The Rules of Engagement – Film Review

The film “The rule of engagement” presented strange belief that were weird, but not weird as compared to those used in other religions. It was vividly presented that the first raid carried out in the film was staged as a publicity stunt and the second raid was stage as a government riot caused by uniformed boys with toys. The director of this film attempted to argue out the theme of the film from his point of view and some of the critics have argued against this themes (Gazecki, 1997). Looking at this film it is clear the director failed to make federal case because the evidence was tempered with and even lost, crucial reports and files disappeared, eyewitnesses failed to give their testimonies, crime scene was protected for investigation purposes, video tapes were returned blank and the FBI ransacked the area with the intention of destroying the evidence.

It is evident that this film is very persuasive because: first, the director attempted to ensure that testimonies from both sides were presented and tried as much as possible to avoid cheap arguments that does not add value to the film. There is clear indication that the film attempted to deal with facts. Secondly, the people attacking the government are not only the lawyer from Branch Davidians and muckraking, but also it included FBI photographers, the district Texas Rangers and middle-Americans such as county sheriff (Gazecki, 1997). For example, in the film it showed a man who developed some of the equipment that FBI were using and tempering with them to portray FBI firing at the building, yet the FBI insisted that they never fired any single shot. Thirdly, the presences of eye witnesses was an indication the director attempted to show that truth detector has been built. However, it is possible that these eye witnessed could be deceiving.             Throughout the film, the individuals who were seen arguing against the government were seen to be speaking the truth, because their eyes appeared to be recalling exactly what they saw. While those who were defending the government which included Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI spokesman were seen to be reading a script that had been rehearsed and kept on reaping phrases (Gazecki, 1997). From the perspective of Waco, it is not illegal to hold irregular religious beliefs, trade and hold firearms, defend you house against armed assault when the assault is against the law. These facts describes how the federal government carry out their operations and at some situations rights of the public are suspended into to ensure that properties are protected.

Share with your friends
Order Unique Answer Now