This movie left me severely impressed. Most war films, particularly those intended to be viewed as a deep form of art tend to be much more shallow (Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of first hand military experience among film makers in the US.) Often the writers and directors are simply trying to support an anti war thesis by illustrating suffering, injustice and cruelty. But anyone can illustrate suffering, injustice and cruelty in a generic way and then squeeze it into an ill fitting war context. What impressed me about Bertrand's work is that he didn't do this. There were no shallow caricatures and he did not spoon feed the audience with anti war propaganda. Bertrand instead, tried to paint an accurate picture of some very complicated events and circumstances, and the equally complicated people who are trying to deal with them. The suffering, injustice and cruelty are there, but the audience must find these elements for themselves.
Reviews
2 Reviews
Afterburn
(1992 TV Movie)
**spoiler warning**--accuracy of events
14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
**Spoiler Warning** The events of this movie are essentially accurate but there is a certain anti-everything flavor that is a bit obnoxious. The F-16 was the first fighter plane in US inventory with a 100% fly by wire control system (no mechanical or hydraulic linkage to the stick or rudders.) It also had a head up display (HUD) which served as the primary Attitude indicator (tells the pilot which way is up.) Early F-16A models were all 'steamguages' except for a stores management display that looked like a glorified calculator, the HUD, and the radar display which was essentially a 5 inch TV screen between the pilot's legs. In the movie (and in the real mishap,) Wire chaffing had caused a short in one of the wire bundles which resulted in a false indication of which way was up on the HUD. The pilot, trusting his HUD, flew into the ground. Within the Air Force there is an adage,"When a plane is destroyed and the pilot lives, it's the maintenance crew's fault. If the pilot is killed, it's the pilot's fault." The idea is to save the pilot's career if possible or to save the ground crew's conscience if necessary. This particular Air Force widow was a little less than understanding when it came to Air Force 'tradition.' Previous to the incident, a training video had been produced by General Dynamics (maker of the F-16) warning ground crews to check for wire chaffing during inspections. This was a preventative measure which was later supplemented by rerouting certain wire bundles that were found to be prone to chaffing. This was used by the widow and her lawyer to 'prove' that General Dynamics was aware of a fatal flaw in their jet. They were forced to pony up some serious cash and the Air Force eventually cleared the pilot's name. Before and since, all Air Force personnel doing any maintenance on the F-16 have to undergo recurring 'wire chaffing' training. Even though I was an F-15 maintainer, I had to sit through the briefing twice just because I was on a base that had F-16s. Go figure, a defense contractor does the right thing and makes a video to show maintainers what to look for during inspections and they get sued for it. The settlement was one of those lucrative multi-million dollar jobs, plus royalties from the movie. And as I recall, a documentary came out a short while after the movie. The real widow was interviewed and yes, she struck me as being a bit obnoxious and somewhat ignorant of how dangerous and unforgiving her husband's job had been.
Tell Your Friends