7-29-05, 9:22 am

 

A significant percentage of the U.S. news stories about Iraq in the past couple of days have been stories about a fictional TV series set in Iraq – 'Over There,' which debuted on the FX Network on Wednesday night.  Much has been made of the idea that this is the first such series about a war to air during the actual fighting of that war (apparently we've already all forgoten the Jessica Lynch series and the Colin-Condi-Dick-and-Don Show).

Newspaper articles have noted with despair that Americans must now turn to (non-taxpayer funded) fiction for depiction of the blood and horror of war, because the TV news (in this country, unlike others) does not show it.  But these reports have been less forthcoming about the shortcomings of our print media's war coverage and the shortcomings of 'Over There,' co-produced by Stephen Bochco, who brought us 'Hill Street Blues.'

I watched the first episode before reading a word about it, but have since read a number of the reviews by reporters who've seen the first three episodes and interviewed the creators (or at least copied and pasted lines out of their press release). 

The episode I watched was 40 minutes, and for the first 20 there was nothing positive I could say about it.  After that, the only positive thing I could say was that it began to show war in a way that included injuries and deaths.  That may prove a significant contribution, particularly if the fictional version opens the door to showing us the real thing.

The first episode briefly showed some soldiers departing the United States, and then focused on one battle in which this small band of men went up against a heavily fortified building in the middle of a desert.  Those opposed to the war may view this sort of drama and complain that there is no information provided as to what the war (or even this battle) is about, no scenes depicting the decision makers who sent these kids to kill and die.  I'd like to see that done, and I think it says something about our democracy that such a thing is unimaginable.  But I think it's unfair to demand that of every war show.

However, I have another complaint.  'Over There,' is clearly intended to have 'no political point of view,' and its creators have said as much.  At the same time it's intended to be a serious drama that deals with tough issues.  In episode one we see racial conflict, sexual conflict, and class conflict play out among the U.S. soldiers.  We see conflicts between troops and their commanders and between soldiers and their families back home.  We even see U.S. troops handicapping themselves by trying to avoid endangering an Al Jazeera reporter (a nice switch from real life incidents in which evidence strongly suggests that the US targeted and killed them).  That's a lot of issues to pack into 40 minutes largely devoted to flying bullets.  And it's done in a third-rate sort of way that clearly satisfies the reviewers.

But what is meant by having no political point of view?  The view from one POLIS, or political state, is always different from that of another.  This show (at least in episode one – and the reviews suggest this doesn't change in the next two episodes) takes exclusively the point of view of the United States.  The Iraqis in this show have no names and for the most part no faces, no stories, no families, no nicknames, no annoying and endearing habits, no motivations or regrets, no insecurities, no NOTHING. 

If a reporter from Mars were to hover her spacecraft over a battle in the desert of Iraq, she would know nothing about what lies a distant leader told to start the war, but she would see the fighting between two groups of people of the same species, not one group of people and another group of dangerous objects or evil beings.  To its credit, episode one shows dead Iraqi soldiers on the ground, and shows American soldiers contemplating them.  But one of the first Iraqis we see actually hit by a flying projectile is a man running toward us whose entire torso is blown away, so that a trunkless-headless-armless pair of legs briefly continues running toward us on its own.  The laughter this will elicit from sadistic viewers can hardly be accidental.

Those inclined to see the horrors of war will see them here.  Those inclined to think of foreigners as evil ones, as non-humans, will confirm that world-destroying prejudice.  And by design.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed Bochco:

'MATTHEWS: Who are the bad guys?  Are they nationalist Iraqis?  Are they Baathists?  Are they outside Islamists who came into the country to fight us?  How do you define the enemy in your series?

'BOCHCO: We are defining the enemy as those individuals who are trying to kill us, who are shooting at us.  And we don't put names on them or labels on them.  They are just trying to hurt us, and they are the bad guys.'

Never mind that in the real world EVERYONE has a name and lots of labels.  Never mind that one side's soldiers are not 'good guys' and the other's 'bad guys.'  Although one side may be fighting for its home, and the other may be fighting for corporate profits and empire, the soldiers are all human beings. 

A 'bad guy' in the tradition of Western literature and Hollywood is not a human being.

Because of this revolting simplification, I was almost sorry to see all the intra-American drama and identity issues in 'Over There', because I knew the reviewers would call the show daring and complex.  I wasn't disappointed:

The Daily News:

'In tomorrow's premiere episode, we meet the soldiers, they meet each other, and we watch as they form their easy bonds and uneasy conflicts.  After a first mission, they're rewarded by getting to send a video E-mail home, and that's where 'Over There' first kicks into a higher gear.  From that point, it never slips. Episode two has the unit defending a roadblock; episode three has them involved with interrogating a prisoner. Each episode contains shocks and surprises, from unexpected reactions and sudden explosions to the unusual move of ending, rather than beginning, each episode with the show's major credits and theme song.  'Over There,' like combat, is unpredictable, confusing, horrifying, shocking and comprised of several different perspectives. But though war may be hell, 'Over There' is brilliant.'

The Philadelphia Inquirer:

'Wednesday's premiere is heavy on the shooting scenes. The show moves toward a more exalted presence next week, as characters define themselves more clearly and the action frequently moves away from Iraq. Bochco says Over There will spend about 40 percent of its time on the home front.  The series, more a revelation than entertainment, will not be for everybody. Many will be fascinated by and addicted to this amazing production, agreeing with Bochco that 'art is supposed to... ask provocative questions.'  But the combination of Bochco and FX assures excessive rawness, and many viewers will simply be offended by the whole too-much, too-soon exercise.'

In fact, attacks on this series as a creation of the 'liberal elite' are inevitable. Never mind that its stated intention is simply to make piles of money by 'entertaining.' And never mind that it never shows us an Iraqi as a human being. 

Whatever that may be, it ain't liberal.

LINK TO ARTICLE 



--DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.