MovieChat Forums > An Act of War (2015) Discussion > From Travis Bickle to Jacob Nicks - Stil...

From Travis Bickle to Jacob Nicks - Still No End in Sight


Isolation, alienation, paranoia, insomnia, loneliness, PTSD, delusions, inability to form relationships, dead-end graveyard shift work in New York, prostitution, outsider philosophising, judgemental retribution, and vengeful violence - there're a lot of thematic similarities here with Martin Scorsese's masterpiece 'Taxi Driver' (1976).

While I was moved to empathy by his plight, Jacob Nicks (Russ Russo) is no Travis Bickle (Robert de Niro). Still, we can but hope that 'An Act of War's central theme - that military service can REALLY Mess You Up like nothing else - may help to prevent more young lives from being beaten into oblivion on the anvil of US imperial ambition. Kudos to writer/director Ryan M. Kennedy and his team for their five-year-long tenacity in making an indie movie anti-war antidote to the ultraviolence of Hollywood's militaristic "action" blockbusters.

It's really no surprise that the Shell-Shocked Veteran* archetype keeps on recurring in American movies, because Washington's war-making empire never lets up on recruiting its citizens to become paid killers of Johnny Foreigner, and in engineering theatres of war in which to grind up and ruin civilian and military lives. For instance, from Travis Bickle in 'Taxi Driver' (1976) to Jacob Nicks in 'An Act of War' (2015), the list of indictments reads as follows.

"[...] 1976 – No major war

1977 – No major war

1978 – No major war

1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident

1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf

1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf

1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama

1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines

1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama

1991 – First Gulf War

1992 – Conflict in Iraq

1993 – Conflict in Iraq

1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti

1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1996 – Conflict in Iraq

1997 – No major war

1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan

1999 – Kosovo War

2000 – No major war

2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan

2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen

2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq

2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen

2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)

2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine

2015 – War on Terror in Somalia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine

For 222 out of 239 years – or 93% of the time – America has been at war. (We can quibble with the exact numbers, but the high percentage of time that America has been at war is clear and unmistakable.)

Indeed, most of the military operations launched since World War II have been launched by the U.S.

And American military spending dwarfs the rest of the world put together.

No wonder polls show that the world believes America is the number 1 threat to peace."

~ WashingtonsBlog, from 'America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776. The U.S. Has Only Been At Peace For 21 Years Total Since Its Birth'
» http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm

As long as the US ruling class continues to succeed in convincing each new generation of young people to kill foreigners for money (and "freedom", "glory", "the good of the Homeland" - in reality the sordid vested interests of Yanqui imperialism), then the shattered lives of war veterans will continue to haunt the streets and movie theatres of America.

Give peaceful coexistence a chance - quit colluding with the military industrial complex by offering up sons and daughters to be paid killers - and maybe someday the Great American Shell-Shocked Veteran* film genre will come to an end.


* for further instances, see, eg:
» http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShellShockedVeteran

reply

That's nice. But what did you actually think of the movie? You spend enough time to tell us it's not on par with de Niro and Scorsese (and really, how many things actually are?) and then go off on this tangent about how America is always at war and how this influences cinema.

It'd be nice if you'd just judge it on its own merits instead of expecting it to measure up against one of the best films of its kind, and then spewing out a pointless history lesson.

reply

Hey nullcreations - wiser folks don't regard reflecting on history as pointless; for example:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
~ George Santayana
- among many others » http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
~ Karl Marx

You'll have to forgive the folks on the receiving end of the military barbarity dished out by Yanqui imperialism if they don't find the farcical killing joke to be all that funny.

As to 'An Act of War ', it's a fine piece of indie low budget film making, and well worth seeing on its own merits. I admire the way Ryan M. Kennedy has chosen to use colour for the framing device of the Observers of Tragedy, in contrast to the black-&-white storytelling of his Unreliable Narrator. While the quiet speech that so often accompanies clinical depression is well represented in Russ Russo's sterling performance, some might say this is mumblecore extremism (as you've seen in 'MMMffmmmhhhhhhhlllllbrble' » http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1861445/board/nest/242138252 ) - and I found myself periodically rewinding playback to clarify what Jacob just said. Overall, 'An Act of War' is an achingly sad portrait of the psychological destructiveness inherent in paying people to perpetrate intolerable cruelty, when such inhumanity gets consequently reflected back onto the aggressors with grim inevitability.

Full disclosure - I've suffered episodes of bipolar depression for three decades, so I've a personal fascination with artistic representations of mental breakdown. Though my personal aetiology may be of genetic inheritance, the environmental induction of PTSD-related depression through imperialist war-making stands as an unprosecuted crime against humanity. But while the death, destruction, maiming, and massacring of modern military munitions draws a concentrated media focus, the inner destruction of the grunts on the ground and their victims is played out away from the glare of publicity. That's the greatest strength and the tragic necessity of 'An Act of War' - to appeal to the birthright compassion of citizens in the belly of the imperialist beast, to make them care sufficiently about one ruinous aspect of war-making as to curtail military recruitment, and elect peacemakers to Congress and the White House.

Anti-war films alone aren't sufficient to consign the dogs of war to the dustbin of history, but they are a necessary step along the way to human liberation. So 'An Act of War' deserves a wide audience, and a political response that goes beyond adequately resourcing psychiatic care for veterans, to creating global conflict resolution that does not crush the bodies and minds of the disputants.

reply

In the context of a fictitious movie, it's pointless. Unless of course it provides some context for the movie, which it does not. All we need to know is that he went to war, and was seriously traumatized by it. We don't need a list of every major engagement the US has had in the last several decades.

You start out talking about the film, and then you go off on wild pointless tangents. Take this latest post. About 30% of it addresses the film. The rest of it is pointlessly recounting quotes, needlessly discussing your mental history, and trying to act as if this film (which was created for entertainment/art purposes) is supposed to have some kind of impact on the current social and/or political climate.

Jesus H. Christ. It's like you just want to hear yourself talk.

What people actually give a sh#t about:

* was the movie any good?
* was the acting good?
* was the story interesting and/or original?
* was there significant character development?
* did the story make you feel something?
* was there anything about it that made it stand out?

...and probably a few other questions I'm just not thinking about that deal specifically with the movie.

I'll never understand why movie boards have to attract every pseudo-intellectual person for a thousand miles in every direction.

reply

Hey nullcreations - did you know that there's an IMDb User Reviews webpage for each title? It seems like you vehermently desire only a compartmentalised opinion of a film, unrelated to its real world context (which we all do, sometimes) - so the best place to achieve your desire is on 'An Act of War's User Reviews webpage:
» http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1861445/reviews

A word of warning, though: a slim majority of those currently posting on that User Reviews webpage also speak of the real world context of 'An Act of War', so here's a list of the contextualising reviews which may further upset you; and a list of context-free reviews, which seems to be what you desire.

User Reviews mentioning real world context: 9
• A film that will leave you thinking – Matt Mamie from United States
• Amazing – Dennis de Jonge from Netherlands
• A Powerful, Beautiful Neo Noir Tale That's Sharp, Nuanced and a Must See! – Robert Andrews from United States
• Spectacular – dimamlewis from USA
• Excellent movie !! Shows a side of PTSD that most, thankfully, will never see – sbradburry from Prescott WI
• Modern day noir, slow, dark, black, not good for Vietnam era vets... – jsever-53847 from Northern California woods
• Finally, someone is talking about this subject matter – stevensmaggie from United States
• The Projectionist: An All To Real Tale of the Forgotten Soldier – angiequidim from United States
• Not an action thriller as advertised, but a good film... – deepak-99969 from Los Angeles

User Reviews not mentioning real world context: 8
• Loved It! – grinks
• Loved it – roell29 from United States
• Gripping, Gritty, Dark and Truthful – bernardjohn from United States
• Epic film showing the harsh reality of our hero's – danielcardwell from United Kingdom
• Projectionist - A journey into a soldier – jayfkay50 from United States
• Simply wow – actionscifibuff from New York City, United States
• Memorable! – roy-kohli from NYC
• A Must See!!! – wompus28 from United States


Meanwhile, here in the film's discussion board, we have a forum for expressing free speech, where we're at liberty to talk about the issues which the film highlights - which is just what I've been doing in this thread, since I think the range of the opinions already expressed by the 17 User Reviews (so far) is already more than adequate. I'm sorry to see that you appear to find such a broader, contextualising, world-changing discussion to be pointless, needless, pseudo-intellectual, and upsetting - but there's a broad school of thought, with a deep history, that really does regard art as a means by which to actively "impact on the current social and/or political climate"; eg:

"Art is not a mirror held up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it."
~ Bertolt Brecht

"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world."
~ Alan Rickman

"Film is incredibly democratic and accessible, it’s probably the best option if you actually want to change the world, not just re-decorate it."
~ Banksy

If you'd prefer to view a man's mental destruction and suicide merely "for entertainment/art purposes", then that's your free choice. If those contextualising reviewers mentioned above and myself prefer to express a hope that 'An Act of War' may be a hammer with which to shape a better, more peaceful world, then that is our free choice, too.

reply

Mr. Jones: At least yours is a serious post to this movie's thread. Well researched, too. Many other posts here seem pointless or mindless.

I have to agree with your points, esp. about the US war machine. Yes, I'm a US subject.

I noticed "Special Thanks" included Martin Scorcese. My first thought: For not suing for plagiarism?

The movie was interesting, though, esp. as a mystery. I stuck with its violence and depression mainly to see how it all would fit together.

I was impressed with the acting. Joseph R. Gannascoli ("Vito" on the "Sopranos") can still portray a very scary character. Mr. Russo looked his part, through and through. Natasha Alam portrayed the strongest fear I've ever seen anywhere. Doug E. Doug's homeless guy was sympathetic and believable.

I'd give it a 6.8 out of 10. I thought technically it was quite well made on what was probably a very small budget (compared to Hollywood).

reply