Two things happened on the season finale of “Over There” that I’m sure everyone saw coming. First: in a fine nod to the sluggish pace of Army bureaucracy, Bo finally got his Bronze Star. Second: Lieutenant Underpants got fragged. What was masterful, for me, was the pacing of the cuts between home and war, the fine use of v-mail as a narrative device to increase the emotional affect of the distance between home and war, and the bookending of the episode with Angel’s hymn and Dim’s atheist prayer. And the funereal last five minutes were nothing short of brilliant: the coffin-echo implicit in the attention to the placing of empty beer bottles back into the empty case, and the use of entrenching tools to shovel dirt onto the light around which they’d all said Amen.
Two of the schools to which I’m thinking of applying for jobs ask for a Department of Defense form 214, a record of active-duty service. Mine’s on file with the credentials office. And I have to wonder whether those schools would be happy with me, and whether I’d be happy with them. I’m thinking about the training sessions I gave as an NCO for soldiers on the Geneva Convention and Laws of War, and some of the stupid lieutenants I encountered in my career (plus, to be fair, three good ones, as well as one sergeant major who I’ll never forget, and one lieutenant colonel who was the finest officer I ever met), and I wonder: could I make a difference? Do I want or need to? (I could, I think. I might.)
Two ways to think about this. One: I did some temporary duty at one of the schools — in fact, I got my corporal’s stripes pinned while I was there — and loved the place for its architecture and location and history, and for the cadets’ huge enthusiasm.
Two: it’s obvious from my research agenda that Marxist economists influence my theoretical perspective. I’m thinking there’s a chance some institutions might scowl at that, however clear it might be from my experience that when I was in, I loved the Army and the soldiers with whom I worked.
And I’m looking forward to “Over There” season two.
Mike,
I must admit that I am quite surprised to find that you would watch a show like “Over There”. I make sure to avoid it like the plague. For me it represents an overly dramatized version of death and carnage that leaves the viewer with an unrealistic image of war and a soldier’s life. I work with two recent returnees from Iraq that both saw and participated in heavy combat. Both of them were contacted personally and given advanced screenings of the first few episodes of that series and were appalled by what they saw. Apparently this is a recurrent theme among some of their fellow Iraqi veterans. I guess my question to you is: Do you watch it because it is entertaining, because you feel that it is realistic or because of your personal interest in rhetoric? I guess I’m just curious.
Interesting. I’ll certainly agree that it has its credibility problems–the writers had to bend over backwards to get female soldiers to interact with an infantry unit, when they could’ve had the smarts to just make it an MP unit–but I don’t think it fetishizes death and carnage in the least. Quite the contrary, in fact. I think it does an excellent job of representing soldiers as flawed and complex human beings, of making viewers empathize with them and with the struggles their families face as well. So when violence does occur on the show–as it does on a regular basis, just as it does in Iraq–it’s not in the service of some glorious macho super-soldier us-versus-them heroism, but much more something terrifying in its effects on the characters with whom we empathize. and in its effects on Iraqi civilians and insurgents as well. I think it’s well-written, scrupulously fair in its representation of the humanity of soldiers and those around them, and a seriously compelling drama.
I’d be curious to hear you say more about the specifics of the problems you and the vets you talk with see with the show: is it that it’s showing death and carnage? Is it the concern with how realistic it is? In what ways are you seeing it as “overly dramatized”?
According to them the show is unrealistic and unfair in the way that it portrays some events and some soldiers. To them the dramatization of a war that is currently going on might be a bit too much to swallow. The two parts that really stick out (as relayed to me & that I can remember) were: 1. in the beginning of the season where the woman sends a videotape to her husband in Iraq showing her escapades at home. Although events like that might go on they did not believe that there is a place for such a “tabloidesque” portrayal of the war-zone life. Events like that are so rare that it gives the audience an unrealistic depiction of a soldier’s life in a combat zone. It is depictions such as this that show how low the entertainment industry is willing to go to make a buck. In fact it borders on salacious. I’d be willing to go as far as to say that images such as these hurt the morale and image of the troops more than they help.
And 2. The scene where an enemy troop is blown in half and yet his lower torso continues walking. Come on…Give me a break. If they wanted to make a horror show they should have just made one. However, they have decided to make a show that tries to portray a realistic image of life in a combat zone and in doing so they must be held to a higher standard. Humans are not chickens they do not continue running around when their heads are cut off. Again, this gives the American audience an unrealistic expectation of what combat is like and thus desensitizes them to the true gravity of the situation. In my opinion this show is no more than a soap opera that takes place during war. Maybe I am being unfair, as I have not watched the entire season. However, I don’t think it is entirely appropriate to dramatize a war that is currently ongoing. The creator of LA Law and NYPD Blue should not be the one that America goes to for its news on Iraq. Instead of hearing our co-workers talking around the water cooler about how Billie hooked up with Jane in Fallujah last night they should be talking about how we just passed the 2,000 mark in dead American troops.
(Advance apology for upcoming rant) 🙂
To me this show is just another way of making Mr. & Mrs. John American feel better about themselves because they “watch the war movie†and “support our troopsâ€. They actually believe that by purchasing a yellow ribbon for $7.50 at the local drug store and plastering it on their car that they have done their patriotic duty. That does not support the troops…that supports capitalism. If you want to support your troops go out and freaking vote or call your congressman! Has everyone forgotten that this show is put on by a channel that is owned by Fox (The Republican Party propaganda machine)?
Sorry for being so opinionated about this, but I have to deal with veterans on a daily basis that are suffering from IED wounds, PTSD, amputations and an assortment of other traumatic conditions. I’m sure that they wish their fellow countrymen would spend as much time talking to their congressional representative about complete VA funding as they do watching and talking about shows like this (no offense intended to those who watch). By the way did you notice that the VA was underfunded by over $1.5 Billion this year alone? Now you know why veterans in your area have to wait an entire week to be enrolled in VA homeless and drug rehabilitation programs. Now you know why veterans in your area have to wait over a month and a half for basic doctor visits (sometimes up to six months). Now you know why veterans in your area are denied health care benefits from the VA if their household income is over the National HUD Geographic Index. By the way…do you even know what the National HUD Geographic Index is…well, neither do they.