WAR JOURNALISM: Under Fire (1983)

 

                    “Under Fire” is a part of the subgenre of war journalism.  It was directed by Roger Spottiswoode.  It is set in the Nicaraguan Revolution that overthrew Somoza.  The score was by Jerry Goldsmith and features jazz guitarist Pat Methany.  It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Score.  It was inspired by the death of ABC journalist Bill Stewart.  He was killed at a check point by Somoza’s troops.  The murder was caught on film and the subsequent airing on the news was a factor in the overthrow of Somoza. 

                    The movie opens in Africa where photojournalist Russell Price (Nick Nolte) is accompanying a group of rebel soldiers who are attacked by a helicopter.  We are introduced to the field of war photography as Price takes pictures of the mayhem with little regard for his own safety.  Soon after, the audience is introduced to the field of mercenary warrior as Price meets a soldier of fortune acquaintance named Oates (Ed Harris).  Price informs Owens that he is in fact fighting for the rebels, not the government.  Owens is bemused, but oh well, such is the life of a merc.  

                    Price is in a lovers’ triangle with fellow journalists Alex Grazier (Gene Hackman) and Claire (Joanna Cassidy).  Grazier and Claire are an item, but their affair is troubled.  In a nifty switch of the old war movie cliché, Claire wants to stay in the game and Grazier wants to settle into a safe network job.  Claire moves on from the man who wants to burn his suitcases to the one who owns no suitcases.  Price and Claire are off to Nicaragua and Grazier heads for New York.  They find a war with rebels, led by the charismatic Rafael, trying to oust the dictator Somoza.  The duo hooks up with a rebel group and dodge bullets in street fighting.  It’s a small world as he runs into the amoral Oates fighting for Somoza.  Price does not intervene and a good man dies.  This fits Price’s philosophy:  “I don’t take sides, I take pictures.”  This philosophy goes out the window when Price scores an interview with Rafael.  The ripple effect of his decision to photograph the rebel contributes to the death of a friend and the fall of Somoza.

                    “Under Siege” is one of the best movies if you want to learn about the chances war correspondents are willing to take to get a story or a picture.  12 war photographers were killed covering the Vietnam War, for instance.  One was Sean Flynn, son of Errol.  Price, Grazier, and Claire represent this brave, some would call insane, group.  Marguerite Higgins, who covered Korea, once said that the difference between a war correspondent and the soldiers they embed with is the correspondent does not have to get out of the foxhole.  Price and Claire bely that by going where the fighting is occurring.  When they are not accompanying combatants, they have some protection by being identified as the press.  But you never know when you will run into someone who does not give a shit.  In movies, these journalists are often portrayed as adrenalin junkies who can’t settle down to desk jobs.  “Under Fire” does not push this characterization, but Grazier does come to Nicaragua to get a big scoop.

                    The big problem with the movie is Price is an excellent exemplar of the profession until the movie jumps the shark by having him do something that casts aspersions on his ilk.  He does something that would have ended his career and reputation and he does it with no pressure.  Later, he proclaims that he has no regrets.  The incident was crucial to the plot, but I cannot believe photojournalists were happy with the movie.  The homage to journalists like Bill Stewart is diluted by having one of their own break the cardinal rule of the job – don’t take sides.

                    Speaking of taking sides, I was involved in a recent discussion about whether the movie was liberal propaganda.  Does the movie take sides in the Nicaragua Revolution?  Clearly, Somoza is portrayed as the villain that he was.  The rebels have no warts.  The government has Oates and a slimy French spy who puts out hits on the rebels.  However, the movie does not really hammer at America’s involvement.  There is the usual CIA operative trying to keep the lesser of two evils in power, but the movie also makes it clear that the Carter Administration has soured on their boy Somoza.  However, it makes no bones about the fact that we had supported him in the past and were only bailing because he was losing.  I think the movie falls short of pro-communist propaganda.  The rebels are referred to as “freedom fighters” instead of Marxists.  I did not get the impression the makers had an Oliver Stone type agenda.  It would be better described as a movie that set its love triangle in the Nicaraguan Revolution because there was a famous killing of a journalist that got worldwide attention.  

                    The strength of the movie is the acting.  The cast is strong with Cassidy joining Tina Fey (“Whiskey Tango Foxtrot”) and Rosamund Pike (“A Private War”) in portraying women war correspondents.  Ed Harris brings verve to the role of Oates and ironically the character is a better example of the soldier of fortune ethos than Price is of the war correspondent’s.  The love triangle is a cliché, but it is handled in an adult fashion and is not the focus of the movie.  The movie is well-made and makes good use of camera lens views and the subsequent photos.  It is one of the better movies on war correspondents.                            

 

GRADE =  B-