MovieChat Forums > Courage Under Fire (1996) Discussion > Officers

Officers

posted 17 years ago by fgeorgio
6 replies | jump to latest

Im writing this insired by a review i read.I am an NCO in the Greek Navy for 7 years now.This film is just one of a great number of films in which NCOs are presented as self centred,interested only in surviving or cowards.Officers on the other hand are brave,think only of the mission and its success,willing to sacrifice themselves,even more patriotic.Offcourse there are films(Paths of Glory,Thin Red Line,Platoon)that have portrayed them as useless,sadistic or weak(NOTE i am not saying all of them are) and only 2 where NCOs are shown positively(Cross of Iron,Saving Private Ryan).
Obviously,there is good and bad everywhere,just like usefull and useless or heroes and cowards,but the majority of an army is NCOs who deal directly with private soldiers.The officers might be the brain of an Army,but the NCOs are the muscle.
So,to close i dont like the way films portray us.Does anyone else agree?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aerakade 17 years ago

I will be commissioning in May2008 into the United States Army as a second lieutenant, so from the 'other side of the fence' I would agree. Movies usually show NCOs as being lazy or weak and sometimes officers are super human. I would agree that movies don't always give NCOs the respect they deserve, because like you said, the officers might be the brains- and develop the plans, but the NCOs are the ones executing on the ground level while the officers will supervise, which is not to say that either the officers or the NCOs have a harder or tougher job, because I can't make an accurate comparison.

Both officers and NCOs can be completely jacked up, or incredible soldiers. For a good depiction of the good and bad in both realms, see the Band of Brothers mini-series, or better yet, read the book by Dr. Stephen Ambrose.

Winters, Compton, Speirs, Welsh, and in his own right Nixon are all great officers, while examples like Sobel, Dyke and some of the 2nd Lts they mention briefly are not.

Meanwhile many of the NCOs Guarnere (sp?), Malarky, Bull, are portayed positivly, there is an NCO that almost commits fratricide intentionally while drunk.

Also, for an example of both worlds, Lipton, who was an NCO and then battlefield commisioned.

[–] colank-1 14 years ago

Thank you for this post.

I've been enlisted for 12 years now and was starting to wonder if I was the only one who was more than a little insulted by the portrayal of my brother NCOs in this film (and others).

I thought, perhaps, I was being too sensitive but I'm relieved to know there are others thinking the same thing.

Thanks again.

[–] glpatton 14 years ago

Another unfortunate, and this movie bears this out, is the misconception that an officer, any officer, can do his assignment, regardless of qualifications. As a result, Washington's character, instead of listening and accepting a soldier's mind-set regarding an event, he does the "pulling rank" thing.

Serling, instead of wondering why Monfrieze suggests he "leave the round in the chamber," accuses him of threatening a superior officer. Monfriez killed himself, and I don't think that Serling really knew why.

I spent six years in the AF and the only officers that I ever knew who were worth their salt were those previously NCOs, those passed over for promotion, or OCS officers.

[–] on3gin 10 years ago

I'm afraid you're reckoning without the Hollywood mentality. If you pay a high priced actor like Oscar winner Denzel Washington, you can't just make him a mere second lieutenant, but do lieutenant colonels really ride tanks into battle?. (Mebbe they do--I was only an infantry rifleman and am not familiar with how armored groups operate.) On the other hand, I remember another movie in which the then 41-year-old Gregory Peck played a first lieutenant infantry platoon commander in Korea. My immediate reaction was that he looked too old for that rank, and the army has an "over age in grade" policy that says get promoted or get out.

[–] Panthro44 8 years ago

No, they don't. Your age is whatever it is, and your rank is whatever it is. Some people enlist late, which means they'll be older while progressing through the ranks. If you join when you're, say, 30, you're going to be older than someone with more rank who joined fresh out of high school years ago. I.e. a 31 year old Private who's been in a year will be older than a 22 year old Specialist that's been in 2 years. Or, you may have a 30-year old Staff Sergeant who decides to go OCS. He's/she's going to be a 30-31 year old 2LT, while they may have a 25-year old Captain as their Commander.

Yes, there comes a point where stagnation is a factor in whether or not you're retained, but that's based on rank and not how old you are, so as long as you can perform at a satisfactory level. If you keep getting passed up for promotion, you are subject to 'needs of the Army', i.e. they can put you in schitt jobs that no one wants. This applies more for NCO's than Officers, but there are schitt assignments for both sides. This is based on performance more so than age.

-----------------------
When we're thinking about our own brain, would that be a mental paradox??