Bad writing, missed opportunities plague `Rules'
By MIKE McMORROW
Scene Movie Critic
"Rules of Engagement" is an example of good lead acting hindered by a screenplay that seems to want to be unintelligent. William Friedkin's latest extravaganza, which deals with the atrocities of war and the supposed "rules" of combat, hints at thoughtful issues but is trapped inside a story that is so poorly thought-out that the audience is left feeling manipulated and cheated.
The film stars Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones as old buddies who went to Vietnam together. Terry Childers (Jackson) saved Hayes Hodges' (Jones) life, thus Hodges feels forever indebted to him. Twenty-eight years later, Childers is a respected Marine colonel and Hodges is a mediocre lawyer with a drinking problem
Childers is called in to suppress an anti-American riot located outside the American Embassy in Yemen. Childers arrives and sees that it is getting ugly, with snipers on rooftops ready to take shots at American forces. Childers gets the ambassador and his family out successfully, but some of his men are killed. Livid at the loss of his marines, Childers orders his men to open fire on the crowd at the base of the embassy, resulting in 83 deaths.
This hits the front page of all the world's newspapers, causing the American National Security Advisor to find a scapegoat in Childers. Thus, charges are brought against Childers for disrupting the peace, conduct unbecoming of a marine and murder. Childers turns to his old Vietnam comrade Hodges for representation, whose response is "I'm a good enough lawyer to know that you need a better lawyer than me."
The charges against Childers deal with whether or not his order was against an armed, firing crowd. If not, and the victims were civilians, it is against the "rules of engagement." However, any hints as to the truth are never given, causing the audience to feel manipulated.
Jackson has a great deal of charisma as an actor, but because of the horrendous loss of life, viewers feel no sympathy for his character at all. Did the crowd fire? The answer is unfortunately not revealed until the very end. By this time, the audience has ceased caring and, therefore, the outcome seems cheap.
It doesn't help that there are so many unnecessary plot lines that demean any kind of real debate about Childers' actions. The film's National Security Advisor in particular is so superficially scripted that his credibility is destroyed as soon as he appears on screen. His actions serve only as plot devices. For example, he destroys a piece of evidence that could help prove Childers' innocence. This poor piece of screenwriting comes across as childish, as it avoids further questions that the film could have raised.
The film may have worked had it spent more time examining the true intentions of the rules of engagement themselves. Instead, it toys with the audience's expectations.
Had the audience been aware of the true nature of the situation in the first place, there might have been an opportunity to ask difficult questions about action in combat, the treatment of belligerent but unarmed protesters and possible diplomatic issues. Yet there is no serious treatment because the screenplay hides the true questions.
Jackson and Jones, to be sure, are good. They add depth to characters that, in the embodiment of lesser actors, would have been infuriating. Jackson and Jones are even able to pull off a sense of drama in the courtroom scenes that feel more or less flippant. They alone make the last half of the movie bearable.
Jackson is a perfect actor for a strong-willed, combat-oriented, well-intentioned Marine, and Jones is convincing in a role that requires conviction and vulnerability.
In the hands of a more intelligent and less-forced screenplay, there might have been the chance to ask some real questions. Instead, questions surrounding the movie's title feel like an afterthought.
2 out of 5 shamrocks
All Scene Stories for Thursday, April 13, 2000
