Michael Tucker is the director of Gunner Palace the latest documentary to reveal the truth about the Iraq war. But Tucker takes a different approach. He videotaped the one army units daily life in Iraq. These guys live in a burned out party palace that used to belong to Uday Hussein. They even have a pool but they still get explosives dropped on them sometimes when they are just hanging out in the backyard. But these same soldiers travel the streets of Iraq, possibly getting limbs blown off by Improvised Explosive Devices or IEDs; they go on raids and even have to act as truant officers getting kids back into schools. Its a terrifying but revealing look at 19 to 25 year old soldiers who take orders they may not always agree with but in their leisure time have pool and freestyle parties.
Check out the official site for Gunner Palace
Daniel Robert Epstein: What was your intention with this film?
Michael Tucker: I think the intention was to tell the story from the soldiers point of view. Everything was so politicized in December 2003 and still is. I think there is a huge disconnect between what was happening and what was being reported at the time. I found that once major combat was over the story just fell into the cracks.
DRE: What did you have to do with the Pentagon to get this kind of clearance?
MT: In the beginning there was no contact with the Pentagon because once you were in Baghdad you didnt need to. At the local level you would go to the public affairs people and submit a proposal. I knew at that point being at the palace would be interesting.
The Pentagon has seen the film and because they didnt commission or approve it in the first place they cant really comment on it. At the unit level the army was super helpful because its up to the unit commanders discretion.
DRE: It seems like you had total freedom.
MT: Its because I was living there. I got no interference.
DRE: I think the only thing I found odd about the film is when there would be a question from you then you would see a cut and then the soldier would answer. What made you choose to do that?
MT: I thought there were immediate answers. I dont see what you are talking about.
DRE: How is this film different from what you expected?
MT: I had already been there twice before and in the beginning it felt surreal and like this Wild West kind of place. It felt dangerous but it wasnt until I was going with the soldiers that you really feel the anxiety of being a moving target with the roadside bombs and snipers.
DRE: How did you learn about Gunner Palace?
MT: A friend at the Associated Press had been there for a few days. Also they had a lot of high profile raids of going into cemeteries, opening graves and finding weapons.
DRE: How difficult was it to keep your opinion out of the movie?
MT: That was the most challenging part. I dont think you could ever be totally successful. But conservative people can watch this movie and theyre ok with it and liberal people feel the same so I think we must have found some middle ground by focusing on the soldiers.
DRE: Have your opinions changed much as a result of making this movie?
MT: I dont think they have as far as reasons and things like that. My feelings have become much more emotional.
DRE: I read that the film went from R rating to a PG-13 without having to change anything, what happened?
MT: We were given an R before Christmas and we were surprised because there is a question of context. The movie is laden with expletives but its mostly when the soldiers encounter someone with a weapon. These are young soldiers who are defending the United States so they should be able to drop a few F-bombs. We went and appealed the MPAA and they voted 9 to 3 and overturned. I think its the most profane movie in PG-13 history.
DRE: Would you go back?
MT: Were talking about it.
DRE: When did Palm Pictures get involved?
MT: The film was done all independently and they bought it on the first day of the Toronto Film Festival. Theyve been just fantastic because it was a huge leap of faith for a picture like this. There was some interest but those distributors wanted to push it out before the election. So many films came out before the election and tanked.
DRE: Were you surprised by how frank the soldiers were?
MT: These guys and their comrades have been in war for a long time. I think it would be dishonorable for their superiors to tell them not to say what they feel.
DRE: When did the soldiers start freestyling at the camera?
MT: That was at the end of the first trip at a Gunnerpalooza party. A freestyle competition was organized and they were supposed to be clean but it got kind of dirty.
DRE: Are they going to get some kind of record deal?
MT: There was this really nice New York Times piece on them which has caused a lot of interest so we are going to put out a soundtrack. The one guy from the Bronx, Moncrief, is just amazing.
by Daniel Robert Epstein
SG Username: AndersWolleck
Check out the official site for Gunner Palace
Daniel Robert Epstein: What was your intention with this film?
Michael Tucker: I think the intention was to tell the story from the soldiers point of view. Everything was so politicized in December 2003 and still is. I think there is a huge disconnect between what was happening and what was being reported at the time. I found that once major combat was over the story just fell into the cracks.
DRE: What did you have to do with the Pentagon to get this kind of clearance?
MT: In the beginning there was no contact with the Pentagon because once you were in Baghdad you didnt need to. At the local level you would go to the public affairs people and submit a proposal. I knew at that point being at the palace would be interesting.
The Pentagon has seen the film and because they didnt commission or approve it in the first place they cant really comment on it. At the unit level the army was super helpful because its up to the unit commanders discretion.
DRE: It seems like you had total freedom.
MT: Its because I was living there. I got no interference.
DRE: I think the only thing I found odd about the film is when there would be a question from you then you would see a cut and then the soldier would answer. What made you choose to do that?
MT: I thought there were immediate answers. I dont see what you are talking about.
DRE: How is this film different from what you expected?
MT: I had already been there twice before and in the beginning it felt surreal and like this Wild West kind of place. It felt dangerous but it wasnt until I was going with the soldiers that you really feel the anxiety of being a moving target with the roadside bombs and snipers.
DRE: How did you learn about Gunner Palace?
MT: A friend at the Associated Press had been there for a few days. Also they had a lot of high profile raids of going into cemeteries, opening graves and finding weapons.
DRE: How difficult was it to keep your opinion out of the movie?
MT: That was the most challenging part. I dont think you could ever be totally successful. But conservative people can watch this movie and theyre ok with it and liberal people feel the same so I think we must have found some middle ground by focusing on the soldiers.
DRE: Have your opinions changed much as a result of making this movie?
MT: I dont think they have as far as reasons and things like that. My feelings have become much more emotional.
DRE: I read that the film went from R rating to a PG-13 without having to change anything, what happened?
MT: We were given an R before Christmas and we were surprised because there is a question of context. The movie is laden with expletives but its mostly when the soldiers encounter someone with a weapon. These are young soldiers who are defending the United States so they should be able to drop a few F-bombs. We went and appealed the MPAA and they voted 9 to 3 and overturned. I think its the most profane movie in PG-13 history.
DRE: Would you go back?
MT: Were talking about it.
DRE: When did Palm Pictures get involved?
MT: The film was done all independently and they bought it on the first day of the Toronto Film Festival. Theyve been just fantastic because it was a huge leap of faith for a picture like this. There was some interest but those distributors wanted to push it out before the election. So many films came out before the election and tanked.
DRE: Were you surprised by how frank the soldiers were?
MT: These guys and their comrades have been in war for a long time. I think it would be dishonorable for their superiors to tell them not to say what they feel.
DRE: When did the soldiers start freestyling at the camera?
MT: That was at the end of the first trip at a Gunnerpalooza party. A freestyle competition was organized and they were supposed to be clean but it got kind of dirty.
DRE: Are they going to get some kind of record deal?
MT: There was this really nice New York Times piece on them which has caused a lot of interest so we are going to put out a soundtrack. The one guy from the Bronx, Moncrief, is just amazing.
by Daniel Robert Epstein
SG Username: AndersWolleck
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
You could've done a little sourcing on the use of IED's in the article (we, as is Joe's, just call em IED's) by calling them improvised explosive devices or IED's in the flow and cotext in which it is used it makes them sound like two different things. But hell, you can't ask too much of the average person you don't understand shit about that country or what's going on unless you've been there recently.