tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18360914.post324499451870090413..comments2024-03-25T16:57:51.919+00:00Comments on Bina007 Movie Reviews: London Film Fest Day 3 - REDACTED - unexpectedly brilliantBina007http://www.blogger.com/profile/01622085135305501711noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18360914.post-88252241416014538532007-11-16T20:36:00.000+00:002007-11-16T20:36:00.000+00:00Your charge is that BDP proposes "ignorance and am...Your charge is that BDP proposes "ignorance and amoralism among all soldiers because they are the extensions of the immoral war-engineers." If true, your chain of reasoning works. But I just don't believe that BDP had such an intention. After all, the soldiers in the film aren't all pig-ignorant thugs. They don't all go on the rampage. Some are sensible - notably the guy who tries to warn the idiots to sweep a field properly lest they get blown up. Some experience character development - notably the guy who goes home and ends up crying in a bar. I think you are being pretty reductionist regarding the characters presented here.Bina007https://www.blogger.com/profile/01622085135305501711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18360914.post-15994865237709992122007-11-16T18:10:00.000+00:002007-11-16T18:10:00.000+00:00Bina007,You and I must have taken different messag...Bina007,<BR/>You and I must have taken different messages from the movie. Redacted seemed to imply an ignorance and amoralism among all soldiers because they are the extensions of the immoral war-engineers. At least Michael Moore had the decency to at least frame his display of dispicable behavior of the soldiers in the context that they were also falling victim to the policies of the administration. DePalma just seems to want to show American soldiers doing horrible things as the main argument against war. And there are so many better arguments against this or any war. Instead, like the WMD's, DePalma wanted to show something that would enrage the recipient of the message rather than appeal to intellect. It worked for the Bush clan, and it's working for DePalma. He doesn't seem to take into account that the United States military prosecuted the perpetrators of that crime. That it is NOT a policy to rape and murder, nor is is a policy to look the other way, to conceal such crimes, etc. The mere fact that people are very aware that Redacted is based on an actual case seems to undermine his argument that such crimes are in fact, "Redacted" from the media. He just seems rather upset that crimes like these aren't dwelled on. But I read plenty about this rape and murder, as I've read plenty about Abu Ghraib. What it appears to be is that DePalma is upset that there wasn't more outrage on the part of the American people over these incidents to the point that it ended the war. So in essence, his anger is that the American people haven't reacted in a manner he would like them to, and he believes that this is because the American people haven't been sufficiently immersed in the horror of war, so he's taken it upon himself to condense such atrocity, remove any mitigating nuance, and present it in a way that will support his point of view and achieve his desired result. Now tell me... does that not sound like the "ends justifies the means" rationale of the Bush administration or what? It's not being a Republican that makes Bush and his ilk evil... it's using these tactics. And DePalma uses these tactics. Ipso facto, presto changeo, he's just as bad as Bush. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process they themselves do not become a monster, to paraphrase some dead German dude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18360914.post-59437591774843445272007-11-15T23:20:00.000+00:002007-11-15T23:20:00.000+00:00@Anonymous.You seem to make 2 points. First, BDP ...@Anonymous.<BR/><BR/>You seem to make 2 points. First, BDP uses a "corny woman and children in peril" storyline. Second, that he confuses leaders with soldiers.<BR/><BR/>On the first, BDP may have used this motif egregiously in the past, but should that preclude him from using it here in a story that actually justifies its use? Many film-makers revisit the same stories, subjects, motifs. <BR/><BR/>On the second, you make a valid point that we should not confuse the lions for the lambs. But then, we should not be shy about pointing out the excesses of the minority who give the majority of soldiers a bad name. I think you under-estimate the audience. I think Abu Ghraib was horrific and those US soldiers involved were criminal. It does not follow that I think all or even most US soldiers are immoral. Neither does it follow from REDACTED that BDP thinks all US soldiers are gung-ho, ultra-violent nut-jobs.<BR/><BR/>I think you should give BDP and the audience a lot more credit.Bina007https://www.blogger.com/profile/01622085135305501711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18360914.post-30875178019111247322007-11-15T20:38:00.000+00:002007-11-15T20:38:00.000+00:00Remember "The Untouchables", another DePalma movie...Remember "The Untouchables", another DePalma movie, in the scene at the train station where the baby carriage was going down the stairs? In that film, it was a heavy-handed symbol of the extreme danger and moral courage of the good guys, saving the helpless baby. It worked in that movie because the whole movie was infused with a bit of corniness. "Redacted", however, also relies on the corny "women and children in peril" attitude that DePalma seems obsessed with. From the pregnant war victim to the montage at the end, the movie was blatant in it's message that women and children are the ultimate victims of the American Jingoist aggression. Now... I agree with anti-war sentiment. I believe it's an illegal and immoral war. But DePalma seems to confuse those who serve in the military with those who got us into this war. He's like one of the hippies that spit on the Viet Nam vets. Just like the WMD lie was used to sell the war, it seems like DePalma is using a gross exaggeration of events, mixed with his own warped opinion and perception of soldiers, to make an argument against the war. And it's just as morally reprehensible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18360914.post-25161709120438796842007-10-25T07:50:00.000+00:002007-10-25T07:50:00.000+00:00Hi Marie, thanks for your technical input! The mov...Hi Marie, thanks for your technical input! The movie is "essential" viewing. I am somewhat surprised to see such negative critical reaction to it.....Bina007https://www.blogger.com/profile/01622085135305501711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18360914.post-40870090382044250752007-10-25T00:23:00.000+00:002007-10-25T00:23:00.000+00:00I saw this movie at the New York Film Festival. A...I saw this movie at the New York Film Festival. As a budding filmmaker myself I was enthused to hear DePalma say that it took him over 30 years to get in the Festival. As for the film - it was ugly - beautiful - passionate and painful. It's essential viewing. This style I would assume requires some real chops for the actors. I spoke with Ty Jones (in person so charming and affable with a 1000 watt smile - equally matched with potent intensity on film) and Patrick Carroll (one of the most haunting performances I've seen in some time). They told me they would have to shoot sometimes 15 pages in one shot. From my experience in film this kind of 'shooting' tells me how extraordinary these actors were. Essentially they had to be so present and flawless because they couldn't be hidden by 'editing'. The best film actors can almost always rely on editing to 'cover' them. The guys were out there as vulnerable dare I say as the actual soldiers themselves. - Marie Kennedy, NYCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com