am disgusted

I could tell you are right. But it's all about american(hero) arab(evil) thing. People like it, so they make such movies once in a while.

[deleted]

thanks for being almost illiterate and completely stupid all in one post

On the commentary track, William Friedkin said that he tried very hard to suspend judgment on the characters, although he does believe that Childers did the wrong thing, and that the jury realistically would have found him guilty on all three counts. I get the impression he wanted the ending to be more ambiguous, and bemoans that they added post-scripts to explain what happened to the characters after the film ended. He didn't like them, and didn't seem to think the provided outcome was realistic. It provided too much closure.

My opinion is, this movie does not even come close to being racist. It was designed to make you feel conflicted. It was subversive without denying the voice of the opposition being heard, which made the movie appear balanced. If appearing balanced makes this movie fascist, then I suppose it gives fascism a voice. But the story is not fascist. If anything, it makes the United States look like a barbaric colonialist empire that makes war criminals out of decent soldiers by putting them in difficult scenarios. There are no heroes in this story, and no villains. Even the State Department guy thought he was doing the right thing, but he was wrong. All of the characters have the same character development: learning they were mistaken about Childers. At the same time, Childers is clearly a troubling character, which gave the story nuance - apparently too much nuance for some people.