Stop-Loss (2008)
CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND THE MOVIES
Reviewed by David A. Thomas, Assoc. Prof. of Rhetoric, Emeritus, University of Richmond[1]
Stop-Loss (2008)
The Issue. Stop-Loss is the first major movie, and the first Iraq War movie, of 2008. It follows several 2007 war movies like Lions for Lambs and In the Valley of Elah. What makes Stop-Loss subtly different from the others is that it starts from the military’s policy of involuntarily extending military enlistments to send troops back to Iraq for second, third, and even more combat tours. This policy has been called “the back-door draft.” “Stop-loss” is defined as a plan to prevent continued loss, such as a customer’s order to a broker to sell a stock automatically when it reaches a specific price in a falling market.
In the recruiting context, the main concern is how to fill required troop levels with an all-volunteer force during the current unpopular U. S. war and ongoing occupation of Iraq, now in its sixth year. Several other measures have been implemented already. National Guard units have been activated for Iraq combat. Incentives like huge re-enlistment bonuses have been offered. A massive civilian “consulting” cadre, including armed personnel, now outnumber our troops on the ground. Another measure has been for the U. S. to pay for Iraqi militias, some of them manned by some of the same men who previously planted IEDs[2] in the streets against us, to join in the fighting on our side.
The stop-loss policy, as depicted in this movie, has helped the military to help fill in TO&E[3] shortfalls. Of the 650,000 American troops who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning, over 80,000 have been “stop-lossed,” concentrated in more recent years. Stop-Loss does not argue that those troops are not ipso facto volunteers. Keep in mind that they were all volunteers originally. They may be happy to serve beyond their original contracts. No studies exist about the stop-loss effects on those most affected by it. No one can say that stop-loss is just a technicality designed to avoid re-instituting the draft. But as shown, it does not make the troops happy, to say the least.
The movie has no discussion of the merits of the Iraq War, and very little discussion of the stop-loss policy specifically. Viewers are left to make their own judgments.
The Basic Story. Considered as a social text, Stop-Loss is more current than last year’s war movies. Stop-Loss updates what “winning the war” realistically looks like today. Several flashback scenes simulate the “home movies” made by soldiers with their own digital cameras, accompanied by their favorite IPod downloads. Their tours of duty consist of long stretches of routine, punctuated by brief periods of frantic action, as assault squads in Humvees pursue small bands of insurgents through the already devastated killing streets of Tikrit.
Stop-Loss is a well-written, well produced movie. The movie company, up and down the credits, is drawn from Hollywood’s A-List. Technical and artistic departments behind the film are directed by the leading people in the industry. The cast is topnotch, led by Ryan Phillippe (Flags of Our Fathers, Breach)as Staff Sgt (SSgt) Brandon King, a highly decorated soldier returning home to Texas following his second combat tour. SSgt King is an admirable guy who has serious adjustment problems when he is stop-lossed.
Just as SSgt King is being separated from the Army, he is stunned and angered when he receives his “stop-loss” assignment to return promptly to Iraq for a third combat tour. Protesting the injustice he feels over this sudden unwanted development in his life, he goes AWOL for a time with the intention of taking his case to his Senator in Washington. Given his heroic qualities, such an impulsive act is not typical of what SSgt King might be expected to do. By acting out on his anger, he learns that as a result, he will be regarded as a deserter and must actually leave the U. S. permanently for Canada or Mexico as his only alternative to prison—or else comply with the Army’s stop-loss order to report for duty again. In the end, he accepts his responsibility and his extended tour.
Most of the movie takes place when he goes AWOL. Therefore, rather than being a “war movie,” it is a “road movie,” in which the hero and a sidekick take a trip together. On the way, they encounter allies and adversaries on their quest to reach the hero’s goal. SSgt King’s companion is a friend, a young woman named Michelle, who is the fiancee of his best Army buddy, Sgt Steve Shriver. Michelle is not SSgt King’s romantic interest. Michelle’s role provides us as viewers with an independent perspective on Brandon King’s character and his impulsive actions while they are on the run.
Thus, Michelle is a sort of Greek chorus in this drama, reflecting on Brandon’s choices, yet giving him support, and even protection, as a caring friend. She becomes the conduit for relaying information between Brandon and Steve, and with Brandon’s parents back home in Texas. Michelle has the most important female role in an otherwise hyper-macho movie. By writing her role as Brandon’s road partner, rather than a fellow male trooper, the movie is able to enlarge its social critique from a relatively narrow focus on the controversial stop-loss policy. Michelle agonizes over her possible future life with Steve. Michelle’s eyes give us a different observation point from which to see both Brandon’s dissent and Steve’s obedience, and on the Iraq War itself, from the home front. Michelle is a powerful and independent voice, so she might be considered a feminist voice in the context of the movie’s larger discussion. In my view, she is an ordinary civilian member of the Iraq War generation.
Movie scripts about returning veterans often follow the fortunes of three buddies. SSgt King’s other GI buddies round out some of the possible responses that veterans make when they are confronted with stop-loss. In this movie, there’s acute PTSD,[4] alcohol abuse, depression, violence, nightmares, and suicide among them. During the “road” sequence, there’s a visit to a severely wounded buddy in a military hospital, a blinded amputee—but there’s nothing much wrong with his attitude. SSgt King also visits the parents of a fallen squad member, with gratitude expressed by the parents but some bitter words of resentment from a younger brother. This family, too, voices mixed reactions.
None of SSgt’s cohorts, except his commanding officer, is a one-dimensional super-patriot. Despite their ordinary human flaws, these servicemen are all treated with respect as patriots and heroes. There is a scene containing some rather jarring curse words aimed at President Bush, but Stop-Loss makes every effort to support the troops, if not the war.
SSgt King’s own Texas rancher-parents are portrayed as salt-of-the-earth, silent-majority types, who beam with pride over his patriotism, and who earnestly try to understand his frustration and rage. His mother is most concerned with his safety; she wants him not to go back, even if she has to drive him across the Mexican border herself. His Dad (Ciaran Hinds) seems more confused over his son’s dilemma. Hinds’ terse dialogue is confined to one-liners like, “It’s just not right,” as he tries to make sense of what his son is going through. The viewer is pretty sure he means his son’s determination to go AWOL to fight against being stop-lossed, but then, it just could be that he is condemning the stop-loss policy itself.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
