Sounds like a refreshing change from the usual Hollywood left-wing
fantasy bullshit where whitey is evil, especially if he's a blue-eyed
blond, and mud people are portrayed as intelligent, honest,
victimized, loyal, loving... y'know Hollyood's version of reality.
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 10:16:38 -0800 (PST),
americans.for.change@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>Coked up alcoholic Texan takes on the world and makes good? Sounds
>familiar.
>
>"We need to stay involved?" "We can't fuck up the endgame?" I have
>heard that sentiment expressed recently.
>
>Cluster bombs blowing children's arms off because they pick them up
>thinking they are toys? Uh..."The United States on Friday rejected an
>international call to abandon the use of cluster bombs, State
>Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. 'We take the position that
>these munitions do have a place and a use in military inventories,
>given the right technology as well as the proper rules of engagement,'
>McCormack said." And I am sure those cluster bombs in the movie are
>entirely different from the ones we sell to the Israelis and use in
>Iraq and...AFGHANISTAN.
>
>Making a hero out of an ultra-right-wing rich lady, who treats others
>as if they don't exist (I am explicitly referring to her introduction
>to one of "Charlie's Angels" as it were, refusing to look her in the
>eye and demanding a drink from her, and when she is draped in a towel
>by her silent black butler...didn't see him in the credits, but
>perhaps he was listed as "Negro Manservant #2"...but without the
>"Manservant" and "#2" of course because, if I recall, I didn't see a
>single other African-American in the film). And she wants to help the
>women of Afghanistan? By...fighting against the only forces in
>Afghanistan fighting for more equality for women? God, you'd almost
>think she was so for equal rights that she would be pro-life...but I
>wouldn't bet on it. And women's rights in general...how bout the
>portrayal of women in the movie huh? Sexy secretaries fawning over
>their boss? Top notch I'd say!
>
>I hate to make the following point, because what the Russians did in
>Afghanistan was awful. War is always hideous and has terrible results
>for everyone involved. And what I am about to say doesn't make what
>happend in Afghanistan during the Eighties okay...but I have to point
>out- it wasn't even an invasion per se (an invasion is what we did to
>Iraq). The Soviets were "invited" in by an erstwhile ally to help
>put down a rebellion. Not saying that that makes it right, I am just
>saying it makes it wrong to make a self-serving masturbatory film
>about the events that makes us look like heros when only 10 years
>earlier we were doing the exact same thing in VietNam...and when are
>currently doing something way worse in Iraq.
>
>But when it really hit, when the movie really climaxed in its
>emotional confusion and its demanding of mental gymnastics was
>probably the scenes with the helicopters getting shot down. First
>off, they looked bad and computery, but more importantly...correct me
>if I am wrong because it may just be a little pavlovian of me but,
>after five years of fighting in Iraq, I think most people are a little
>inclined to feel that insurgents shooting down helicopters in the
>desert is a bad thing. I had this completely automatic feeling of
>dread seeing those choppers go down...and then I thought "But it is a
>Russian and a Commie getting killed", and then I felt better. Yeah
>right.
>
>And at a time when another Bhutto has just been murdered, to see the
>celebration of a man who murdered the first Bhutto (ul-Haq, the
>Pakistani President)...and then to see Julia Roberts dismiss the death
>and say "Bhutto was executed because he was convicted of a crime"...I
>mean...is it laughable, or is it just too tragic? If only they had
>had time to edit that out...
>
>Okay, that being said..."Let's Kill Some Russians!" I am sure that
>went over well in Brighton Beach.
>
>And such minor lip service at the end to "staying the course" and
>giving them money...I mean, when you arm hundreds of thousands of
>angry right-wing holy warrior zealots with billions of dollars of
>weapons...you already fucked up. There is no staying the course in
>the world that could have fixed the situation we made.
>
>Okay, how do you have a whole movie about the Soviet-Afghan War and
>not mention Bin Laden or allude to 9/11? I mean, there is the whole
>zen master quote...that was really interesting. I mean, they had it
>exactly right...something happens, you don't know the consequences,
>the consequences in this case were...the worst thing that ever happend
>to us as in 9/11. So how they could have gotten it exactly right with
>that little quote, and then spent the previous 2 hours making a
>mockery of that concept is beyond me. I liked Gust's character quite
>a bit, he was the only one with any spirit at all, and tells it like
>it is at the end. but he is not really being celebrated by the movie.
>He is more a bit player who is portrayed as though he couldn't get
>laid in a room full of hookers.
>
>Look, all joking aside, I am not trying to cloud the issue. The
>Russians did awful things...the flattened cities, there were rapes and
>murders, and mistreatment of prisoners...just as we have had happen in
>Iraq. What I think is missed is that war is just bad, no matter who
>is participating in it. What is even sadder is that we are in a
>country which is currently engaged in basically THE EXACT SAME WAR IN
>THE EXACT SAME COUNTRY, and we have the chutzpah to make a fucking
>movie celebrating the loss of that same war by another country, to
>think that we are somehow better than all the other countries who have
>done terrible things while we commit the same exact acts that we
>accuse others of doing. It is plainly pathological. I think our
>country might be insane.
>
>http://www.veryusefulwebsites.com
>
|
