Can't even finish watching Restrepo

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by CPT (R) George Paul Farris, USA on May 17, 2011 at 3:39pm

Dear Phil:

From an outstanding NCO like yourself, such words are tonic to an old soldier's soul.

You presently have the good fortune to serve in one of the most historic regiments in our Army, the 327th PIR, or the Bastogne Bulldogs! Thank you so much for your service to, and sacrifice for, our republic. Know that I remember to keep intentions in my prayers for you and your comrades' safety and success.

Should you, or your family visit DC, please let know in advance and let me serve as your guide. Respectfully, I remain at your service...

sine pari,

George

FARRIS

CPT, IN

USA (R)

 

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready  to do violence on their behalf.                                — George Orwell

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by curtis peeler on June 8, 2011 at 6:33pm

I myself have read the book and watched the movie. I want to applaud the work of both of these fine journalists for their selfless service to the nation by providing a real look into what today's modern battlefield is like. Ellen, like always I respect your opinion for it is your constitutional right to speak your mind, and that it what our soldiers defend. I like that you were honest and respectful at the same time... however, I am a little confused at what you really expected. A lot of footage in documentaries are strategically placed to make a conflict look terrible and "action packed". I think Sebastian hit it right on when he showed us the down time and the combat because the boredom and monotony of everday living is also part of the harshness of a soldier who is deployed. Sometimes we find ourselves doing things that we don't necessarily want to do and dealing with issues that you may think are boring. For example you brought up the cow. That situation in a country with thier nomadic and trading type of culture would have a huge impact on the US's reputation amongst those people. It would actually have a huge effect on how much cooperation they would get from the local people. But at the same time locals might also take advantage of the situation and try to get money out of that platoon because face it, they are not stupid people. They know we have money and are a powerful nation. At the same time in a region such as that those locals could have been mujaheddin or ACM (anti coalition militants) and used that money to purchase firearms and ammunition from Pakistan. What you missed about that scene was how SFC Patterson handled the situation by providing them with rations, which is unlikely they could get weapons for food in that region, instead of giving them money.

 I think you were expecting something else and you didn't get it, but I will tell you from experience that Sebastian hit the nail on the head with this film.

 

SSG Peeler

formerly A co 2-503rd

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jimi Chartrand on July 6, 2011 at 3:40pm

You are one rude individual.

Ellen H said:

Hi Sebastian and all,

 

   Well I don't know what to say either.

 

   I think the key for me is in the sentence where you said it was not a political film.   Bang!   That's it. I've been pondering my own uncharacteristic knee jerk reaction.  That's what made me so angry because I am so anti-war given the times we live in.   Unfortunately for some reason perhaps numbness on my part, the scenes you mentioned flashed by and I thought that would build into something further, something to make it an anti war film.   And you know there is nothing wrong with an objective documentary (It's not you it's me ;)   I'm not privvy to Nat Geo other than they are mainstream, one of the few mainstream channels I enjoy regardless.  

 

   You asked me to point out specifics.   There are so many - yet I am drawing a blank.  Go figure.  It's more personal accounts I've heard and read about rather than movies or docs I suppose that I'm referring to. 

 

But here's something.  The weekly column in TODAY's local newspaper (The Plain Dealer, PolitiFact Check Ohio) quotes Rep. Tim Ryan as saying "from '05 to '09, we've had 1,100 soldiers commit suicide, one every 36 hours." 

 

Every week The PD chooses a quote from a pol and analyzes it, to size it up True/False or somewhere in between for the readers.  Of couse today's answer was buried inside.   Guess what, it's true.  I think we've all heard rumors of this situation.   So imho if this is what they're telling you then it's probably worse.

 

Anyways, I apologize for my earlier rant but it's crazy times we live in and my hobby is paying attention to what's going on in the world and I am none to happy about it.   Don't want to dis Sebastian anymore cause he doesn't deserve it, it's just a matter of opinion.  

 

Peace

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BRUCE CHRISTIAN on March 9, 2012 at 3:09pm

What ? Are you stupid !!! This movie depicts
what happens in War you idiot ! I would like
To say thank you Sebastian for telling me this
story and showing me what is really going on 
with Afghanastan and our soldiers

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Edwards on April 26, 2012 at 6:58am

I found this page because, after watching Restrepo, I googled 'restrepo sanitized'.

Sorry Mr Junger but I, too, felt the impact if of the film, for some viewers, was probably reduced by the lack of blood and gore. Maybe that's just the way it goes ... I am still amazed that journalists would put themselves in the position to be able to record these things in the first place, so hats off for whatever footage you can get.

But if there was more explicit footage that was edited out, to me, leaving it out was a mistake. It's one thing to see blood all over the clothing of a soldier after his comrade is killed (during Operation Rock Avalanche). That has impact but requires a certain intellectual engagement in order to reflect on what is seen. If instead we had seen clearly the dead soldier and his wounds, a more direct and visceral reaction would have occurred. Likewise with the civilian casualties.  But of course, in both situations it would be extremely difficult to get such footage.

On the other hand, I do wonder.. you had footage of the contentious cow being dressed and butchered but, as far as I noticed, only snuck it in  for half a second in the end credits. I just wonder whether more generally some editing has taken place so as to avoid being pigeon-holed as anti-war or pro-war. I can see why you would want to avoid that, but it's a pity to lose parts of the film as a result.

Anyway, just my 2c - I still think the film offers an amazing insight into a hidden world for most of us. Can't wait to read War. (I just so happened to randomly pick it up out of a bargain bin a week or two before Restrepo was screened on TV here in Australia. Can't believe my luck.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mouse on April 28, 2012 at 11:43am

Russell,

Of the 150 plus hours of raw footage that Tim and Sebastian filmed, ultimately, it had to be pared down to 90 minutes - with interviews - while maintaining a cohesive story line.  Tim Hetherington is quoted in this article as saying he felt strongly that the ambush at Operation Rock Avalanche and the killing of Staff Sgt. Larry Rougle should be included in the film - and it was.

I find the filmmakers to be infinitely compassionate and truth-driven journalists.  I believe it can safely be said that any blood and brains omitted from the final cut were due to a deep respect for the victim, his dedication, his family, and all those present and involved with the mission.  

If horrific and abject violence on tape is what you're looking for, I'm sure it exists elsewhere.  The genius in filmmaking often lies in its subtlety and its ability to make the watcher's mind fill in the gaps.  This, too, is why books usually have much more of an impact than do their transitions to film.  I found the written account of this battle far more upsetting for that very reason.

Here's the thing.  Those who would seek out this film, or find their way to it, do have at least a passing interest in the subject matter.  This is profoundly true for servicemen and women and their families who view the film.  The trouble arises when all and each of those individuals desires and/or expects this film to speak in totality for their own experiences  or imaginings of what war is like.  That is an impossible and unattainable request - and a heavy burden to place on anyone.  

This is one story of many.  It speaks for itself as best it knows how, and I believe it is honest and dignified.

As I've said here before, I would heartily recommend reading the book War first, and then seeing the film.  The book provides a richly detailed foundation for the visual bonus that is Restrepo.

-mouse

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Waters on April 28, 2012 at 11:23pm

Mouse - well said, as usual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Edwards on April 28, 2012 at 11:30pm

yep mouse - I am re-watching Restrepo bit-by-bit as I work my way through the book and am getting a even more out of it second time 'round. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Edwards on April 29, 2012 at 3:58am

I should shut up and wait until I've finished the book, but it seems clear to me now why the footage was sanitized - out of respect for the soldiers and their families. The book (so far) and the film and neither pro-war nor anti-war, and don't express an opinion on the worth of the Afghanistan conflict, but Hetherington and Junger unashamedly do recognise their attachment to and identification with the US soldiers. It is only natural that the editing of the film should respect the attachment thus formed. Junger isn't shy of this lack of objectivity -- "Journalistic convention holds that you can't write objectively about people you're close to, but you can't write objectively about people who are shooting at you, either."

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Waters on April 29, 2012 at 11:51am

Russell - it sounds like you're seeing the nuances of the film and the situation that both filmmakers found themselves in. I admire your ability to update your opinion based on new information (in this case, watching the film in combination with reading the book).

Tim


Russell Edwards said:

I should shut up and wait until I've finished the book, but it seems clear to me now why the footage was sanitized - out of respect for the soldiers and their families. The book (so far) and the film and neither pro-war nor anti-war, and don't express an opinion on the worth of the Afghanistan conflict, but Hetherington and Junger unashamedly do recognise their attachment to and identification with the US soldiers. It is only natural that the editing of the film should respect the attachment thus formed. Junger isn't shy of this lack of objectivity -- "Journalistic convention holds that you can't write objectively about people you're close to, but you can't write objectively about people who are shooting at you, either."

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Edwards on May 2, 2012 at 4:58am

Hokay .... finished. What a life-changing book!  It certainly does make me see the film in a completely different light. No complaints at all now - but would certainly recommend reading the book before watching the film.

Thanks Mr Junger and Hetherington for a profoundly important book and film! 

I'm going to take both from the start again as I feel both will reveal more with repeated exposure. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie on September 16, 2012 at 2:38pm

Ellen H said:

Mr. Junger, you are a pro so therefore I understand your patience with me...for some reason I was just so shocked at this movie, expecting more realism because you spent a year embedded with them.  Yes I'm anti-war but not a fanatic, I mean people have to defend themselves now and then but this war is ridiculous imho, so I guess that's the bottom line but I will try to explain more.  I even have to wonder if Netflix edited the movie...but they usually don't do that to the best of my knowledge.

 

For instance, we meet Restrepo right at the beginning, about 30 seconds in the airplane.  Then that's it.   As an audience member, I was not captivated by this character.  I'm sorry.  Perhaps that was not the point of the movie but simply a send off to a larger dynamic, I don't know.

Then we have the third party aspect. Restropo's friends who are so sad about losing him. And I am so sorry this man died. I hate our young people being over there dying for ......nothing.....imho. 

 

The movie continues when the company reaches their post.  Boring times for them, dealing with a different culture, nothing going on, local aggravation, then occasional gunfire, a wayward cow....well.. then we get to the boys one by one telling their snippet in a green room somewhere.  And that's kind of it.

 

Don't take it personally Sebastian, perhaps it was the mood I was in.   I have followed your work over the years which is excellent (I have your book Perfect Storm)  but  Restropo didn't do it for me.

 

I still think NatGeo made you sanitize it but you didn't hear it from me   :)

 

Okay so you're not living large   lol....cool

 

Hugs,  Ellen

 

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page