MovieChat Forums > The General's Daughter (1999) Discussion > Paul Brenner's behavior was unbelievable

Paul Brenner's behavior was unbelievable

posted 15 years ago by HenryCW
16 replies | jump to latest

In the film, Paul Brenner was a detective from the Army's CID, and I understand that he was given full authority in the investigation and had the right to arrest anyone. But could Brenner have done many of the things he did in the film? Wow, this guy seemed really prone to violence! In the film, he threatened potential suspects (including some later found to be innocent, like the James Woods character) - not only yelling at them but also doing things like seizing them by their collars, twisting their arms, and throwing them against the wall! In one scene, Paul and Sara Sunhill even tortured one army guy by pouring hot coffee onto his lap. I find all these rather unbelievable, especially since all these tough army guys appeared to be intimidated by him.

Does a CID detective really have the right to do such things. Anyone?

[–] mikeyg24 15 years ago

I pressume you missed the part where Fowler stated that there were three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the army way...all the concerns you mentioned are the army way. The General gave Paul wide latitude in interrogating the Generals men, who were they going to complain to?

Good guys may not finish last but they sure as sh*t don't finish first!

[–] t1mpani 15 years ago

<<I pressume you missed the part where Fowler stated that there were three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the army way...all the concerns you mentioned are the army way. The General gave Paul wide latitude in interrogating the Generals men, who were they going to complain to?>>

This post is strongly indicative of somebody who has never had any--or extremely limited--contact, personally or peripherally, with the military. And yes, I know that there might be a temptation to invent some sort of history of your service in order to be able to say "so there!" but it's absolute crap and you know it.

The Army is built on procedure--it's an extremely structured environment, and the only way that you can get people to effectively follow in that structure is for them to understand the structure. The chain of command is known by every single grunt in every single unit, as is what a person of superior rank is legally able to do and not do. There are abuses, certainly--people break the law within the Army just like anywhere else. The difference is that in the Army, the process involved for dealing with those abuses is well known to the entire population. The fact that those soldiers shouldn't have been (and wouldn't have been in real life) intimidated in this situation has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they're tough, and everything to do with the fact that they're professionals who know the legal limits of the authority of the person they're dealing with. As soon as an NCO or officer lays a violent hand on you, when they're not actively defending themselves, they will be facing a court martial, and if found guilty, will be out of the Army and in prison serving the full sentence handed down to them--there is no parole for "good behavior" in the federal system. You might find a young enough grunt, somewhere, whose fear of authority was adequate to let the abuses in this movie go unchecked, but he or she would be the exception, and the senior NCO or officer willing to risk everything to test it is even more the exception. Doesn't make a god-damned bit of difference what the rank is. If a four star general assaulted you, you can go to the nearest sergeant and start the process up the chain.

It's a movie, and it's fantasy. The entire industry is based on fantasy. The people in Hollywood know nothing more about the way the Army works than the Army knows about how to make a good movie.

[–] mikeyg24 15 years ago

God you're boring. My comment was based on what you call the fantasy, the movie. I never said I had any experience with the military nor did I claim to be commenting on the reality. Think about that the next time you contrive a response.

Good guys may not finish last but they sure as sh*t don't finish first!

[–] t1mpani 15 years ago

The OP was talking about the believability of the character's actions, and you referred to the movie's line of it being "the Army way." Perhaps I misunderstood you, but your comment seemed to be saying that this is indeed how things are in the army, when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

But rest assured, I will "think about that" and be duly haunted as I contrive my future responses. ;)

[–] mikeyg24 15 years ago

And perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. It's all good, when it comes to the military I have no personal experience I don't pressume to believe what the movies proclaim to be 'the done thing' I can only remark on the context of the movie.

Good guys may not finish last but they sure as sh*t don't finish first!

[–] ecavuto 15 years ago

HAHAHAHA! Come on, Henry! Think of thousands of other films where characters have done things clearly unallowed in real life! You think DIRTY HARRY would have lasted five movies?? How about Murtaugh and Riggs in the LETHAL WEAPON series? It's all about entertainment, chum.

[–] HenryCW 15 years ago

Dirty Harry never did anything that was unbelievable or almost suicidal. You were probably thinking about Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) in the Death Wish series.

[–] ecavuto 15 years ago

That's an interesting comment there, Henry. I found all the Dirty Harry films to be unbelievable. An officer carrying a Magnum, blatantly going against his superiors in the department, browbeating someone in an elevator (called him "dog sh*t," remember?), strolling back into a diner where there are multiple felons and encouraging them to "Make my day...", crashing some crime lord's family wedding and bringing on a heart attack...This isn't unbelievable to you? Actually I think Harry also has the death wish.

[–] jcush21 15 years ago

Don't forget in the first DH movie, when Harry shot Scorpio at Kezar stadium then proceeded to stand on the injured leg, torturing him to find out where the girl was.

That was kinda amazing he didn't get fired, if not outright arrested.

Don't get me wrong, I love the DH films.

[–] HenryCW 15 years ago

The important difference is that Dirty Harry was a rogue cop and Paul Kersey was a vigilante. Neither was supposed to be an "ordinary" cop or person acting according to law - or otherwise there won't be films about them in the first place. By contrast, while Paul Brenner was given full right of investigation, he was still supposed to follow the proper procedures, and that was why I find his behavior rather unbelievable.

[–] thewiz06 14 years ago

Besides the violence, what I found unbelievable was that he was allowed to impersonate as a 1st sergeant.

[–] Jefbecco-1 14 years ago

Fourteen years U.S. Army (1986-2000). Eight of them with the Regular or "Full-time" Army (1992-2000). Nothing about this movies is realistic. Nothing. But as far as being just a movie. Hey it's entertaining and had great production standards.

What more can one ask for from Hollyweird?

[–] movie_fan59 13 years ago

Why? What's wrong with his going undercover as a Senior NCO? It was an undercover investigation, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere impersonating a PFC.

[–] Jefbecco-1 13 years ago

It's more than the rank he had when he goes undercover. There were so many things. How the soldiers acted, how they talked, the end when John Travolta is driving his POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) through the training site as the solders are training, him taking the bath items to the female officer as an enlisted man. Like I said there is nothing about the movie that is realistic. But he kept me entertained and I didn't watch it expecting a documentary.

[–] movie_fan59 13 years ago

The Army is certainly different than the Air Force so I can't speak to the reality of the Army all that much. I was married to a woman in the Army, so I have some notion.

But driving a POV through a training site in order to get to a crime scene seemed plausible to me. Don't recall if his presence had any impact on the training.

I actually did give bath products to a female commissioned officer I was friendly with, as a birthday gift, but I can see the incongruity of the situation in which he did it. There were other ways he could have more appropriately expressed his gratitude.

[–] Jefbecco-1 13 years ago

My experience when in the Army (1986-2000) was ,when in use, the training sites were off-limits. Especially MOUT (urban training sites) locations. I was assigned to a training unit (1-4 Infantry) when stationed in Germany and spent many many months over the years at other training facilities such as Fort Polk and Fort Ord. It was just something that really stood out when I first saw the movie back in 99.