The Tillman Story was screened at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, on November 15. Director Amir Bar-Lev appeared at the screening and took part in a Q&A afterward with faculty and cadets from the Academy. Linda Flanagan interviewed Mr. Bar-Lev on November 23 about the experience.
LF: Had you ever been to West Point?
ABL: I had not been to West Point.
What did you think?
You'd have to be the most insensitive person in the world not to be moved on that campus. It's so storied and steeped in tradition, and the architecture so beautiful. It was an autumnal evening, and was quite moving.
When you were making this film, did you ever imagine showing it at West Point?
No, we didn't specifically think about showing it there, but we did at the very beginning think about trying to reach a wider audience, including those in the military community. Very early on, we understood that we had a unique opportunity to tell the story of a guy -- Pat Tillman -- with broad appeal across a wide political spectrum. Pat's story already had been co-opted by both sides of the aisle. We didn't want to do that again with our film. We wanted to make something that would be shown in all kinds of varied communities, not just the typical documentary film crowd. It was very gratifying to show the film at West Point.
There have been three other screenings that were comparable: in Bagram, Afghanistan, at the Pat Tillman USO Center; at Yale, shortly after they'd hired General Stanley McCrystal (U.S. Army, ret.) to teach; and on the Intrepid to a group of Marine Colonels. The latter was part of a seminar that Marines were putting on about media relations -- and how not to do it. These three screenings -- including the one at West Point -- have been some of the most exciting showings of the film. Especially with the cadets. I give Colonel Dan Rice a ton of credit for doing it, also his superiors and people in the faculty for being open to it. I think that says a lot about our system and the free flow of ideas. Given especially that General Abizaid teaches at West Point, I give the faculty and Colonel Rice a lot of credit.
Why do you think you were invited to West Point?
I'm speculating a bit here, but I think the military has traditionally held itself to high standards and codes of behavior. There is perhaps no place where that code is inculcated more strongly than at West Point. What happened to Pat Tillman is a failure of those standards and those values. Some in the military will see the film and get defensive. Others will look at it and see a teachable moment. Some will try and pretend it didn't happen, others will draw attention to it and hope to learn what not to do. Colonel Rice falls into that latter category. I think there was a little resistance at West Point initially, and probably some people in the faculty were somewhat defensive but eventually they let it happen. I give them a lot of credit for it.
There's a line from Stan Goff in the film, "It's dangerous to lionize people like Pat. Because, when people who are attracted to the mystique of Pat Tillman begin to actually study who Pat Tillman was, they're going to find out that this story doesn't fit into something that's all tidy and mythic." Pat Tillman was put on a pedestal before a lot was known about him or who he was, and it's too late for them to keep the truth about Pat from the public. His statue is already in place.
Personally, I think his values and his family's values were something to aspire to -- something we should teach cadets and young soldiers. Are they simple? No, but I'm not sure that West Point cadets aren't capable of complex takeaways. We're coming out of a time when a simplistic world view was seen as proof of moral clarity. The "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Pat didn't buy into that and I don't buy into that. An overly simplistic view of a complex world is not a good thing, and the lessons of Pat's life are very appropriate for West Point cadets.
Did anyone advise you against coming?
No. Everybody was very excited about it. The executive producer of the film, Molly Thompson, came with me. Our team was looking forward to it.
Were you at all uncomfortable or hesitant about coming to West Point to show and discuss the film?
No. Of course, you never know... I wasn't hesitant, but I wasn't quite sure what to expect. It's a controversial film, but I like lively debate. I was looking forward to it.
I've never had the opportunity to have a debate with someone who defends the actions of those who covered up the circumstances of Pat's death. We worked on the film for three years, and tried to be very deliberate and careful with our argument. Because of that, only a few people in the blogosphere have come back with some rather sloppy rebuttals of the film. Few people have found it to be partisan or one-sided. Most see it as capturing the real Pat Tillman. I wasn't expecting a big debate that night, though I welcomed it.
No one has admitted that there was anything deliberate about this cover-up. In fact some see it being done with the best of intentions. I don't see it that way. In fact, a decision was made based on public relations, or spin, rather than a misunderstanding about rules and regulations up and down the chain of command. Army Secretary Geren said this. Also, in the Q & A following the showing with the Marine Corp, there was that same sentiment: "it was a regrettable set of bureaucratic mistakes." I don't agree.
What kinds of reactions did you expect from faculty and cadets who watched The Tillman Story?
My understanding is that the code of ethics at West Point is very simple: never lie, cheat or steal. But advertising is a mode of interaction that's hard to pin down. We struggle to recognize if it's lying or not. To my mind, one of the tragic lessons of The Tillman Story is that soldiers were being used for what amounts to little more than advertising. It's very easy for cadets or anyone else to say "OK, I won't lie." The Tillman Story provokes them to consider at what point does spin become a lie?
What do you hope the cadets got from this experience?
Some of the lessons won't settle in until they're confronted with a similar circumstance down the line. I've seen the same thing when I've shown the film to left-wing audiences. Their takeaway is, "what a horrible administration we just had!" I think that's letting yourself off the hook, as if there were just a handful of bad apples, and "thank God they're gone." There may have been a little of that with these cadets, those who might think "there were a handful of people who didn't live up to the standard we live up to in the military." It's easy to say "obviously I wouldn't take part in that!" And that's why it's terrific that the film was shown at West Point: that's what education is. Takeaways are not always immediate.
What I found very troubling was the burning of Pat Tillman's diary. It was the essence of him, and destroying it eliminated his account of the war.
He really did second-guess his decision to enlist to degree. He seemed to realize, "I had everything, and now I've jeopardized it." I remember being a young man, and when things got too simple and too easy, I wanted to make them more complicated. It's something you outgrow, especially when you have a family, and you suddenly become very interested in safety. Pat had just begun being an adult. He had these transitional parts of his personality. And when he was out there, he started wondering why he'd done it. Of course he could have gotten out and he chose not to.
What did you get from the experience of showing and discussing your film at West Point?
It was very gratifying for me. You don't make these films to show your friends and family. You make them to have an impact. Screening the film there was part of a larger strategy to return Pat to his family and to restore the legacy Pat would have wanted.
Six years ago, Pat Tillman’s family were handed a tarnished Silver Star. It was a travesty of justice that President Obama and the Senate promoted General McChrystal to the Army’s highest rank, and handed him his fourth star.
Just before the 2006 mid-term elections, Kevin Tillman published his eloquent letter, “After Pat’s Birthdayâ€. Kevin had hoped a Democratic Congress would bring accountability back to our country. But, just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible for the cover-up of his brother’s friendly-fire death have never been held accountable for their actions.
To learn more about the story, I'd recommend Amir Bar-Lev's fine film "The Tillman Story", Mary Tillman's "Boots on the Ground by Dusk", Jon Krakauer's paperback edition of "Where Men Win Glory", or "The [Untold] Tillman Story" posted at the feralfirefighter blog.
West Point graduate John T. Reed has posted several essays at his website, johntreed.com (in the Military Articles section) decrying the lack of integrity and honor among General officers, and with his own take on the Tillman case. Funny and hard-hitti¬ng.
I agree that Amir Bar-Lev's film contributed to restoring Pat's legacy by honoring the man, not the myth. The iconoclast, not the icon. As his mother said, “Pat would have wanted to be remembered as an individual, not as a stock figure or political prop. Pat was a real hero, not what they used him as.â€
However, Amir Bar-Lev's film ended too soon, with the Congressional hearing of August 1, 2007, instead of continuing at least through Gen. Stanley McChrystal's June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation hearing.
I believe that Amir's film could have had a greater "impact" if it would have also told the story of the complicity of the Democratic Congress and President Obama in continuing the Bush administration & Army cover-up of Tillman's friendly-fire death (largely to protect Gen. McChrystal).
Instead, his film has largely been dismissed by the media as not presenting any new "news" about the Tillman story. His film isn't controversial, it threatens none of the politicians still in office. General McChrystal, who personally led the cover-up, is barely a footnote in the film and is off making $50,000 a pop on the lecture circuit. The film is only on 8 screens.
Shortly after Sundance, Bar-Lev emailed that “he was pretty hard on the Democratic Congress in his film.†True, his film does portray Congressman Waxman’s Oversight Committee as ineptly failing to get answers from the top military leadership during their hearing.
However, Bar-Lev’s film missed the â€untold story†that the Democratic Congress and the Obama Presidency protected General Stanley McChrystal from scrutiny of his central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death. This cover-up was a thoroughly bi-partisan affair. It wasn’t just a case of the Bush administration and the Army stonewalling the Democratic Congress. Congress didn’t just “fumble†the ball, they threw the game.
It’s not surprising that after their initial cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death fell apart, Army officers and the Bush administration lied. But after they took control of Congress in 2006, the Democrats (including Congressman Henry Waxman, Senator Carl Levin, and Senator James Webb) could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them!