The first folder on his desk documents the heroism of Captain Karen Walden (Meg Ryan), the first woman nominated (posthumously) for a Medal of Honor earned in combat. In case we don't understand her value as a political symbol, a craven White House aide sits in on Serling's first interview with the men whose lives she saved.
The survivors of Walden's helicopter crew picture her as a female John Wayne. But Serling's dark night in the desert, when he mistakenly shelled one of his own tanks, makes him dig deeper. He finds discrepancies his Army superiors wish he'd ignore. While wrestling with his own doubts about his courage under fire, Serling has to decide if Walden was a hero or coward.
Courage Under Fire" is a thoughtful melodrama that tries to raise serious questions about heroism and, more important, our need for heros. Serling's self-doubt tortures him. Hearing Walden described as a Jane Wayne drives him to drink. Patrick Sheane Duncan's screenplay suggests that his search for the truth about Walden is motivated partly by a desire to prove that she was as scared and confused as he thinks he was.
The movie is a distinguished example of the Hollywood "problem picture." Every once in a while the studios bankroll a movie that purports to examine a serious social or political or historical "problem," like the McCarthy years in "Guilty By Suspicion" or alcoholism in "When a Man Loves a Woman," in which Meg Ryan's character showed she was out of control when she applied her makeup badly. Most of these movies show that Hollywood has a problem with "problem" pictures. They're made to show that the studios aren't just fluff factories, but nobody who puts real money into these movies wants to lose it because they're too real about the problems they purport to address.
"Courage Under Fire" is far superior to the two movies I just mentioned. Duncan's screenplay creates characters with complex motives, Serling especially. We can't study Walden in detail because she is seen exclusively in "Rashomon"-like flashbacks which show, like the Kurosawa movie, that there are as many versions of the "truth" as there are witnesses of it.
But the movie finally implies more than it explains or, more accurately, commits to. In the end, it has to bow to simple Hollywood laws: When you pay Meg-A-Bucks or Denzel-A-Bucks for your stars, thou shalt not besmirch them. Casting is destiny. For most of the movie, "Courage Under Fire" bristles with ideas that Duncan embodies in characters. That's amazing. Zwick ("Glory") creates a compelling visual texture that's just as amazing.
Then comes the ending, and it all falls apart. You come to feel that character clashes illustrating ideas Duncan was working out were really meant to align your sympathies. My main problem is that Duncan's plot premise -- the first woman considered for a Medal of Honor earned in combat -- was so promising. After a century of war movies and after a quarter century (post-Vietnam) of antiwar movies, isn't it time for movies to re-examine what actually happens in battle? What better way than to look hard at how a woman in combat conducts herself when put to the test?
The method that drives the mystery in "Courage Under Fire" prevents us from knowing Walden in detail. We see her as others saw her. But she's the real mystery. Ultimately, you have to think that "Courage Under Fire" necessarily accepts the convenient fictions its main premise -- make that premises -- appears to challenge. In the end, the movie celebrates equal opportunity heroism, real lump in the throat stuff. It's much better than the usual Hollywood fluff, but I keep wondering about a real Nat Serling, a real Karen Walden, and I know I'll never see them on film.
Back to Front Page