Deterrence

Released 1999
Stars Kevin Pollak, Timothy Hutton, Sheryl Lee Ralph, Clotilde Courau, Badja Djola, Sean Astin, Mark Thompson, Michael Mantell, Kathryn Morris, Ryan Cutrona, Joe McCrackin
Directed by Rod Lurie

It would be easy -- almost mandatory -- to dismiss Deterrence as a ridiculous piece of late night paranoia (Plot: The president (played by Kevin Pollack!?) is stuck in a Colorado diner during a blizzard, where he finds himself entering a nuclear war with Iraq over a new invasion into Kuwait, by Saddam Hussein's son!). Well, it's a ballsy plot, to say the least. And in fact, it's quite gripping, and I'd be hard-pressed to script a better film given the basic scenario described above. Sure, former film critic Rod Lurie (The Contender) hamstrings himself with a low budget, a single location, and a crummy film editing job, but considering the obstacles, Deterrence is quite a ride.

Hoo-boy, what a thriller! "Deterrence" is not perfect, but it's very good. It was limited by a tiny budget and by being Lurie's debut writing/directing effort, but it more than makes up for its shortcomings. The small budget requires several contrivances, such as the snowstorm and the single location, but they work. The set is small, but it doesn't feel claustrophobic. In fact, I think it's a plus, because it helps jack up the tension. Lurie's most important decision was to set the film in real time. Obviously this was due to the small budget, but it's interesting because it's both the film's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It's a strength because it allows the tension and momentum to build quickly and to never wane. The downside is the logic holes it creates. The chief hole being how the rest of the world is forced to be uninvolved in the conflict. In a way this is good, because it keeps the players small and simplifies the story. It's bad, however, because it forces many unrealistic plot points. The most glaring is how the rest of the nations of the world don't respond when nuclear missiles come raining down on them. That was the weakest plot point, but the weakest aspect of the film is the interaction with the customers and employees in the diner. In the beginning, everything's natural and unforced as Emerson schmoozes with his potential voters. Once the crisis starts, however, they become annoyances as they each get their special moment with the president--that was my chief gripe in the entire film.

The other big contrivance is how Emerson keeps his secret to himself until the bitter end. This was obviously necessary for suspense, but it wasn't terribly realistic. A secret of that magnitude would have to be guarded like none other, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff would certainly be deeply involved. For obvious reasons you could not reveal that secret until the action on Baghdad was completed, but it could have been revealed before Emerson went on tv. The way it was done was grandstanding, but so what? It worked. The important thing was that Emerson telegraphed the fact he had an ace up his sleeve from the very beginning. It didn't come out of nowhere, and that was very important to the film's success. Of course, it was impossible to guess exactly what it was, but the actual twist had a delicious irony.

I've spent a lot of time talking about the weaknesses of "Deterrence," and I think that's because it was so good. That may sound odd, but this could have been a real cheezy flick. I don't think it was cheezy at all. It was intelligent and suspenseful, and the thing that made it work the most was how unemotional it was. Emotions (mostly fear) bubbled under the surface throughout, but the dialogue mostly remained at the strategic level. I was on the edge of my seat savoring the events as they escalated.

The best part of "Deterrence" was the questions raised by the ending. Was it moral or immoral for Emerson to take the action he took while knowing what he knew? After all, Iraq did launch 23 nuclear warheads at various nations, including the United States. Should they be punished with the ultimate punishment despite the ending's twist? How would such an action change the world? Would nuclear weapons suddenly be considered by all parties for smaller conflicts, and how long before Pakistan and India would let them fly? In light of the horrific attacks on September 11, how would such an action affect the Middle East. Would this enormous bitch-slap make us safer or would it unite the entire muslim world and force WWIII at some point? It was very thought-provoking. --Bill Alward, October 29, 2001