The Ed Zone

Three Kings – film review

Friday March 17, 2006 | 1 comment (now closed)

Reviewed October 5, 1999

The true casualty of war is that while it wages barbaric assaults upon human life and societal structures, it exists as reasonably sound business sense. The Twentieth Century, which has witnessed the birth of superpowers who in turn have fathered their own bundle of joy, the Military Industrial Complex, has provided ample proof that there are vast fortunes to be made, and economical salvation, amidst the “booming business” that is carnage and devastation.

Hollywood, ever one to jump on the bandwagon and milk the cash cow to its bitter end, has happily merged the “Art of War” philosophy with its more sinister mantra, “Greed is Good.” As an added bonus, their celluloid depictions of unbridled patriotism and uncommon valor, quite often win the hearts of critics and the public alike, and come March, send the studio execs marching off with Oscar, two by two.

With the release of Three Kings, once again the public is thrown into the heart of battle, but a curious aura envelops this decidedly offbeat portrayal of war. Boasting an eye-catching visual style, blistering political commentary, and strong workmanlike performances by its three leads (George Clooney, Mark Whalberg, Ice Cube), Kings earns its Medal of Honor admirably and launches a severe assault for dominance amongst a very crowded and competitive field of celebrated battle epics.

To be completely honest, Kings is deceptive. Despite a first frame killing, so chilling in its casual execution, the film places the audience at ease with a light-hearted tone (no gutt-grabbing Normandy invasions, a la Saving Private Ryan, here.) Director David O’Russell (Flirting with Disaster) feeds the viewer his skewed vision of warfare almost immediately, beginning with the immortal tag line “The War Has Ended.” So here we are, watching a war movie, in which, apparently, there is no war being fought. This friendly facade is just that, a charade to lull the audience into complacency, cheer them with madcap comedy, hook them with an adventurous heist, then without warning, grasp their passions and steal their hearts, as the trio of questionable heroes confront their inner greed and act in favor of more life-affirming choices. When the dust clears, Russell ends up painting one of those most vibrant and telling portraits of the nature of true apocalypse now.

Three Kings works so well, because it feels so right. While first and foremost a rousing action picture, pure visceral entertainment throughout, the film scarcely conceals a hidden agenda. This takes some time uncovering. With all its eccentricities on display (skeet shooting fluorescent C4-rigged Nerf Footballs in the desert dunes, subterranean enemy bunkers mimicking luxury car showrooms), the film conveys a sense of real insanity draped in reality. Life may be beautiful, but its equal parts crazy. Each oddball curve thrown by Russell (he wrote the screenplay as well) feels plausible. One can honestly envision the hostile interrogation mixing questions of American troop whereabouts with discussions of just where in life, the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, went astray.

It’s in these passages that Russell reveals his true take on war. Here he’s taking aim at the consciousness that allowed an Operation Desert Shield to morph into a Desert Storm, a full-blown Gulf War. The war seen televised was a high-tech video game aimed at unseating “The Great Satan”, Saddam Hussein, and leveling his aggressive tactics against the innocent people of Kuwait. America became the world’s Biggest Brother, sticking up for the weak, and pummeling the bad schoolyard bullies. Russell echoes a sentiment held by many, that the Gulf War was not about championing the little guy, but about reestablishing the United States of America as the pre-eminent superpower in the world. With the Cold War a distant memory, and a Soviet Union in devastating upheaval, it was time to stand tall and let the great flag of democracy fly high. These are noble intentions, and Saddam has proven himself truly an evil dictator, but the half-hearted actions dictated by the U.S. Government left good people exposed and out to dry. By rallying the Iraqi resistance to rise up against their oppressive government, then pulling out as Bush’s Q (popularity quotient) ratings dropped, good intentions gave way to simmering anti-American sentiment.

As mentioned before, Three Kings is an old-fashioned adventure yard. You have four instantly likable heroes, the three “kings” are joined by the lesser marquee value of Spike Jonze, a real-life video director, who portrays redneck angst with hilarious results. Having come into possession of a pilfered treasure map, Clooney’s hardened sergeant, persuades a trio of fellow enlisted men to join him on a simple mid-morning joyride into enemy territory to liberate millions in stolen Kuwaiti gold. As he puts it, Saddam stole the gold from Kuwait, so he has no problem stealing it from Saddam.

This decision, while largely driven by his own greed and dreams of a better life, also serves as an anarchic cry. Screw the government and screw this war. We initially meet Clooney and see him wrestling with his conscience to make sense of the U.S. involvement in the war. An early scene even shows him questioning his superior officer by demanding to know “What did we do here?”

The other soldiers are drawn with equal depth. Wahlberg’s soldier is a brand-new Dad, dreaming of a life back home with his anxiously awaiting wife and newborn son. Ice Cube lends dramatic gravity to his former baggage handler turned soldier, awash in the love of his good Lord, who as the title cards tell us, “is on a paid vacation from Detroit.” Jonze’s good old boy, hurling mild racial epitaphs simply because he knows no better, but means no harm, reflects upon a “nowhere” life stateside, his only joy apparent in pumping a few shotgun shells in the old, rusting hulk of a Chevy decaying in his backyard. He has formed a bond with Whalberg, and aims to alter himself to be more like his new lifelong friend, prompting tragic-comic results.

Correlations can be made between these Kings men and the lost souls adrift in the equally spectacular American Beauty. Both films share individuals afraid of losing that which defines them, their individuality, and both films reflect an anarchic rebel yell to rage violently against the machine. The soldiers of Three Kings, wisely make the proper choices at the right time and emerge from the war dazed and confused but altered for the better. Ironically, this war without direct combat offers them a more in-depth conflict, waging violent skirmishes upon their physical being and their mental state. The grave injustices of warfare, those insignificant lives that get rolled up into “real time” tally graphics on CNN (“Updated every hour, on the hour!!!”), the price associated with democracy, our way of life, thrust these four men into greater combat then they could have ever imagined or bargained for.

I know guys that served time in the first Gulf War. These guys came out of the conflict in large part the same  way as they went in. They were the lucky ones. They came home to face yellow ribbons tied ‘round all oak trees, rather than the pantheons of sour “patriots” that welcomed home the Vietnam vets and misplaced the blame of that ground war onto the shoulders of young men simply following orders. The Gulf War was conducted in such a fashion as to specifically avoid another Vietnam. The ground troops spent their days sunning themselves, their fiercest enemy the ever-present sand louse. Entire days were spent jockeying their Nintendo Game Boys, and turning camels into cannon fodder; mindless activities aimed at chasing away the doldrums of time spent doing nothing. When they were sent on patrol, there was no chance to best their high scores and “kill ratios” earned in Space Invaders, as each enemy encounter predictably began and ended in peaceful surrender. These are the stories I’ve been told, and it’s this restless agony that Three Kings branches off of.

Is Three Kings the finest cinematic depiction of war? The answer is “No.”

Why not? Because it never seeks to explain war. Instead director David O’Russell, supported by winning, witty performances all around, seeks to document the instability that produces war and the insanity that it pumps out. He doesn’t come out against war, but rather argues that you better have a damn good reason for fighting and when push comes to shove, you stand tall behind your convictions. There are valuable elements in this world worth fighting for, but reputation alone is not one of them. Regardless, Three Kings shall defend its sterling reputation for a very long time.