Ah, American War Movies. American War Trial Movies, to be specific. Their point, most often is to make you think, often to point out the discrepancies between the culture and expectations of the army and those of American society. They're deep. War and the army require different values, society recognizes, simply by way of the fact that they sanction killing. Soldiers surrender their most treasured American privilege, autonomy, to a world of orders and discipline. What the war trial movie usually asks, then, is to what extent can the values of society be eschewed in the protection of the institution that created them.

It was with this in mind, along with fond memories of A Few Good Men that I went to see William Freidkin's new film, Rules of Engagement. Remember in A Few Good Men when Jack Nicholson finally confesses, uttering the immortal lines, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" Imagine a similar scene. On the stand is Samuel L. Jackson portraying Col. Terry Childers. The fresh-out-of-law school idealistic and handsome prosecutor who replaces Tom Cruise is Guy Pearce of L.A.Confidential fame. Don't ask what accent this Australian is trying to imitate. Jackson's confession goes more like this: "Yes. Innocent people probably died." He stands up and yells it for emphasis.

Eighty-three innocent people died, to be exact. Instead of Jackson being carted off to jail and being dishonorably discharged, however, he is revered as a hero.

The film begins (after a Vietnam flashback, which shows how Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones became blood brothers) with an angry mob outside the U.S. embassy in Yemen. Childers and his troops are helicoptered in to protect the embassy and, if necessary, to remove the ambassador. Childers saves the cowardly ambassador (played by an uncreative Ben Kingsley) and his family, and even more importantly, he rescues the American flag from the roof of the building. The next task is to fight off those dangerous Yemenites. Jackson becomes agitated after three of his troops are shot, so instead of focussing on warding off the snipers that are firing at the embassy, he has his men open fire into the crowd below. Women, children and elderly people die along with the more dispensable young men. It's a gruesome blood bath. America does not look good. The national security advisor is not amused. Childers is charged with murder.

At this point we are supposed to be angry at the government for blaming Childers. But we've seen what happened in Yemen-Childers is alt least 90 percent to blame-whether or not he should be made a scapegoat is beyond the point. As his lawyer Childers chooses Col. Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones '69), a close friend whose life he saved in Vietnam. Hodges is a recovering alcoholic who has just retired-he was never a very good lawyer, but he feels that he owes it to his friend to defend him.

The movie's motto is "A hero should never have to stand alone." After seeing the damage Childers has caused, his lawyer Jones thinks Childers should have to stand alone. On a crucifix.

The movie focuses, or at least tries to focus, on the moral dilemmas that Hodges faces. He trusts his friend, but when he visits Yemen to look for evidence, he witnesses first-hand the effects of Childers's attack and is mortified and subsequently falls off the wagon. But this, the one aspect of this movie that could be interesting or thought provoking-that Hodges has to defend a friend who he believes to be guilty-dissipates into thin air. Hodges simply forgets all that he saw in Yemen and vigorously defends his friend. The audience keeps wondering where the moral ambiguities are going to set in and cause suspense, but the film has such a clear idea of where it's going that there is no room for Hodges to mistrust his friend

Even to hard-core, pro-army, Yemen-hating moviegoers the film's conclusion will not make sense. Hero or not, the actual evidence and the court case that is portrayed leads no one to expect or rejoice at a verdict of "innocent." Jones' character is not a particularly good lawyer-moreover, the case clearly doesn't hold water against the government's evidence-lying witnesses or not.

But, hey, heroes shouldn't have to stand alone. Besides the film's questionable morals and its self-contradicting characters, it has some wildly unbelievable subplots. For instance, when Hodges goes to Yemen he sees a skinny, one-legged girl on one of those tragic-looking hand-carved crutches. She is adorable, and a perfect figure to represent the suffering Childers caused. That is, the first time we see her. She hobbles around incessantly, silently leading Hodges around. He thinks about her on his trip back. We get another flashback later on and by this point she has gone from a horrifying symbol to being annoying, and faintly humorous.

In essence, Rules of Engagement was certainly conceived with the intention of combining action with thought provoking plot complications. But only one part of this plan is executed-the action scenes are flawless, the cinematography fits the mood. But where is the complexity? The only deep question that we can possibly ask? "What on earth was Freidkin thinking?" C-

The Office of the Arts will be presenting a discussion with Tommy Lee Jones at the Loeb Drama Center today at 3 p.m.

RULES OF

ENGAGEMENT

directed by

William Friedkin

starring

Samuel L. Jackson

Tommy Lee Jones '69

Paramount Pictures