Rules of Engagement is a 2000 American film directed by William Friedkin, and starring Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. The movie, a military, political, and legal drama, is about Marine Colonel Terry Childers, played by Jackson, who is brought to court-martial on charges of disobeying the rules of engagement in a military incident at an American embassy in Sa'naa, Yemen, resulting in the slaughter of many civilians by Childers' men.
The lead writer, James H. Webb, is a former Marine combat officer and lawyer and Secretary of the Navy, and is currently the senior United States Senator from Virginia.
Synopsis
The key scene in the movie takes place in Yemen, where an unruly crowd of local men, women and children demonstrate outside the U.S. embassy in Sana'a which had been incited by jihad audio tapes. Colonel Terry Childers (a veteran of Vietnam, whose actions there will play a major role later on in the film) and his men are sent in to evacuate the U.S. Ambassador, Ambassador Mourain, his wife and young son. At the end of the evacuation, Childers, having lost three marines and a fourth dying in his arms, orders his men to open fire on the crowd, resulting in dire consequences. The legal case that follows depends on whether (a) the crowd was armed and fired first or (b) Colonel Childers exceeded his orders and reacted based on anger or a darker motive (such as prejudice).
According to U.S. military law as explained in the film, Childers could be found guilty of murder for killing 83 "non-combatants". But if some of them were carrying weapons and opened fire, he could be exonerated. Colonel Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones), a fellow Vietnam veteran whose life was saved by Childers, openly tells him he needs a better lawyer than Hodges in order to avoid a life sentence, because Hodges had an unimpressive career in the Marines' JAG Corps, but Childers is adamant about having Hodges as his attorney for the principal reason he has served in combat before.
The prosecution asserts that Childers' order to fire was based on personal fear, racism, or confusion. The National Security Advisor, William "Bill" Sokal wants Childers to be convicted in order to preserve U.S. relations with Arab countries; when he receives a CCTV security videotape that shows hostile fire coming from the crowd outside the embassy, he burns the tape with the hope that the prosecution will win. The defense and Childers respond that he was in fear for his Marines' lives under fire and was in compliance with his orders and the rules of engagement. Childers testifies that he was on the roof and could clearly see that the crowd had weapons, another soldier- who also had an observational position, was killed on site and therefore, Childers is the only one who can testify as to the intentions of the crowd. Ambassador Mourain lies on the stand (blackmailed into co-operating by Sokal earlier on) and says the crowd was peacefully demonstrating; his wife later admits the truth to Hodges but won't testify in contradiction to her husband. The prosecution introduces previous actions by then-Lieutenant Childers in Vietnam to show a history of misconduct, including a witness.
Hodges goes to Yemen and finds several audio tapes, which call for a jihad against the USA. This explains the mob outside the embassy and the shooting. There is also a security tape that records the actions of the crowd and proves that the crowd has weapons and is indeed firing on the embassy. This tape is inventoried on a manifest of the items that were recovered from the embassy, but is hidden/suppressed by the prosecution. The tape is discovered, and the case against Childers is now very different.
The actions in Vietnam, shown as a flashback in the first few minutes of the film, revolved around an ambush of then-Lieutenant Hodges' platoon by a Colonel Binh Le Cao, a North Vietnamese officer, and his men. While listening to sounds of the ambush, Childers and his Marines captured the Vietnamese officer and his radioman. In order to save Hodges and his platoon, Childers held a pistol to the radioman's head and tried to force Colonel Cao to withdraw his troops from the ambush in exchange for the officer and radioman's freedom. When the officer initially refused to comply, Childers executed Colonel Cao's unarmed subordinate. After the Vietnamese officer changed his mind and called off his troops, Childers complies with his promise and releases him.
During the testimony of Colonel Cao (the witness) he recounts how Childers had threatened him with death in order to save his Marines and executed his unarmed radioman. Nevertheless, the foreign officer admits that placed in the same situation, he would have most likely done the same thing. He also tells the court that he realizes that Childers is a man of honor; in that he does exactly what he says. This appears to be a potential turning point in the trial and, ultimately, Colonel Childers is found guilty of the minor charge of Breach of the Peace but not guilty of the more serious charges of Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and murder. As Childers steps outside the courthouse, Colonel Cao, before getting in to a car, salutes him, and Childers salutes back. A postscript title card says that William Sokal was charged and found guilty of Spoliation of evidence, forcing him to resign from his post, and that Ambassador Mourain was found guilty of perjury and sacked. No further charges were pursued against Colonel Childers and he retired honourably from the Marines.
Cast
Criticism
The film drew widespread criticism for its portrayal of Arab characters. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee described it as "probably the most racist film ever made against Arabs by Hollywood".[1] Paul Clinton of the Boston Globe wrote "at its worst, it's blatantly racist, using Arabs as cartoon-cutout bad guys".
Film critic and academic Mark Freeman writes:
- "The Yemeni people are painted in the broadest, most racist terms imaginable. Friedkin lets his camera linger over their angry faces, exaggerating their difference: the robes, the veils, the beards, the bizarre, harsh language, and their keen desire for violence. The omission of key scenes early on only serves to emphasize the horrendous racism of this film when the 'truth' is revealed later. The message of Rules of Engagement is the necessity to kill all those who actively oppose the United States and that the murder of women and children is acceptable in such cases."[2]
Jack Shaheen, Professor Emeritus of Mass Communication at Southern Illinois University, has characterized the defining moment of the movie as one that "will live on Hollywood infamy", in the documentary Reel Bad Arabs. In this scene, the massacre is relived, but this time the viewer is able to see that the people who were shot by the Marines (including women and children), and who were supposedly protesting peacefully, were really armed to the teeth and firing on the Embassy. Even a twelve year old girl (who lost her leg in the shootings) encountered by Hodges later in the film, is now shown through flashback as drawing up a gun, and firing on the Embassy.
References
- ^ Whitaker, Brian. The 'towel-heads' take on Hollywood, The Guardian. Friday August 11, 2000.
- ^ Freeman, Mark. Review of "Rules of Engagement" by Mark Freeman, Senses of Cinema
External links
