No really, I didn't quite understand what you meant in your answer. Were you being sarcastic or what?
I think people will interpret it how they want to interpret it. If people choose to take from this movie that all American soldiers are soulless child rapists, then that angers me, but it doesn't mean a film like this shouldn't be made.
I think it's good that we still hold ourselves to a high enough standard where even isolated incidents are greeted with disgust. We have to hold ourselves accountable for even the rarest acts of inhumanity if we ever want to eliminate them.
I can see the uproar to the extent that the subject of the film is portrayed and marketed as the norm for American troops' behavior in Iraq.
This movie is essentially a reprisal of Casualties of War. Somehow, that movie failed to topple the Republic back in 1989. We won the Cold War anyway. In fact, we had the Gulf War shortly thereafter, and the population eagerly supported it.
The thing with Brian DePalma is that he has a hard time putting nuance or balance into films where he has a political motivation, so they come out as shallow and strident. This movie will have a strong impact on people who want to be strongly impacted, because they were already virulently anti-military to begin with. Ordinary Americans don't go see art films. Were it not for the protests, this film would have essentially zero profile.
There are something like half a dozen Iraq films coming out in the near future. Let's see how the portrayal of the American military is as a whole.
As an aside, I have no problem with, and actually encourage, depictions of the underbelly of war, since Americans have a default tendency to support wars no matter their justification, pretending that all the nasty stuff that goes along with war isn't going to happen this time around, on account of all our nifty new technology. The exception to this rule comes in the immediate aftermath of (or during) wars that drag on a long time but don't accomplish anything (see Korea, Vietnam, Iraq), during which time we are somewhat chastened.
Nevertheless, in thirty years when President Geollary J.W. Clintbush wants to go to war against Outer Nyboobia for whatever reason, the American people will cheer and wave flags once again. We always do.
Is it? I haven't read too much from people who have actually seen it, but I haven't gotten that impression.
Thanks for reminding me. No End in Sight is playing down the street.There are something like half a dozen Iraq films coming out in the near future. Let's see how the portrayal of the American military is as a whole.
DePalma's come right out and said he hopes this movie influences people to ask for the war to end, but A) how many people are really going to allow themselves to be influenced by cinema and B) how does financing a fictional portrayal of heinous acts by a select few make Mark Cuban less of an American?
In my opinion, I would argue against the war based on the fact that Iraq did not attack us and did not want war with us. Saddam Hussein being a vicious dictator isn't reason enough to go to war, especially considering we made things worse.
link"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," De Palma said after last week's screening at the Venice Film Festival, according to Reuters.
To the political forum with you!
Seriously, if anyone in the NBA section even had the slightest inclination to voice their political opinions, they would have done so already.
Dont use this thread to puss out on your opinion full-well knowing you'll get no dissenting opinion of any substance.
Considering all the do entary footage included in the feature, your quote could be interpreted quite differently.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wvenice131.xmlTo tell the story, de Palma boldly uses a variety of forms: blogs, YouTube posts, videologs on the internet and the video diary the soldier is shooting. There are several references to the shortcomings of the mainstream media in reporting the real horrors of the Iraq war; de Palma makes a telling point with these alternative narrative devices.
So American troops are raping and pillaging Iraq?
Yes, and boycotting the Mavericks will stop it.
So this event didn't happen?
So that event is proof of wholesale atrocities committed by American troops?
Is DePalma claiming that Americans are going around raping Iraqis everyday, or he is claiming that war is dehumanizing?
For those who demand equal time in the depiction of violence, the movie does depict an American soldier being gruesomely beheaded by a swarthy insurgent group.
So de Palma says all American troops are guilty of wholesale atrocities because of the true story of a few soldiers who actually committed atrocities?
Sure, war is . But is the "reality" of this war really represented by this one incident?
did it "really" happen or not?
One reality of it certainly is.
So it's not the whole but it should be regarded as the "reality"?
I was replying to a question asked of me. If the mods want to move this to the political forum, they will do so. My post is entirely appropriate given the subject matter, and several other posters have weighed in with political opinions of their own. Stop being a forum nanny.
Did it happen?
Sure, it's one part. Is that really representative of the whole?
Inasmuch as de Palma uses this one story to illustrate how information about the war is filtered before it reaches us through the media, sure. That's his point, not that every soldier in Iraq is a rapist.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote