Posted on 03/27/2008 4:42:47 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
Real-Life Drama Fuels 'Stop-Loss' Director
Peirce Examines Military Loophole In Soldier Drama
Tim Lammers, Web Staff Editor
POSTED: 3:56 pm EDT March 26, 2008
While the timing of the release of the new military drama "Stop-Loss" comes on the heels of the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, the last thing director and co-writer Kimberly Peirce wants people to think is that she's launched some sort of cinematic protest against the government.
In fact, the film, which opens in theaters Friday, is not so much about the war itself as it is the people who are serving in it and the effects a loophole in military policy is having on their friends and family.
"It's completely pro-soldier," Peirce said in a recent @ The Movies interview. "Being from a military family myself and having interviewed hundreds of soldiers, my whole point of the film was to tell the story from the soldiers' point of view as they are living it. The film is positive about the military and the people who believe in the idea of being patriotic."
The policy in question is also the film's title: "Stop-Loss." It's a loophole in a soldier's military contract that provides for their retention in the armed forces and prevents them from retiring once their term of service is complete.
The soldiers she interviewed don't have a problem with the Stop-Loss policy itself, Peirce said, but "the way it is being applied right now."
"There are ways it could be applied well, but they feel its being used as a back-door draft," Peirce said. "They feel it's recycling them."
In the film, Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) is dealt the Stop-Loss provision after his return home to Texas from a tour of duty in Iraq. Scarred by an ambush prior to the end of his tour, Brandon is determined to fight his Stop-Loss order, even if it means testing the loyalties of his longtime friend and fellow soldier, Sgt. Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and the fears of his military family by going AWOL.
Complicating matters is that Brandon's main ally is Michele (Abbie Cornish), who aids him as a fugitive -- an ally who also happens to be Steve's fiancee.
At the heart of "Stop-Loss" is Brandon's strong bond with Steve, as well as fellow hometown soldier Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Peirce, who first won acclaim as director and writer of the 1999 drama "Boys Don't Cry" (which earned Hilary Swank her first Best Actress Oscar), said classic films like the Vietnam War drama "The Deer Hunter" were at the front of her mind when establishing the trio's friendship.
"What I love about 'The Deer Hunter' is just how much Michael (Robert De Niro) loves his friends. There's the scene where he jumps out of the helicopter into a river to save his friend, even though he is safe and could go home. It's so heartbreaking," Peirce observed. "There's also the scene where he fights to get his friends out of the POW camp where they are forced to play Russian roulette. That character to me was the idea of a real hero and a leader."
It was that sort of dedication between soldiers that Peirce found when researching for her script.
"'It's always about the men first' -- that's something that soldiers said to me over and over," Peirce said. "When you're over there it's about staying alive and keeping the guy next to you alive. Even keeping the guy next to you alive is more important than keeping yourself alive."
That inner turmoil is realized in Peirce's film, explaining why Brandon rebukes his Stop-Loss order.
Paramount/MTV Films Image Kimberly Peirce and Ryan Phillippe on the set of "Stop-Loss"
"With Brandon's character, when he finds himself on some level feeling compromised because he can't protect his own men, that's the thing that breaks his heart," Peirce said. "This is a guy who wants to defend everything at home, but when he gets over there, he realizes that it's about defending the guys to your left and your right. But if he can't be a leader because of the circumstances, it's a big challenge for him."
The origin of "Stop-Loss" is rooted in two events for the filmmaker. A resident of New York City of 13 years at the time, Peirce said that she witnessed the World Trade Center towers fall on Sept. 11, 2001, calling it "very personal and devastating." But it wasn't until subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that things hit even closer to home.
"After we entered the war, I sort of knew that this was going to be a huge change ahead for the U.S., so I wanted to make a movie about why soldiers went to war, what their experience in combat was like, and how they felt like after coming home," Peirce recalled. "But right about that time my little brother told us that he was enlisting and that he was going to Iraq. While we had a grandfather in World War II, overnight we had become a contemporary military family. So my sister, my mother and I dealt with that on a very profound level every day."
Suffering injuries that precluded him from entering further combat, Peirce's brother has since retired from the military and is home safe. But her worries for others haven't stopped, given her personal involvement in the "Stop-Loss" movie Web site, where all users are invited to sound off about their own Stop-Loss experiences.
"We have so many people writing in," Peirce said. "Soldiers are saying, 'I've been Stop-Lossed, this is the story of my life. Wives have been writing in, saying, 'My husband's been Stop-Lossed and he's not going to see the birth of my child'…it's affecting so many people."
I bet this movie will make at least $16.50, there by beating all the other antiwar crap hollyweird puts forth.
giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Everybody involved in making this film should be arrested and all copies confiscated and destroyed.
Have you seen the commericals for this film? Apparently, and I am not making this up, a lot of people see them and think it’s some sort of gay soldier romance movie, sort of “Brokeback Military.”
I'm not being an ass, just wondering what you are seeing that I don't.
Was waiting for a thread on this movie. Sounds like another Hollywood bomb. Sad because they could made good movies about the troops or the war that people would line up to see. The list is endless but they used be able to make good films all day long. Pickings are scarce these days. “We Were Soldiers” is the last one I can think of.
Have you seen the film?
I saw the trailers at the last movie I went to (10,000 B.C.).
The subject of “I wanna get out but they won’t let me” just will not get me to spend $9 per ticket and $13.25 for the popcorn special.
There are several ways to win a war. One method is to out fight and destroy the enemy. The other is to undermine the morale of the enemy and the civilian support for the war effort.
Viet Nam was won on the battlefield, but lost on the homefront because of the lies the media was feeding the people.
This movie is nothing more then propaganda designed to sap the morale of the people in the home front.
I will not go so far as to say that the people involved should be arrested or that the film not be shown, only that people should understand it for what it is.
One difference between now and Viet Nam is we could pull out of Viet Nam and only the Vietnamese would pay the price. If we disengage with the enemy now it will only make them stronger. We either fight them now, over there, or we will one day fight them here.
Well said.
Probably seeing only what he wants to see.
DING! DING! DING!
It's the FREE-TARD quote of the day!
BS! It’s not a freakin “loophole”! It’s one of the conditions of the contract.
Anti-American @sswipe!
How was 10,000 BC?
Sing it with me Comrade:
Союз нерушимый республик свободных
Сплотила навеки Великая Русь.
Да здравствует созданный волей народов
Единый, могучий Советский Союз!
Yeah, I'd like to know the answer, too.
OK as a popcorn cruncher.
For any people looking for a Historical Movie - that was not it.
But for me and the teenagers, we had a good time and the popcorn was buttery.
Yeah this redefinition of contractual obligations piss me off.
This movie is nothing more then propaganda designed to sap the morale of the people in the home front.
Is that really a fair statement, based upon fact? I haven't seen this movie so I cannot really comment on its content, perhaps you have. From the reviews I have read, and including this article, it appears as though the movie is respectful towards our soldiers and their mission. The movie does examine the so-called stop-loss portion of a military contract and its effect on soldiers and their familes.
If it is doing so in a factual and honest manner, I don't see how that is propaganda. In that case I would not agree that the film is designed to sap the morale of the people in the home front.
IMO much of what comes out of Hollywood is propaganda and designed to pollute the culture. But there are films that come along once in a while that tell a story that's worth telling. It just might be that this is one of those.
I served in the Marines and am a Patriot. All of our freedoms and rights are important to me, including freedom of speech. I challenge folks (not meaning you) who talk about arresting people for making a film and destroying all copies.
Propaganda can be 100% true, and remain propaganda. Up until recent history, our nation leaders knew this. Which is why there was limited censorship during previous conflicts. I assume you would not be surprised to know that a lot of information about previous wars were witheld from the public until after the conflict was resolved.
It is difficult under the best of circumstances to remain resolve in the face of hardship. War is a cruel and bloody business. People die, people are wounded, people are traumatized by war. Propaganda uses this to make emotional arguments that are designed to weaken the resovle of the civilian population.
There is a time and place for this type of movie. The time is after the war, not during.
Our culture, our way of life is under attack from both outside and inside. Where are the movies that support our efforts in this war? Only half the story is being told.
M*A*S*H (the movie, and the TV program) came out during the Viet Nam war. It had one message, war is hell and we can not win. I do not know how many young minds were influenced by the Movie or the TV show, but advertisers spend billions of dollars each year to convince us to buy their product so is it so far off to assume some were convince war is never the right solution.
What I am saying is that we live in a Republic and it is within the power of the people to surrender (via their elected represenitives) to an enemy, I just want to make sure the people understand the consequences of surrender.
Hollywood, the main stream media, our culture in total is only telling us the bad things about war and none of the good.
The good you may ask is that we remain alive and free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.