First of all, I love this movie. The emotional atmosphere that is generated by director Robert Spottiswoode so illuminated for me the tensions of the sixties and particularly the Life and Times of President Kennedy's Camelot and Malcolm X's comment about 'chickens coming home to roost'. Many people misunderstood this comment when it was originally if somewhat indiscreetly made. Malcolm X was simply saying that when you live and work and earn your pay in an atmosphere of violence you should not be surprised when that atmosphere randomly and unexpected recoils against you or explodes in your face.Great Art can do this sometimes. That is, clarify on a visceral or emotional level the substance of a cultural trauma such as the martyrdom of political figures or the unimaginable catastrophic tragedy of an event like 9/11. Watching Russell Price, played by Nick Nolte and his lover, Claire Grazier, played by Joanna Cassidy, enter a zone of volatile political conflict and then emerge unscathed through the other side of the labyrinth caused me a palpable sense of relief. I felt the resolution of the piece to be as satisfying as any catharsis in the theater, but particularly suitable for the Cinema. At the end of UNDERFIRE I felt I understood something I did not understand before due to not being able to handle the charge of my emotions about it or the charge of the issues themselves. This new understanding was not exactly something I could put into words. But it had something to do with viewpoint and truth and the merchandising of political unrest and how a martyr can be put to the best possible political use.Russell Price is a globe-trotting photo-journalist who covers war torn countries as part of his stock and trade. He ends up taking pictures of a true event of violent death involving a colleague, but before that crosses the lines of journalistic ethics to help the people create a martyr and myth for the revolution. The people's revolution wins out not in small part to Price's pictures. But it's hard to say which set of pictures has the greater influence; the set recording the facts or the set bending the facts to create a hero for the revolution.UNDERFIRE speaks to the value of life and death in terms of dollar and cents, national destinies and simply the value of the life of a man of western privilege compared to the life of a man representing the aspirations of the grassroots. It is also about the priorities of belief and how these priorities can shift in the blink of an eye, as fast as the report of a rifle or the flight of leaflets out of the sky or even the mind of a mercenary just keeping the playing field level. The musical score of Jerry Goldsmith is haunting and memorable, and a part of it found itself borrowed for Quentin Tarantino's DJANGO UNCHAINED, but here serves its purpose to its full glory. Pat Metheny deserves mention for the ethnic and guitar music. The tense visual sense of the environment and its rubble filled streets is largely the work of John Alcott, Director of Photography. While Oates the mercenary played by Ed Harris, Alex Grazier, the soon to be National News anchor being kicked upstairs out of Nicaragua and played by Gene Hackman, along with the wily and elegant Jean-Louis Trintigant representing the French branch of the CIA, round out the authenticity of the ensemble.

In the '80s Vietnam was history. Latin America was news. It's in this historical context that we must place Under Fire, amovie about the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution that overthrew President Somoza. It's a movie that is mostly forgotten but that I believe still matters today, not least because it's a well-crafted movie with a great cast.Under Fire is partly a fictionalised account of the story of Bill Stewart, an ABC News reporter gunned down by the Nicaraguan Army patrol at a road checkpoint. A cameraman filmed the execution and the footage caused a scandal back in the USA. The movie doesn't hide the irony that the life of one American journalist did more to turn public reaction against the government's support of the dictatorship than the lives of thousands of Nicaraguans. Like a Nicaraguan female doctor treating civilians says, "maybe we should have killed an American journalist 50 years ago." One can see why on its release the movie was accused, unfairly I think, of being Anti-American.The movie follows the photojournalist Russell Price (Nick Nolte), who trots around the globe, from war to war, taking pictures. We first meet him in Chad, risking his life to take photos of the rebels. With the way he puts himself in danger to get good photos we learn three things about him: he's fearless, he's a committed professional and he's been doing this a long time. It's also in Chad that the movie sets up a running theme throughout the movie: the uncomfortable comparison between journalists and mercenaries. In a darkly funny scene Price meets an old friend, Oates (Ed Harris), inside a truck full of rebels. Oates is a mercenary and thinks he's with the government troops. Price corrects him: he's in fact sitting next to rebels. Oates doesn't worry because the rebels only speak French. Oates also trots around the glob from war to war; like Price, he feeds on conflict. Neither takes sides; Oates does, of course, but only for monetary reasons; he doesn't really care about politics. And Price tries to remain impartial. It's obvious they've known each other for a long time. It's inevitable that their paths will cross in Nicaragua.In Nicaragua Price starts questioning his impartiality. "I think I finally saw one too many bodies," he says. As Price starts embracing the cause of the Sandinistas, the group opposed to Somoza's dictatorship, the movie becomes an interesting study of journalistic ethics, of information manipulation, and of the creation of myths to rouse people. To what extent is what we see reported the truth and not fabrications? How noble is it to fool people for a good cause? More than just agitprop, this movie opens up essential questions that any healthy democracy should regularly pose. Propaganda works both ways, of course, and the movie, quite pioneering, doesn't ignore the role PR companies play in whitewashing the criminal images of dictatorships.The movie is also a love triangle between Price, Alex Grazier (Gene Hackman) and Claire (Joanna Cassidy), both journalists too. Although I tend to dislike love stories in such movies because they always seem like tactics to keep people interested, as if politics weren't interesting enough, here the love relationships are quite subtle and understated, I'd even say adult. There isn't an overflow of sentimentality or an exhibition of romantic excesses or tropes. And the romance stays in the background of the political story.I can't find faults in any of the actors. Nolte is particularly enjoyable, with his gruff, rugged personality that slowly opens up to new ideas and feelings as he becomes involved with the Sandinistas. I had never seen Joanna Cassidy in a movie before, but I wonder why she isn't a better known start; she carried a lot of the movie herself. Hackman, who has a smaller role, was also solid. Harris was simultaneously funny and chilling. But of the actors in the minor roles Jean-Louis Trintignant stood out as the sensual French CIA agent, who hides his viciousness under a veneer of politeness and joie de vivre.In terms of technique, I'd place this movie on the same level as Costa-Gavras' better known Missing. Roger Spottiswoode creates some intense scenes of urban warfare and he makes palpable the atmosphere of fear and anticipation as the war leaves the countryside and approaches Managua, the capital. Particularly effective are the empty streets, punctuated by army checkpoints, as well as the unexpected, farway bullet noises in the distance, giving the impression that there's a whole lot of things going on outside the frame of the camera. Spottiswoode had the good luck of working with director of photography John Alcott (his credits include A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and The Shining). Each scene is framed in an interesting way. As an example, in the opening sequence rebels emerge from a deceptively desolate clearing. It's a neat trick.As important as Alcott's cinematography is Jerry Goldsmith's musical score. A chameleon of film music, Goldsmith could adjust his talent to suit any style, genre or mood. In here it makes extensive use of ethnic music and guitar by Jazz player Pat Metheny. The music contributes a lot to creating an exciting, suspenseful ambient and has become more famous than the movie itself.The movie is bloody and violent, and the violence is quite realistic, unexpected and brutal. Although the movie has a streak of dark humour, it never trivialises the violence itself. According to Spottiswoode, the studio produced the movie knowing that it'd be a commercial failure. They made the movie because they believed the story was worth telling. Thought-provoking and sometimes unpleasant, I think this is an under-appreciated gem that will hold the interest of anyone willing to give it a chance.

I would like to point out under the 'errors' section that in the opening scenes, when the conflicts in Chad are picture, the elephants are obviously Asian elephants (note the smaller ears in comparison to African elephants). So much money is spent in the making of Hollywood films, it is sickening when elementary mistakes such as the error I mentioned above are included in the official release of the film...Honestly, how many man-hours does it take to determine the differences between an African elephant and an Asian elephant? Even a novice scientist such as myself can ascertain the distinctions. Significant editorial failure from an ultimately disappointing film.

You can read good plot summaries from the other commentators on "Under Fire". Without rehashing the story line once again, I simply want to add that I'm really glad to have watched "Under Fire" three times because it: * patiently and honestly portrays how revolutions typically evolve into open violence.* has an unusually intelligent script and story line.* has an exceptionally talented set of actors and actresses who consistently give us excellent portraits of the major characters.We are told how a fictional set of journalists and mercenaries join on both sides of the civil war in Nicaragua in the late 1970's, when the corrupt Somoza regime was overthrown by left-wing revolutionaries. I was always convinced, and certainly never bored, in seeing what they did and in learning about their motivations.I was especially impressed with the sights and sounds of battle. This was not your typical Hollywood "boom-boom" flick with all the sound systems turned up. A retired army veteran who survived combat in Vietnam told me that the battle scenes in "Under Fire" were most convincing. The shots and explosions were not at all deafening, and he would realize that his life was in danger only when he would suddenly hear the muted crackling of semi-automatic weapons and whistling of bullets, and then see people starting to drop...just as in the film.At the end, we learn only gradually that victory is in sight for the revolutionaries. Little by little the government troops fade away. Then Somoza gets onto his airplane and flees into exile. There's no huge swelling of inspirational music. People gradually come out onto the streets to resume their lives, and they watch a little victory parade by the revolutionaries. This is how it really happens....a most convincing portrait.Some may argue that this story is hopelessly dated. The leftists are gone, they tell us, and we are at "the end of history".Really? Just wait and see what happens in Nepal, where the Maoist Liberation Front is more than holding its own against the dictatorial monarchy there. These are Marxists, not Moslem fanatics. We might not have yet seen the last of the old-fashioned leftists.Stay tuned!!