I have been tough on the new show, "Over there." Here is another perspective.
The Soldiers are Wrong
So Blackfive a milblogger asked his readership for reviews and reactions to the FX show Over There. Both he and his readership found the characters stereotypical, cartoonish, and have lots of complaints about the accuracy of the program.
They're all wrong.
First off, this is Hollywood, so it could have been much, much worse.
I thought it portrayed several things very well, even in the first show:
1. American Soldiers aren't bloodthirsty maniacs. Terrorists are.
2. Being shot at sucks.
3. Keep your head down, asshole!
4. This is a complicated war.
5. Women Soldiers are fighting in combat.
6. The presences of the media is making this war very strange.
Sure, the characters are stereotypical. I can see the soldiers point, but its an entirely irrelevant one. Were the cops on Hill Street Blues, another Bochco show, stereotypical? You bet your ass they were. That's not the point. Over There, like Hill Street Blues is a genre piece. I expect it to follow the conventions of the genre, I also expect it to transcend them, based on the one show I've seen so far and Bochco's history.
In WWII, Frank Capra refined the war picture genre to a high degree. A war picture needs certain elements to be true to the genre:
* Only a few characters. The audience has to bond with the characters so having more then 4-5 characters diminishes that bond. In military terms, this means a platoon size is ideal. Naturally, this doesn't always make sense in reality. Why was a captain commanding a platoon in Saving Private Ryan?
* Those few characters have to in aggregate represent all of America. So there will be a College Guy, an ethnic, (these days) a woman, a WASP, etc. This is one of the most Capraesqe parts of the genre; Capra specifically intended his films to be propaganda; the audience had to feel the platoon represented a representative slice of America.
* Sergeants are tough bastards. Officers (especially lieutenants) are idiots. This isn't strictly necessary, but comes from two great truths: Americans hate authority, and sergeants have won more battles for America then any other type of soldier.
So does Over There have those elements? Of course it does. As a TV program, viewers have to be able to tune into any of these early shows and “get it” immediately. So the characters are going to be stereotypical and shallow at first.
Are the tactics vastly oversimplified? Of course. Complicated tactics won't be shown unless they have dramatic purpose. Similarly, on CSI, they can get DNA tests done in a day, where in real life they take 2 weeks.
So give the show a break guys. I think that while you'll always have problems with the technical accuracy, I think that Over There is going to turn out to be great TV. It may be oversimplifying the war, but that's OK. If the New York Times coverage of the war was as good as this show, I wouldn't have to blog.
opinionatedbastard.com |
