Restrepo

December 14, 2010 12:04 PM

Restrepo is a feature-length documentary that chronicles the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. The movie focuses on a remote 15-man outpost, "Restrepo," named after a platoon medic who was killed in action. It was considered one of the most dangerous postings in the U.S. military. This is an entirely experiential film: the cameras never leave the valley; there are no interviews with generals or diplomats. The only goal is to make viewers feel as if they have just been through a 90-minute deployment. This is war, full stop. The conclusions are up to you. (previously)

The deployment shown in Restrepo was the setting for the actions which made Sal Giunta the first living Medal of Honor recipient since 1976.

posted by Joe Beese (41 comments total)

It's not a fun film to watch, but it needs to be watched. The book Junger wrote about this time is also a gripping read.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:08 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

When and where can I watch this full film? I love documentaries of all types and this looks especially important and moving. Can anybody help me out here?
posted by SkylitDrawl at 12:11 PM on December 14, 2010

It's currently available on Netflix Watch Instantly.
posted by starman at 12:14 PM on December 14, 2010 [3 favorites]

> When and where can I watch this full film?

You can buy it, and it's also available to stream on Netflix. You can also steal/download it.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:14 PM on December 14, 2010

I've been waiting for this to come to iTunes. Junger's book was one of the most amazing war books I've ever read.
posted by bondcliff at 12:16 PM on December 14, 2010

Guess I know what I'm watching on Netflix tonight! Thanks, all!
posted by SkylitDrawl at 12:19 PM on December 14, 2010

Yeah, Restrepo is great -- streaming on Netflix -- and so is Junger's companion book.

I've been obsessed for years, on a layman level, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to see for real what I had only read about or seen dramatized was a pretty earth-shattering experience for me. There is one scene in particular that is indescribably powerful, though because it's real, it also feels wrong -- like we shouldn't be watching something so personal, private (among the men who were there), and emotionally raw. It's actually kind of hard to wrap your mind around in some ways. Those who've seen it should know what I mean.
posted by eugenen at 12:20 PM on December 14, 2010

It was also very recently on the National Geographic cable network and will likely re-air there.
posted by briank at 12:37 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

The book Junger wrote about this time is also a gripping read.

"He tells us about the unusual physics of fighting in the Korangal: you can see a gunshot but not have enough time to move before it hits you."
posted by Joe Beese at 12:39 PM on December 14, 2010

Saw this last week and found it fascinating. Specifically the interactions with the villagers/locals. It just seemed so off.
posted by chugg at 12:48 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

You might also check your on-demand offerings if you have cable or satellite; I watched it through the National Geographic channel that way last week (it was free).

I agree that it's something people should watch, but I found myself wishing it could've packed more of a wallop.

What I thought was interesting--or at least uncommon--about this film is that Hetherington & Junger's explicit choice to film and edit without a political agenda allows for wildy different viewer responses: Movies like this tend to underscore my feeling that war is humankind's most terrible habit, and that a lot of people who are gung-ho about these and other recent wars might not be so if they watched more material like this; yet, some of the guys I watched the film with felt a rush of "patriotism" and openly wished they were younger so they could enlist and serve with those guys.

Documentaries these days aren't often like that; most have an agenda. So I thought it was refreshing in that way.
posted by jwagon at 12:51 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

> some of the guys I watched the film with felt a rush of "patriotism" and openly wished they were younger so they could enlist and serve with those guys.

Ah, this is indeed why most of the people who have been there for any length of time continue fighting. They could give a shit about nation building or the War on Abstract Noun, but that dude next to them that is in the same exact boat is reason enough to kill the guys on the other side. I wouldn't label it as "patriotism".

It's a deep feeling of brotherhood that is not undeserving of admiration, regardless of the stupidity of war and the reasons we engage in it. I've never been in the military, let alone combat, so I can only try to empathize on what that means to them and wonder about the strange ways that tragedy can bring people closer together than triumph.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:01 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

Hetherington & Junger's explicit choice to film and edit without a political agenda

It seems to me that the film can't help having a political agenda - merely by dint of being about American soldiers.

As Dee Xtrovert once pointed out in a comment I wish I could find again (and I apologize if I'm mangling it): The real story of war isn't the experience of men in combat, but of civilians trying to endure amid the corpses and rubble.

Of course, it wouldn't have been feasible for the directors to live among the Afghans for a year filming their side of things. Even if it had, it might not have produced much compelling footage.

But what took place in the Korengal Valley was ultimately about the people whose home it is. You can believe that it's a story about how they were freed from oppression by courageous young Americans, or you can believe that it's a story about how they came under the heel of yet another doomed empire - but either way it's still their story.

In this bleak drama, the soldiers in this film - and the country they represent - are just supporting players.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:19 PM on December 14, 2010 [4 favorites]

> It seems to me that the film can't help having a political agenda - merely by dint of being about American soldiers.

Definitely read the book. Junger talks about how he tried to maintain objectivity but the very fact that he depended on these kids for his own survival slanted him in unavoidable ways. He even went so far as to say that if the circumstances required it, and not doing so meant his own demise, he would do things like toss ammo to soldiers manning firing positions.

That's not to say it's anything remotely a gung ho pro-US thing, but it can only tell the side of the story that it lived on. Still, it's very much free of the kinds of psychological commentary people take for granted with regular news about the war.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:23 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

To clarify, Junger did not engage in assistance during firefights, but was more exploring his place there and hypothetical scenarios when he wrote about that.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:24 PM on December 14, 2010

"You can believe that it's a story about how they were freed from oppression by courageous young Americans, or you can believe that it's a story about how they came under the heel of yet another doomed empire - but either way it's still their story."

Or you can grow up and believe neither of those things.

Restrepo was a pretty good documentary, I did appreciate the lack of overt framing and the emphasis on naturalism in how the subjects were presented. I think it allowed a lot more candor than if the ideological goals had been explicit.
posted by klangklangston at 1:26 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

Or you can grow up and believe neither of those things.

You believe it was about something else? Or about nothing?

Or you just saw an opening for an insult and decided to go for it?
posted by Joe Beese at 1:28 PM on December 14, 2010

The book was a great read, and I'll read it again. I look forward to seeing the film.
posted by rtha at 1:44 PM on December 14, 2010

"Grow up" is unnecessarily harsh - really, simply rude - but if klang is trying to say that the truth lies between those two dichotomies I'd agree with that.
posted by phearlez at 1:46 PM on December 14, 2010

Cheers for the link, I saw a review of this and was like "Remember the name, remember the name, remember the name" all the way home on the tube and then I got home and was like "Rename the meme? What?" It's been bugging me for days.
posted by dougrayrankin at 2:17 PM on December 14, 2010

Thanks Joe Beese. this popped into my netflix box the other night and i immediately watched it, and was not disappointed.
There are a lot of ironies in war, but i wonder, in the end, if we will ever realize that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.
Given the choice, we should have gone against a sicilian, when death is on the line.
posted by OHenryPacey at 2:27 PM on December 14, 2010

""Grow up" is unnecessarily harsh - really, simply rude - but if klang is trying to say that the truth lies between those two dichotomies I'd agree with that."

I get extremely tired of seeing anything to do with the US government or the war in Afghanistan presented in terms that are either ridiculously naive or insultingly disingenuous. Feel free to scroll through Joe's comment history for plenty more.

One of the nicer things about Restrepo as a documentary is that it avoided those easy, lazy dichotomies, and dichotomies in general. It showed US troops both working with the people that live there as well as against those who live there, forging relationships as well as being manipulated, and engaging in a million little interactions that were funny, tragic, poignant and any other number of meanings with very little editorial filtering.

It's the same as presenting the Afghan people as either murderous terrorists out to destroy Western Civilization or as helpless subordinate naifs — both fundamentally misrepresent reality in order to make bold pronouncements, bold pronouncements that directly and often deliberately muddle any chance of getting a rational understanding of what is and isn't going on in Afghanistan.

That's childish and speaks to a childish view of the world. "Grow up" is exactly the right response, especially when someone is trying to shift the direction of a conversation into accepting their childish framing.

It's insulting to us as readers, and fairly antithetical to the aims of the documentary this post is based on.
posted by klangklangston at 2:52 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

It's insulting to us as readers, and fairly antithetical to the aims of the documentary this post is based on.

I see. Tit for tat.

However, you still haven't enriched us with your deeply nuanced view of what you do think is going on.

For example: you say the soldiers are shown "forging relationships as well as being manipulated". Manipulated by whom? Towards what end?

And since "manipulated" is a perjorative term: How did this undesirable state of affairs come to be? And what are we going to do about it?
posted by Joe Beese at 3:08 PM on December 14, 2010

I just wanted to chime in and nth recommending this AND the book. Great movie, great read.....after the wife and I finished watching, we just sat there in silence for maybe five minutes after it was over.
posted by nevercalm at 3:09 PM on December 14, 2010

Btw, Tim Hetherington won the World Press Photo award in 2007 for a photo taken in Restrepo.
posted by Magnakai at 3:10 PM on December 14, 2010

"You can believe that it's a story about how they were freed from oppression by courageous young Americans, or you can believe that it's a story about how they came under the heel of yet another doomed empire - but either way it's still their story."

It isn't either of those things, or at least the book isn't, and it's more than a little presumptuous of you to pronounce that we, the viewers, can only choose from your incredibly loaded interpretations of it.

As for "being manipulated" - based on the book, I'd say manipulated by the locals, the insurgents, the US government, the press. Take your pick.
posted by rtha at 3:13 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

ut what took place in the Korengal Valley was ultimately about the people whose home it is. You can believe that it's a story about how they were freed from oppression by courageous young Americans, or you can believe that it's a story about how they came under the heel of yet another doomed empire - but either way it's still their story.

Joe Beese is absolutely correct in this; so feel free to tell me to grow up too, klang, because he's right. The point is that the people of this valley are involved in their own complicated political struggle, and have been for a very long time. The various nationalities of the armies they have been in conflict with is secondary. The current narratives that float around about Afghanistan are exactly what Joe Beese describes: they are hapless victims of the Taliban awaiting Western liberation, or else they are intractable and uncivilized wild men (the whole "graveyard of empires" thing). Both narratives deny the complexities of their humanity, and both foreground the foreign military presence rather than the Afghani citizens themselves.
posted by jokeefe at 3:17 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

it's more than a little presumptuous of you to pronounce that we, the viewers, can only choose from your incredibly loaded interpretations of it

"You can believe X or you can believe Y" ≠ "You must believe X or Y".

See: "device, rhetorical".
posted by Joe Beese at 3:19 PM on December 14, 2010

"Restrepo" is airing again on the National Geographic Channel on Jan. 2nd at 8 and 11pm EST.
posted by Huplescat at 3:19 PM on December 14, 2010

See: "device, rhetorical".

Oh. Like "grow up." Gotcha.
posted by rtha at 3:35 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

It's a great film (I saw it as soon as it became available on Netflix), and I'm looking forward to reading the book.

Manipulated by whom? Towards what end?

Have you not seen the film? Like rtha suggests, it's not something hidden or hard to see. There are a lot of people with strong interests involved, including the soldiers at the heart of the documentary.
posted by Forktine at 5:10 PM on December 14, 2010

There are many opportune ithes for enterprising people with their wits about them. You don't need to enlist, many NGOs and the Gov agencies need mid level professionals who can go and help. It is a bit scary, but you'll probably be alright. You can make pretty good cash too. Check out SOFIA (US DOD Civilian Jobs), interaction.org a clearing house for NGO jobs and opportunities, and US AID (contrary to popular myth not CIA cover). Typical jobs include things like construction project management, financial analysis and tracking, economic analysts, procurement, shipping management, and even things like scheduling and coordination, events planing, IT support, etc. Everything from entry level to seasoned professionals. Opportunities for short stints for those who want to take a short sabbatical from their normal job. I must warn you, there is a not insignificant chance of serious injury or death. It looks great on your resume.
posted by humanfont at 6:23 PM on December 14, 2010

"Feel like we're at war."
Are we at war?
'cause I don't feel like we're at war.
posted by pianomover at 9:13 PM on December 14, 2010

Neflix is a weird thing. Case in point, Restrepo.

The Netflix mechanism decided Restrepo was a movie I'd ♥. And it looked fantastic. (I'd seen the preview at the theater. "No way," I thought, "no way am I watching that."

And there was all the awful jingo-macho expressions of masculinity which makes so many young men positively tingle with a head-spinning, testosterone-driven high.

And there was all the awful military management-speaking-to-occupied-nation's-people stuff that makes the rest of our head's spin with its belittling arrogance.

And then there is the death and the pain and hate and hurt and suffering.

But the fact of the matter is people such as are depicted in Restrepo exist. Places like Restropo exist. That is reality. Restrepo documents a reality.

I don't like it or dislike it. What I do is encourage other options, mostly by example but also by participation and dialog.

There is a kid I am working with teaching computers. He is a very smart kid, of Nicaraguan descent. He is a senior in high school. He and I have been talking and working together for a couple of years. As long as I have known him he has wanted to be a Marine.

Last month, he took his AFVAB. He scored a 12. It was a great disappointment to him.

But you know what? It wasn't to me. I like this kid. He has a terrific girlfriend, the two of them adore one another. While I told him I'd help him with the test (I was Army, I do well on standardized tests, etc), I have nightmares about kids like him returning as hamburger.

For what? Emotional highs and lows? Outrageous perspectives? Distorted world-views?

No. Have a baby. Raise a family. Fight for a cause. Go to school. But don't go to war.

War isn't an option, it's an addiction.
posted by humannaire at 9:30 PM on December 14, 2010 [6 favorites]

It looks great on your resume.

Well bless your heart.
posted by jokeefe at 9:35 PM on December 14, 2010

I really didn't care for War at all - while Junger made the right choice in copping to his understandable bias and exploring it, I found it pretty shallow and facile. I guess one could make the argument that the deployment of troops in Afghanistan is an ultimately shallow and facile expression of ultimately sallow and futile policy, but I doubt that was the sort of parallel Junger was trying to draw. While Lewis Manalo's takedown of the book has its own problems, I really agreed with some of the points he made.

Also, the book's margins and line spaces were way too big.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:56 PM on December 14, 2010

I saw this and thought the most amazing thing about it was how few people actually got shot. Both sides fire off about 14 million rounds each and there are what, three or four people hit? Then they all just went home. It had the exact opposite effect on me that I think it was supposed to have- war seemed totally detached from actual death and destruction. Barring the local kids who got hurt but that was only one minute of the movie.
posted by fshgrl at 11:58 PM on December 14, 2010

It looks great on your resume.

Well bless your heart.

You'll find my heart in Khandahar watching young people dancing in front of a pair of turntables in a hidden speakeasy/discotech. Free for a moment from burqas, bombs and morality police above. Drinking the local shine poured from a used bottle of Absolute, Grey Goose or whatever it wants to pretend it's drinking.
posted by humanfont at 4:49 AM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Why we are not successful in Afghanistan: If you kill the cow you pay for it. The elders didn't want rice or sugar, they wanted to be compensated for their fucking cow. How tone deaf are we anyway?
posted by Xurando at 7:53 AM on December 15, 2010

> Why we are not successful in Afghanistan: If you kill the cow you pay for it.

Notice also how the US captain spoke to elders at the shura meeting. Even if they couldn't understand that he was swearing, his tone and posture was extremely disrespectful. An outside military commander doesn't have to follow local hierarchy, but he damn sure better be able to at least adopt a posture of deference if he's going to be playing the diplomacy game.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:59 AM on December 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

Thanks Joe. That was well worth watching.
posted by Ahab at 10:05 AM on December 15, 2010