This question is making me think again about the narration from various points of view (and from different motivating circumstances) of the "heroic incident" in *Courage Under Fire*. More than anything, the multiplicity of narrators and stories suggests that all points of view are unreliable (especially in a stressful, combat situation). The problem of truth--what really happened in the desert--looms large here. Of course, the final narrative of the "incident" is privileged as the truth of what happened--it is the version of the story used as evidence in persuading the govt. commission to award Meg Ryan's character a posthumus medal of honor. A question: How is this privileging accomplished after point-of-view, and more importantly the camera's ability to show us one undeniable truth, has been called into question, perhaps even undermined? My usual movie-buddies refused to see this film with me, whining "But isn't that just a rah-rah Desert Storm film?" What was such a nice surprise for me in this film was its willingness to deal with and reveal in its narrative strategies the process through which contesting narratives and contesting ideologies are constructed into something as inviolable as government-honored, official "war heroism". Rah-rah-- Susan Crutchfield University of Michigan ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]