User Reviews

I saw this as part of PBS's Independent Lens program. The time slot is one hour, so I'm not sure what was cut out of this 73-minute film (according to IMDb) to bring it down to about 50 minutes.

Over the years there have been other documentaries and biographies relating to the DADT policy or other gay issues within the military, but I found this one to be the best so far in several ways.

It showed a range of gay US military personnel, from Specialist to Rear Admiral. It contrasted the approach taken by Truman versus that of Clinton in integrating the military. It listed a number of countries in the world who have integrated lesbian and gay troops into their militaries, focusing on former Iraq coalition partner the UK. It showed the family, including "partner" (boyfriend or husband) of one gay service-member. It followed a gay man in his decision to re-closet himself to serve. It followed a group of qualified people who are willing to be arrested to try to enlist openly as gay or lesbian. It included a cadence involving an anti-gay slur, apparently a permitted violation of DADT. To me, these were new and interesting things.

Another commenter suggested there was viewpoint bias. That would matter if this was a documentary about the merits of DADT, but that's not what it is. As the documentary itself notes, the US public and the US service-members have largely concluded that the policy is bad. This film is about the effect of the policy on actual and potential gay or lesbian service-members, and it's about their attempt to change the policy.

I wish the film (the version I saw) had included the studies that have recommended repeal, more straight service-members who support repeal, US gay or lesbian contractors working openly alongside US military in Iraq, and Canadian military in Afghanistan, who for years have worked in the most dangerous areas of the country in Kandahar Province while permitting openly gay and lesbian service-members.

One last question not addressed by the film is why the policy remains in place. One military person does say that the military is resistant to change, but that doesn't really mesh with the military's order-following nature. A root cause of the policy is homophobia on the part of a vocal minority within the military -- in this case an actual phobia of gay people "looking at me" or "in close quarters" (to paraphrase comments made in the film). It would have been interesting to follow up those statements, and explore that fear, and see who is institutionalizing that fear into the military, and why policy is directed at maintaining this minority's fears, instead of breaking that fear down so people can do their job.