Truth is the first casualty of war.
A montage of stories about U.S. soldiers fighting in the Iraq conflict, focusing on the modern forms of media covering the war.
Genre(s): Crime, Drama, War
Runtime: 90 minutes
Rating: 6.1/10 (4,993 votes)
Release Date: 31 August 2007
Country: USA, Canada
Languages: English, French, Arabic, German
Company: Film Farm, The
Sound: Dolby Digital
MPAA: Rated R for strong disturbing violent content including a rape, pervasive language and some sexual references/images.
Director(s): Brian De Palma
Related Videos for Redacted (2007)
Thinking of watching this movie? Then click on the like button!
Producer(s):
Laird Adamson - co-executive producer
Mark Cuban - executive producer
Jason Kliot - producer
Christopher Matson - associate producer
Gretchen McGowan - co-executive producer
Eric Schwab - co-producer
Stephen Traynor - line producer
Simone Urdl - producer
Joana Vicente - producer
Todd Wagner - executive producer
Jennifer Weiss - producer
Writer(s):
Brian De Palma - (written by)
Cast:
Izzy Diaz - Angel Salazar
Rob Devaney - Lawyer McCoy
Ty Jones - Master Sergeant Sweet
Anas Wellman - Soldier (as Anas 'Tipsy' Wellman)
Mike Figueroa - Sergeant Jim Vasquez
Yanal Kassay - Soldier
Dhiaa Khalil - Soldier
Kel O'Neill - Gabe Blix / al Investigation Agent #2
Daniel Stewart Sherman - B.B. Rush
Patrick Carroll - Reno Flake
Laird Adamson - co-executive producer
Mark Cuban - executive producer
Jason Kliot - producer
Christopher Matson - associate producer
Gretchen McGowan - co-executive producer
Eric Schwab - co-producer
Stephen Traynor - line producer
Simone Urdl - producer
Joana Vicente - producer
Todd Wagner - executive producer
Jennifer Weiss - producer
Writer(s):
Brian De Palma - (written by)
Cast:
Izzy Diaz - Angel Salazar
Rob Devaney - Lawyer McCoy
Ty Jones - Master Sergeant Sweet
Anas Wellman - Soldier (as Anas 'Tipsy' Wellman)
Mike Figueroa - Sergeant Jim Vasquez
Yanal Kassay - Soldier
Dhiaa Khalil - Soldier
Kel O'Neill - Gabe Blix / al Investigation Agent #2
Daniel Stewart Sherman - B.B. Rush
Patrick Carroll - Reno Flake
Posted on: November 1, 2007
May 14th, 2008
Redacted is a film about war – about the children caught up in war,including the children we enlist to fight our wars. It is dark and waris dark. It is not insulting to the troops, but it is insulting tosupporters of the war and to the leaders who brought us into the warunder false pretenses.
Those who have served can feel the hopelessness, helplessness andpressures that exist for all the players — and all the players aredupes, along with the rest of us.
Brian DePalma insults Brian DePalma and all of us who have turned ourheads and not made a stand to stop this travesty. He shows us what wehave done to our army and to our troops — and to the people of Iraq.
Redacated is a shameful and horrid and courageous film.
Like us?
May 15th, 2008
First off I want to thank the right wing radio crowd for recommendingthis movie …. urr recommend this movie be banned or for lack of abetter word CENSORED! lmao. Without the 'intelligent' right wing mediaI would never have known about this movie. So a heart felt THANKSSSSSS.The movie was fiction but the movie did a great job of conveying thepsychological pitfalls of soldiers on a mission. You see the soldiers ,were victims as well as the people they abused . This movie was doneintelligently and I really felt I was part of the brigade. I will saythe movie was a bit far fetched when they had media right in the actionof the horrifying crimes , but maybe that was a bit of satire likeNATURAL BORN KILLERS. In any event, that was not necessary for themovie to drive its point. Overall, a great flick that made meunderstand a little bit more of the plight these soldiers had to dealwith involving hanging around for 16 tours with false hopes of comingback to the states. Thank you right wing media again, for without you Iwould not know of certain movies, tshirt companies on line , books andTV shows !
May 25th, 2008
As an unapologetic critic of the war in Iraq I found this film afailure on many levels. First, it's slow moving and boring. Scenes areuniformly too long and almost predictable in length. Second, thecharacters are one-dimensional stereotypes which lack the nuancedportrayal of real people in turmoil. "Villains" are identifiable fromthe opening scenes and their motivations are presented through dialogwhich is jingoistic to the point of being laughable. We know from thebeginning that alcohol, violence, racism, and ultra-nationalism willlead to brutality. Finally, and most importantly, it is so drenched inpolitical bias as to render it useless as a criticism of the war; itallows conservatives to continue to paint the anti-war movement(especially those in Hollywood) as simple-minded. Casualties of War isa much better treatment of this theme. I wish De Palma had not tried torevisit this territory while the debate over the war was still inprogress.
June 1st, 2008
First off, I am not an advocate of the war in Iraq nor of our currentadministration (Bush) BUT I am a supporter of our troops, and I feelthat this was a cheap shot against the vast number of soldiers that didnot act like this.
That being said, I do not like politicized movies of either ilk as theytend to be very one-sided (by there very nature) and embellishpoints/aspects that support their goals while avoiding those that mayhinder their message. I feel that De Palma and the studio execs chosethe subject matter purely for shock value, and in doing so, hasinsulted our intelligence. You give one hundred thousand 18, 19, and 20year olds in any city, automatic weapons, add a little tension, and theresult will be the same, if not worst. So to take a single incident,involving a handful of soldiers, to build a case against the war, orany war for that matter, seems to be over reaching at the best, andself-searching at the very least.
At the risk of sounding defensive I felt the movie was bordering onbeing, for lack of a better term, 'anti-American'. I don't like usingthat word as it invokes Bush's 'your with us or against us' rhetoric,however the movie goes out of its way to depict the Americans in a badlight. The statement at the beginning of the movie states 'This film isentirely fiction…' and '…and their WORDS and actions should NOT beconfused with those of real persons.'. Thus De Palma and the studiohave acknowledged that they have taken liberties (how much is open tospeculation) with the dialog. That being said, nearly all the dialog ofthe soldiers to or about the Iraqis is filled with racial slurs (whichis interesting in light of the fact that De Palma saw fit to have thesquad consist of an Afro-American, a Hispanic, and several whites). DePalma also when so far as to have those rare instances where a soldierdid not talk and refer to an Iraqi in those terms followed by anothersoldier brow beating him by spouting that racial crap. Its almost as ifthe director is using these interactions as a tool to remind thatviewer that all soldiers hate, or should hate, the Iraqis. Whether thisis the case or not, De Palma or the writers, after stating the dialogwas not necessarily factual, took every opportunity to include it.
What also bothered me about this movie is the feeling that the moviestudio (or whoever is in charge of packaging and promotion)intentionally 'sanitized' the DVD case to the true nature of the movieto maximize sales. Sure the rating states '…violent content toinclude a rape…' and a single reviewer quote '…made with a clearintention…to stop the Iraq War' (on the back) but it also includes areviewer quote 'De Palma makes me proud to be an American' (directlyunder the title on the front'), and the description '..illuminating howeach group is deeply affected by the current conflict and theirencounters with each other.' Maybe it's me but based on that, I thoughtthe movie would be more 'middle-of-the-road', but then again, the nameof the movie is 'Redacted' which according to the dictionary means 'toEDIT or REVISE something in preparation for publication.'
June 12th, 2008
Redaction in literature means "edit" or editing together severalsources into one. The military use a lot of "objective" words likethis, as war euphemisms. Rendition can mean for instance "kidnap andtorture", and I'm sure were all familiar with "fri…(readmore)…(read more)endly fire". All of the material in this film looksas if it was found on the internet, because supposedly De Palma foundout about this story through the internet; blogs, youtube postings,Arab, and American sites.
The story if you haven't heard yet is about 4 American soldiers whorape a 15 year old girl, execute her family, and set her house onfire(based on true events). It's also the second film De Palma has madeabout US. soldiers in a foreign occupied country raping and killing ayoung girl and one deciding not to participate in his Vietnam film"Casualities Of War" . In Redacted 3 out of 4 soldiers remain to seewhat happens, one of them with a camera, observes, and eventuallyflees. Implicit however by his passive observation(like our gentleviewers back home).
I don't think the redundancy of watching the same true life event playout again and again in your own lifetime is lost on De Palma, thedifference is that now anyone can view what's happening.
From the computer where I sit, I can watch videos of bombs beingplanted for US soldiers, be-headings, Arab TV cameras interrogatinggrieving families and dying citizens. If I really wanted to I couldbring up a gallery of atrocities, but we don't because what would bethe point, what are "we" gonna get out of it? I don't think De Palma isattempting to demonize the US military, but emphasize that as historyshows, men with guns under tremendous stress can and will do horriblethings, and if they are going to be put into this kind of wildsituation…well, why? There are no diatribes about leaving Iraq, orreasons why the war is important, from a soldiers point of view theseare irrelevant anyway, you follow orders as best you possibly can andthat's that. But before the end of the film, the question of "why" itdoes manage to rear it's head.
The performances which everyone keeps commenting on as being so bad,we'll I think Roger Ebert made the best case for them, "The acting iscurious. Some of it is convincing, and some of the rest is convincingin a different way: It convinces us that non-actors know they are beingfilmed and are acting and speaking slightly differently than theyotherwise would. That makes some try to appear nicer, and other try toappear tougher or more menacing. That edge of inauthentic performanceparadoxically increases the effect: Moments seem more real because theyare not acted flawlessly." Anyone whose ever been under cameraunderstands this anxiety and artifice.
That being said this is not an enjoyable film, I can appreciate it, butI did not enjoy it. We often go into war films, as this one points out,expecting action, justice, catharsis, excitement, and what Redactedgives us is tension, suffering, revenge, and confusion shot throughprism both global and immediate. There is no "beauty" in this film,because there's nothing beautiful about this particular situation,nothing redeeming, because we so want redemption, we want to be toldeverything will be alright, worth it, just, and it may not be. This isnot a film about why the war is bad, it just shows us one case of"horror" that has happened before and will happen again, and asks ifthis thing is going to happen, "why?". Two questions that Americanmedia has stopped asking itself, since exit and entrance strategy areno longer options relevant to debate.
It's heavy handed, and unabashed, we may be it's biggest weakness, butthen again real people in real situations react and talk about thingsin direct ways, stories can be subtle, real life does not have to be,it can be messy, and obnoxious, and yes unpleasant, but it's stillreal.
Not a fun night at the movies, but a complex, and thought/argumentprovoking, emotionally draining film(the repetitive music as thesoldiers stand at the checkpoint suggests at once immense heat,tension, and boredom, all ready to boil over at the same time).
Most war films are records, or hero/action myths wearing war clothes,some yes manage to be beautiful, profound, even endearing. Redacted isnone of those things, it is an accusation, a question, it's theelephant in the room that everyone ignores being shot from multipleangels at multiple lenses. Not perfect, but impressive, and challengingin a time where a lot of questions aren't being asked anymore, andcertainly not in ways that can be made emotionally compelling to theaverage person. I rented this cus I wanted a movie that would fightwith me, rather than coddle me to sleep, and this did just that.
June 25th, 2008
The definition of Redaction is, a form of editing in which multiplesources are combined and subjected to minor alteration to create adefinitive and coherent work (thanks, Wikipedia). The film tells afictional story which based on real event of the Mahmudiyah killings,the gang-rape, murder, and burning of Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi, a14-year-old Iraqi girl in March 2006.
"Redacted" is pseudo-documentary that conveys its massage so brutallyraw and told in such an interesting way. We've observed the situationvia fake French documentary, internet blogs, security cameras, news andmost importantly, a candid camera by one of the soldier in Iraq War.This is an intention that the director, Brian De Palma trying to tellhis story from all these footages. I found it's appropriate for itstime. As we're living in the digital world where everything go pastright thru us in every direction (whether we're ready to accept ornot). To me, "Redacted" is like a mirror reflections to an early DelPalma's film "Casualties of War" where Michael J. Fox's characterexperienced the same exact horror.
You may have a question about how exactly this film stays true to thereal incident. Well, you're not alone. While watching this film, Irepeatedly ask myself whether those particular scenes are actuallyhappened or not. Because they were presented for us in such an overlydramatized kind of way. I understand that those actors need to pretendlike they act in front of his friend's camera, so what we have here areplenty of unconvincing acting that came from those non-professionalactors.
But I think I get your point here, Brian De Palma. After I realizedwhat is the meaning of the word "Redaction". You see, this is a kind ofmovie that minor manipulation and alteration that are completelynecessary, in order to make us pay fully attention to its massage (andit gains a full impact by De Palma's usual style and his fond ofblowing stuff up into gigantic proportion). In the key scene of thismovie where 2 soldiers barged into one of Iraqian's house, raped andkilled each every single civilian in it. Although this scene is alittle bit over the top, but I cannot denied that it's so effective andreally making me sick to the stomach. And also in the scene where oneof an unfortunate US soldier have his head amputated, it's just sounbearable to watch it.
"Redacted" didn't take any side. It's just present as it might actuallyhappen. They're neither saint nor devil. Just a simple human being whodone stupid things in order to revenge for their comrade. Andcollateral who died along the way. The saddest thing is, it goes on andon and on and on….
July 23rd, 2008
Acclaimed director Brian DePalma ("Scarface," "The Untouchables")brings forth "Redacted" – a snuff film about a group of Americansoldiers who brutally torture, rape and kill a 15-year old Iraqi girl.
There's been so many war films out nowadays, but I find this one to bethe most horrendous. It paints our soldiers as nothing but sexed-updrunk bullies who don't even care that they're fighting for freedom. Ifyou support the war or if you don't, you should support the troops, andthis film makes them look like the real bad guys. Sure, there'sprobably some troops who act like this, but this film makes it seemlike it's the majority.
July 25th, 2008
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Incoherent, jittery, jumbled,and confusing, it attempts to recreate the various media "approaches"to the war in Iraq, with the result that there is, literally, no pointof view. The "reason" for this film, one reads (in self-importantinterviews given by De Palma and others involved in the production),was to make people "think about issues." Thus, we see the results ofhorrific acts and hear constantly about violence, torture, rape,murder, revenge. And yet, anyone who doesn't recognize that warproduces monsters is an idiot who couldn't possibly be urged "to think"by a film as cartoonish and shallow as *Redacted*. So what is the realpoint here? The attempt to slather a literary or artistic patina overthe whole affair by locating the rape and murder in Samarra, andpumping up a morally empty war film with heavy-handed references toSomerset Maugham's "Death Speaks" and to John O'Hara's appropriation ofthe story for the title of his novel, *Appointment in Samarra* isjuvenile, artless, and ultimately depressing. Despite the film-schoolcant over the years, this film demonstrates, as if more demonstrationwere necessary, that De Palma doesn't actually understand a thing aboutviolence. He knows how to splatter a film with gore, how to light abeheading or a rape scene, but don't go to him for motivation,consequence, or humanity. There, he's still a 7-year-old kid with anaction comic book in his hand, and his amorality is absolute.
August 10th, 2008
Using video-diaries, YouTube postings, news reports and other footage,this film tells the story of one unit of US marines serving in Samarra.The heat is intense, the hours are long, the work is dull and themonotony is only broken by the occasion attack or defence of thecheck-points. When one of the unit is killed by an improvised explosivedevice, tensions are further increased and the night raids intensify topick up suspects. However, for a couple of individuals the need forboth revenge and release is almost too much to bear.
Reading the reviews on this title from IMDb users it is clear that toomany people are bringing their politics to the film and some have seenthe issues not the piece of work itself. So we have 10* reviews sayingthat "Americans don't like their own dirty laundry" and 1* reviewslabelling it a "disgrace" and practically aligning De Palma with the11th September terrorists. This does happen with such films but it isof no use to me even if my politics suggested that I should love thismore than hate it. The truth is that my politics never came into itbecause what I was confronted with was a good idea, a topical issue,has good moments but mostly it is unconvincing and obvious in itsstructure and delivery.
As an idea, the brutal or callous actions of a minority of Alliedforces in Iraq is an important subject and one worthy of an intelligentand impacting presentation. Likewise the use in this war of many, manydifferent types of media that allow us to "see" the war for ourselves –which is perhaps a mixed blessing – is an interesting way to deliver astory. However the film doesn't manage to pull it all together in aconsistent and convincing manner. It has its moments of course; thecentral atrocity is a shocking and difficult scene for what you don'tsee more than what you do but otherwise the scenes and characters don'tflow together in the way that that one scene engages and convinces. Ican understand why some of it felt stilted and strange – becauseultimately vlogs etc do feel a bit cheesy and corny at times but to methis just meant that the characters had to be extra strong so that theycould stand up to the media. Sadly though they are too obvious andsimple, almost to the point of cliché and they make it all feel toosimplistic – too easy to dismiss as biased and angry.
The dialogue doesn't help this either since it is often clumsy as itattempts to make a point or a bit too "acted" when it is supposed to benatural and jocular. De Palma's use of the various media doesn't workanywhere near as well as I thought it could; the documentary with itsoveruse of classical music drags on and is a poor copy of some of themusic used in the film Afghansti (which is so similar that it must havebeen – but the latter uses it sparingly and surrounds it withsubstance). The central vlog stumbles due to the acting and materialbeing presented that way. It is not really the cast's fault since theyare mostly unknowns and perhaps not given the best tools to show whatthey can do but it does mean the film is mostly reasonably poor. DePalma does deserve credit for taking on a challenging and topicalproject where he could just continue to rest of his laurels and takeeasy projects for money, but this does not buy him a free pass becausegood intentions are not anything unless they are followed through onthe ground.
Redacted is just that – a good plan on paper but the execution islacking across the board, taking away from even the plan itself. Thoselooking to feel the film's anger and outrage will probably get morefrom it than the casual viewer but just because a film works whenplaying to the choir doesn't mean it is good. Sadly for the casualviewer I suspect it will come over as too obvious, preachy andhalf-done to really impress.