Docu-Fictions of War: U.S. Interventionism in Film and Literature. Tatiana Prorokova. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2019.
Honest words mistaken as truth are the shackles on a gullible mind. There is an important distinction between truth and honesty often ignored by conventional wisdom, which traditionally presumes one leads to the other. Insistence that a dialogue between two sincere parties must subsequently follow with some objective, undeniable truth tends to be the norm. However, the competence of observers cannot be taken lightly—an assumption that has historically proven to be questionable at best. Human beings are notoriously obscure, inconsistent, and unreliable in their recollections.[1] Thus, any creature could be unquestionably honest yet simultaneously wrong—or worse, their account could be one of many equally true yet fundamentally unique perspectives competing for the dominant worldview. It leaves us in a precarious state of uncertainty when certain facts cannot be universally reconciled.
Here, in this delectable grey area, is where docu-fictions seem to reside, according to Dr. Tatiana Prorokova, in Docu-Fictions of War: U.S. Interventionism In Film And Literature.[2] In fact, Docu-fictions of War dedicates nearly a quarter of its pages to a robust discussion of truth, knowledge, and the history surrounding this philosophical conundrum. The book is as much a philosophical dialogue as it is a historical review of modern American interventionism in popular culture from the Gulf War to Afghanistan, and works chronologically as it divides each major conflict into individual chapters. Prorokova weaves dozens of films and books into her analysis, beginning with critiques including Three Kings and Jarhead alongside literary classics like Dear Mr. President. The book quickly transitions to the Balkan War and an equally diverse set of films and literature, including Behind Enemy Lines among other major titles, until finally reaching its two-part dissection of the War on Terror with Charlie Wilson’s War, Hell and Back Again, and Kaboom leading the discussions. Despite its broad subject, the book efficiently chips away at the implications each creative work has to offer.
Defining the epistemological worldviews guiding Prorokova through her analysis is certainly insightful, including one of the best historical reviews of Idealistic philosophies I have ever seen. The author clarifies her position with respect to Lacan’s notion of each individual wielding their own unique, competing truth in contrast to the idea of a single universal truth, and immediately progresses to the text’s first case studies from the First Gulf War. These films were expertly selected by Prorokova to reach across the documentary and fictional ends of the docu-fiction spectrum. Werner Herzog’s Lessons of Darkness is a docu-fiction in the documentary sense, containing actual recordings and footage of the obliterated paradise Kuwait became after the Iraqi invasion. Lacan’s invocation is embodied by the film’s devolution into a chaotic horror show of war’s devastation, while offering various legitimate accounts reinforcing the idea of simultaneous yet conflicting truths.
However, the analysis also left me with a feeling of saying all the right things for all the wrong reasons. For example, it suggests the division of the docu-fiction pretends to be another version of the Bible, “an analogue that focuses on peaceful life and its destruction provoked by human beings.”[3] The film’s chapter titles certainly have a biblical air, but chapter headings are not, on their own, an invocation of biblical context.[4] They also imply Herzog desired to paint intervening soldiers as saviors, which seems a bit contrary to the final chapters of the film where American firefighters begin to ignite the oil themselves. Lessons of Darkness initially portrays American intervention in a positive light, but simultaneously reveals it to be pathological—a façade—and corrupted by the final act. Still, Prorokova’s argument that this serves the interventionist thesis that U.S. involvement is depicted through interventionist motivations is strong, albeit only to demonstrate that no good deed goes unpunished. In contrast, I can also argue it exposes these firefighters as part of the problem, while serving a truth divergent from the humanitarian image we presume. Herzog might verify Prorokova’s thesis, initially, but his film’s content suggests there was little public or private acceptance of humanitarianism driving American involvement at all.
Prorokova quickly surges with a superb analysis of Three Kings and Jarhead. The latter, with its countless perspectives, thoroughly reinforces the Lacanian lens of reality being defined by coexisting truths. The literary review, which included The Fist of God, Dear Mr. President, and The Pearl of Kuwait, was even more persuasive than the films. Gabe Hudson’s short story collection is the highlight of Prorokova’s critique, and embodies the bittersweet tone most Gulf War docu-fictions seem to convey: “[D]espite all the negative ramifications of the war that are shown and the thorough critique of the U.S. government, Dear Mr. President does not purely reject the idea of the shift in U.S. interventionism and portrays the intervention as being different from previous foreign military conflicts, thus revealing a historical change.”[5] The collection recognized the shortcomings, but also cemented the pervasiveness of humanitarian motives. Regardless of my disagreements with the nuances in Herzog, Prorokova's diverse thematic selection sweeps readers through expertly dissected excerpts alongside a slew of historical anecdotes.
The author honors the films she investigates, but the main thrust of her arguments are invested in the literary discussions throughout the book. Prorokova’s analysis of the First Gulf War titles and the arguments concerning the nature of popular depictions are convincing. The Balkan War stands as a glaring epistemological exception. The chapter aims at how the involvement itself was framed and begins with arguably the most iconic film depiction, Behind Enemy Lines, which can be seen as an idealized allegory of American involvement accompanied by this uncertainty of who the good guys even were. Both literature and film agreed upon the “absurdity of the Balkan conflict” in some way, but also the ineffectiveness of initial humanitarian efforts.[6] The parallels here between the narratives seem to detract more from the Lacanian worldview than it helps. The invocation of Savior even felt a bit unconvincing. Victimization of at least some Muslim bystanders remained a specific, unchallenged truth between history and mythology presented that is even reinforced through the accompanying literature, This Way to Heaven. They crack the core philosophy by admitting that prejudice, whether perceived as justified or not, was at the war's core. A small universal truth is still a universal truth. It begs the question of where this fuzziness is really supposed to begin or end, subsequently calling the humanitarian thesis into question.
The chapters surrounding Afghanistan and Iraq pose the opposite problem, in which the book’s conclusion about framing U.S. interventionism around humanitarian rationale faces some adversity. The framing of the intervention as presented by Charlie Wilson’s War and The Hurt Locker are difficult to call humanitarian, especially in the latter. The main character in The Hurt Locker is defined by his iconoclastic behavior, so it is suspect to frame the United States’s motivations through his own actions. Citing Terence McSweeney’s critique of the film, Prorokova argues the Iraqi boy’s death is symbolic of the need for American intervention while simultaneously being a distorted, ersatz motive.[7] The American soldier was supposedly victimized by the emotional loss, and this soldier’s need to avenge the boy’s death, not the Iraqi deaths, was the root of the intervention. This view is problematic for many reasons, but the most glaring is the causal paradox it implies. Such circular arguments, true or not, are not very persuasive towards the book’s thesis.
Dr. Prorokova’s insights are a unique attempt to understand the narratives defining public perceptions in war. Modern war philosophy has long embraced the Kantian perspective, which argues a similar Idealistic concept of truth as Lacan’s, but only recently (and reluctantly) discovered the utility of critical theory within that framework.[8] A glaring difficulty of the war in Afghanistan was its lack of a consistent narrative, something Prorokova reinforces quite well.[9] In a globalized world, establishing a stream of strategic, operational, and tactical narratives that complement one another is vital to maintain the citizens’ will to fight or even define the concept of victory.[10] The war in Afghanistan remains a complete conundrum.[11] Who won? Why?
These questions still linger, and they may haunt American policymaking for decades to come, just as Vietnam did. History is no longer written by men in high castles or prestige. Social media, digital media, and global markets have uprooted traditional storytelling in every manner. Afghanistan, was covered in real time, not just by those like John Ford or Ken Burns in Hollywood.[12] If leaders cannot proactively acknowledge the military’s imperfections, it will become the Achilles Heel to any public support. War can no longer hide beneath the veils of propaganda or pretty speeches.
As the United States repeats its Vietnam nightmare—the triumphant disaster—military and civilian leaders must come to terms with how interventions can be framed. It is not sufficient to appeal to humanitarian sympathies in the age where all can witness war’s horrors. Prorokova’s most enlightening contribution may be an accidental revelation: the media’s revelation of war’s brutality. War, by its nature, is not humanitarian in its appearance. If anything, Prorokova reveals to readers that American civilians are increasingly less ignorant to such horrors. They have front-row seats, now. In the end, honesty may be the place U.S. interventionism needs to land, and that requires leaders to be more transparent with their motivations, messaging, and their mistakes.[13] As Porokova elaborates, “The persistent reference to U.S. goals as humanitarian in these cultural narratives, however, leaves room for hope that future interventions will take place only when the initial and ultimate goals are exclusively humanitarian.”[14]
Docu-Fictions of War is a unique investigation into popular culture’s depictions of war, and how civilian narratives interact with military storylines. As an amateur filmmaker, I am left wanting more artistic explorations, but its contributions to strategic studies are plentiful. That said, with hundreds of sources and a dense epistemological basis, it is not for the faint of heart. The analysis provided by Dr. Prorokova is thought-provoking, even if one is not inclined to accept certain epistemologies, and asserts a robust argument for America’s humanitarian rationale. Docu-Fictions of War is a seminal piece on war narratives that deserves every policymaker’s attention.
Docu-Fictions of War is a unique investigation into popular culture’s depictions of war, and how civilian narratives interact with military storylines.
Dori Brandes is a physics teacher and amateur filmmaker in the city of Philadelphia with research interests focused on applications of statistical mechanics in strategic studies. They received their Bachelor of Science in Physics (Mathematics Minor) and Masters in Education from Kutztown University of Pennsylvania.
Have a response or an idea for your own article? Follow the logo below, and you too can contribute to The Bridge:
Enjoy what you just read? Please help spread the word to new readers by sharing it on social media.
Header Image: Still Image from the film 1917 (IMDB)
Notes:
[1] Eisold, K., 2020. Unreliable Memory. [online] Psychology Today. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory
[2] Prorokova, T. (2019). Docu-fictions of war: U.S. interventionism in film and literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 71
[3] Prorokova, T. (2019). Docu-fictions of war: U.S. interventionism in film and literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 79
[4] Billson, A., 2020. Chapter Headings In Films: A Form Of Subtitle Envy? [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/jun/03/anne-billson-chapter-headings-films
[5] Prorokova, T. (2019). Docu-fictions of war: U.S. interventionism in film and literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 117
[6] Prorokova, T. (2019). Docu-fictions of war: U.S. interventionism in film and literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 145
[7] McSweeney, Terence. The 'War on Terror' and American Film: 9/11 Frames Per Second. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt14brxqp.
[8] KRAUSE, KEITH. "CRITICAL THEORY AND SECURITY STUDIES: The Research Programme of 'Critical Security Studies'." Cooperation and Conflict 33, no. 3 (1998): 298-333. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45083929.
[9] Feaver, P. and Golby, J., 2020. “It Matters If Americans Call Afghanistan A Defeat.” [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/will-americans-call-afghanistan-victory/596188/.
[10] Meier, Benjamin D. “The Operational Narrative in Wars of Choice.” (2016). [online] Defense Technical Information Center. Available at: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1022145.pdf. Wed, Thomas Elkjer Nissen, Thomas Elkjer Nissen, Scott Kinner, Bill C., J.t., and Roger Erickson. “Narrative Led Operations: Put the Narrative First.” Small Wars Journal, n.d. Available at: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/narrative-led-operations-put-the-narrative-first. Kvernbekk, Tone & Bøe-Hansen, Ola & Heintz, Ole & Cohen, Daniel. (2020). The Problem of Mission Creep: Argumentation Theory meets Military History. [online] Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Available at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2473&context=ossaarchive
[11] Feaver, P. and Golby, J., 2020. “It Matters If Americans Call Afghanistan A Defeat.” [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/will-americans-call-afghanistan-victory/596188/.
[12] Liptak, A. (2018, October 12). A military expert explains why social media is the new battlefield. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/12/17967544/likewar-social-media-pw-singer-interview
[13] Barno, D. and Bensahel, N. “Lying to Ourselves: The Demise of Military Integrity.” (2015, March 10). War On The Rocks. Available at: https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/lying-to-ourselves-the-demise-of-military-integrity/
[14] Prorokova, T. (2019). Docu-fictions of War: U.S. Interventionism in Film and Literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 281