Under Fire (Roger Spottiswoode, 1983)

[bdsweeney]

A forgotten film of the 80s, from a director that once worked as an editor for Peckinpah but ended up making true crap (Turner and Hooch, Stop, Or My Mom Will Shoot). On the evidence of the film making here, he was/is capable of much more.

Just finished watching this on DVD for the first time and was mightily impressed by it. Stands along side (and maybe ahead of) most of the films that were made by Hollywood concerning the various troubles of many Central and South American nations in the 70s and early 80s. (I haven't seen Salvador, so I can't comment if it's better.)

It has a stellar cast: Nolte (never better?), Hackman, Trintignant, Ed Harris, and the (underutilised by Hollywood) Joanna Cassidy--who was superb: no female-who-standsby-from-the-sidelines here. All were no-nonsense, full-rounded characters.

No-nonsense is also a word I could use for the rest of the film, as it avoids sentimentality. Especially in its depiction of the poor of Nicaragua--no lingering shots of glamorised slums and no single character who is used to symbolise and depict the (what I assume) real-life hardship of an entire population.

Fantastic photography, with no 'beautiful' vistas of wonderful countryside used as a backdrop; instead, just thunderous storm clouds that aren't lingered on but instead give a great feel of the oppressive heat of the tropics. Also, no crane shots are used; instead everything is shot at street level and moments of action are not full of fast cuts, but instead use non-flashy setups that make everything clear.

Best of all was the direction and the use of art direction. Wow! Why does Costa-Gravas's Missing get all the credit for its depiction of streets and a population under siege? For my money this is its equal (and possibly better--do you hear me, Criterion?)

Its depiction of the complexities of journalism (keeping non-bias, standing back from events unfolding and the morality of this) are well-done, but again not overwrought.

It questions the US stance/policy of conduct in Nicaragua (and, by my own conclusions, Chile, Panama, San Salvador etc.), but again doesn't linger on it--it assumes that the audience is intelligent enough for it to not have to hammer any points home. Thank God, no inappropriate use of Imagine as it was used in The killing fields (yes, I know it was set in S-E Asia, but I'm sure you get my point) and no clunky exposition to point out who to root for and what is going on. In fact, the script almost makes fun of this usual event in films such as these by having a character asking 'So, what's the deal with Nicaragua?' The reply you think is going to launch into a 'traveller's guide' of the nation's problems, but is quickly cut short by 'No, all I was going to ask is what beer is available down here?'

Finally, it would be easy to criticise the use of a romance between Nolte's and Cassidy's characters, but, again, it is handled in a no-nonsense manner that is not overplayed but serves to develop character in an intelligent manner.

If I did have a criticism, it would be for Ed Harris's character of a mercenary who turns up too often and pushes plausibility. Also, and while this is not pushed in the audiences faces, the character is the one clumsy use of symbolism of US policy. I should make it clear that it is the character that is clumsy, Harris's portrayal is fine.

An intelligent film that cares about its characters, the topic at hand and audience.

Why has this film been forgotten?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Why has this film been forgotten?

Good question? Perhaps it hasn't aged well? I watched it awhile ago and didn't feel that way and yet it certainly is a snapshot of its times. The trio of Nolte, Hackman and Cassidy is quite good as you rightly point out. After seeing this film it certainly makes sense why Ed Harris jumped at the opportunity to star in Alex Cox's Walker, another Nicaragua-based film. I actually quite like the other journalist crusader films that came out around this time - The Year of Living Dangerously, The Killing Fields and Salvador.

If like Under Fire you really should check out Salvador which is an amazing film. James Woods and James Belushi (yes, before he became a sitcom dad) make a really good team in this balls-to-the-wall film about the Salvadoran civil war. I have always considered it to be one of the best films Oliver Stone ever made and has a real visceral impact that gets me every time.

[Mesh]

Weird, I just posted about Garrett Stewart's Between Film and Screen in the book thread, which devotes a few dense pages to unpacking Under Fire's use of still images and photographs. I've only seen bits and pieces of the movie but I'll re-seek it out now.

[King Prendergast]

Under Fire is one of those pretty good films of the 80s which is relatively unknown because it just doesn't hold much interest in terms of the way film studies is pursued today.

However, it does have one of the all-time great scores of all time by the late Jerry Goldsmith, and is most often cited in film score discussions.

[Polybius]

I think it's better than Salvador (which is a fine film that still suffers from too many of Stone's indulgences.)

There are a lot of people with a vested interest in pretending that the US didn't leave a huge pile of corpses in that region, (just like they want to pretend they were all for Mandela all along), which is a major reason a lot of people aren't too interested in talking about this film. It's more complex than that, but it's a huge part of the picture.