hurrying? Childers and his expert saving them? The rule about the flag, Childers taking it down and giving it to the ambassador? The escape? The snipers, the bullet holes in the wall of the embassy, the crowd? Innocent or not? Childers and the marines, the helicopters, the landing, the bravery? Childers’ decision about firing into the crowd, his language, its being recorded, its being used against him? His assistant hesitating at the command? The issue of who could see what was happening in the square? The consequences? The massacre, eighty-three dead, the women and children, the wounded, no weapons found, the press and world opinion?
7.The methods of collecting evidence, being filed, sent to the State Department? Sokal and his attitude towards the cassette, not wanting to look at it, refusing, later watching it, the audience seeing it and knowing what happened, his burning it? The blame for the incident, America, a scapegoat? Sokal and his diplomacy, denials, at meetings, his testimony in the court, his lies, his finally being threatened by Hodges, the information at the end about his retirement?
8.Sokal, national security adviser, the issue of blame? Childers, orders, the law? The choice of Biggs, his background, expertise? His discussions with his staff? Subpoena for evidence? His plan? His considering Childers guilty?
9.Childers, at home, his arrest, reaction? Going to Hodges and asking him? The obligation? The preparation for the trial, his drinking, his past career, service, the gun? The possibility of suicide? The marines being his life?
10.Hodges and the twenty-eight years, the law, his retirement, the celebration and Childers hugging him, going fishing? At home, his son and the arguments, his father and his military reputation? Their being in court at the end?
11.Hodges and his discussions, with the officers, going to Yemen, taking the photographs, the camera which was not broken, seeing the doctor, visiting the wounded, the street crowd threatening him, his running, fear? The wounded child and her calling him a killer?
12.Biggs, his plans, beliefs, not having the tape, playing blackjack, Hodges and his questions about life expectancy?
13.The courtroom proceedings, Hodges sick, the emotions, the judge and his objectivity, Biggs and his interrogations, Childers’ assistant and his testimony? The doctor coming from Yemen? The tapes of the Islamic jihad and the rabble-rousing? The mission to take American lives? Sokal and his lies?
14.The ambassador, Sokal and his veiled threats to him, the ambassador lying in court, his wife looking on, Hodges’ visit and seeing the boy, the wife and her refusing to testify, her priorities?
15.Childers’ words to fire into the crowd, his outburst in the court and the consequences?
16.The argument from his career, his life story, his medals?
17.The Viet Cong witness, his objectivity, answering yes, his final admission that he would have done the same?
18.The final speeches, the presentation of the different perspectives? The jury? The audience and the verdict?
19.Childers and his angers, at the protesters, his living by the codes, rules?
20.Hodges’ father, his son, their congratulating their son and his victory?
21.The ambiguity of the situation, giving orders, the rules of engagement, innocent lives, collateral damage? The relevance of this film to subsequent American activities, especially the war against terror?
