D
droid
Guest
John Eden sent me a pamphlet... Ive already said too much.
Hurt Locker, straight up racist movie
- Thread starter 3 Body No Problem
- Start date
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I stick by all of what i said two years ago. it's only a propagandist film to those for whom every film on the war must be, ironically, a piece of propaganda that adheres to their POV. if this was 1986 you'd be saying Platoon subtly furthered the cause of U.S. imperialism by failing to have someone stand on a table + shout "VIETNAM WAR BAD" for two straight hours. James ain't no hero nor anti-hero, he's just an asshole adrenaline junkie. go look at any reaction to the movie by actual Iraq War veterans (American ones, which should be clear, but I'm sure someone would say something if I didn't) and, positive or negative (there are both) + that's their unanimous opinion of him. the attempt to fix him in the square jaw JW/Rambo/whatever lineage is frankly, bullshit. + no it's not perfectly, or even well, balanced but it doesn't purport to be + since when was that a requirement for any kind of art and...you know what, fuck it. I reckon you won't be able to say anything Gavin didn't already say ten times better, but feel free to pick up where he left off + actually say something instead of just tossing buzzwords around.
($10,000 says if Werner Herzog - or Oliver Stone or whoever - had directed the same movie, literally shot for shot, you would be standing up + cheering it as a brilliant indictment of U.S imperialism)
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I would be very interested to see some of his science fiction. the Dune thing (real or imagined) is especially fascinating. I mean the heroes are literally hardline millenarian jihadist guerrillas who topple a decadent, massively powerful but declining empire, install their own caliphate in its place + carry out a jihad across the entire galaxy. of course things don't so smoothly after that (the 2nd book is largely about fall-out of aforementioned galactic jihad) but still, it's like the Islamist equivalent of all those large-breasted alien women Cap'n Kirk made it with. can't you just see a teenage OBL beating it frantically over Paul Muad'dib crushing the Padishah Emperor...[uncomfortable thought]...anyway, I'm kind of shocked it's never been denounced by some crazy evangelical type as Islamist propaganda (speaking of that term).
I have a feeling OBL's political writings + poetry would a lot less interesting, tho.
jesus christ you are such a vindictive petty little man. and no amount of time spent on typing "well researched and articulated arguments" will ever change that.
i stated my perspective and opinion on a bloody movie (briefly exactly because a similar case has already been laid out so well), and you have to start with personal attacks?
and all your points are either wrong or way off but i am not going into it with you lol
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
coming from one of the most petty, vindictive flame warriors in the history of the Internet, whose entire style is based on ad hominem attacks (like, you know, this one), that's a bit rich. I really didn't intend a go at you personally - tho c'mon bro that was pretty tame, your skin must've gotten thin since I was around last - but I see it was heat of the moment, so to clarify, no shots (discounting that flame warrior one).
otoh I am attacking your casual parroting of something I think is very wrong, hell yes. but you're free to answer that attack. seriously, how can you just toss around words like racist, imperialist propaganda + act all surprised when someone calls on you to back it up? I really don't think you can but why don't you prove me wrong? "you won't get into it" snide dismissal is like the oldest, lamest copout there is. you're free to it I guess just know how lame a position it is to take.
Not the least surprised. Of COURSE it turns out to be propaganda for the US War Machine, decontextualized and ahistorical "hero catches bad guy" cliche Bull Shit, the same way Hurt Locker was deeply racist cheerleading for State-Terrorism, how ever dressed up in a nuanced humanist costume.
Pure ideological brain washing in support of US crimes against humanity.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...bin-ladens-last-victory-over-america-20130116
Pure ideological brain washing in support of US crimes against humanity.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...bin-ladens-last-victory-over-america-20130116
rubberdingyrapids
Well-known member
shes building up quite a body of patriotic cinema though am surprised she hasnt had more award nominations. im going to see zero dark thirty though i know it will make me angry like argo.
Patrick Swayze
I'm trying to shut up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_(TV_serial)
I remember that being good (or at least well acted) but I was young when i saw it so maybe I missed potentially racist undertones? I suppose the private contractors are used to cast the army in a good light.
I fell asleep in the cinema during hurt locker.
I remember that being good (or at least well acted) but I was young when i saw it so maybe I missed potentially racist undertones? I suppose the private contractors are used to cast the army in a good light.
I fell asleep in the cinema during hurt locker.
rubberdingyrapids
Well-known member
i saw zero dark thirty. its well made and all the rest of it, it actually better than hurt locker imo, if actually kinda boring in the same way as united 93 - you know whats going to happen, how its going to happen, to the point that i was unsure what the point of the film actually was. is it just to give americans/the west catharsis, a way to 'give closure' to one era of the war on terror? because the film didnt tell me anything new about bin laden, the hunt for him, the WOT, or care about any kind of wider political context, etc etc. im unsure why its being praised so much - its really well crafted and shot and paced, and so on, but bigelow is basically just making politically stupid movies that appear to be intelligent.
its a myopic story of one womans (well she is basically a representation for america) obsession and hunt for bin laden, every pakistani looks suspicious, the torture is never vindictive or racist but simply cruel but fair, harsh but reasonable ('i dont want to do this... but you know im going to have to!') american cia operatives, terrorists who no one ever knows the reasons for what theyre doing (not that im condoning what they do at all, but there is no acknowledgement that they might have a reason). no one clapped as it ended, which was surprising, but there were people laughing during some of the early torture scenes, which was pretty wtf. the terrorism is almost incidental actually, what its mostly about is one womans fight to be taken seriously, her obsessive resolve to finish a task, and lack of anything else going on in her life.
its a myopic story of one womans (well she is basically a representation for america) obsession and hunt for bin laden, every pakistani looks suspicious, the torture is never vindictive or racist but simply cruel but fair, harsh but reasonable ('i dont want to do this... but you know im going to have to!') american cia operatives, terrorists who no one ever knows the reasons for what theyre doing (not that im condoning what they do at all, but there is no acknowledgement that they might have a reason). no one clapped as it ended, which was surprising, but there were people laughing during some of the early torture scenes, which was pretty wtf. the terrorism is almost incidental actually, what its mostly about is one womans fight to be taken seriously, her obsessive resolve to finish a task, and lack of anything else going on in her life.
rubberdingyrapids
Well-known member
basically although i dont think theres a frame in ZDT that isnt political, despite stupid critics calling it ambiguous - yeah right - i think bigelow should just stick to straight down the line action thrillers (preferably with characters of a right wing, conservative bias). whenever she tries to restrain her action instincts to do 'serious', she gets pretty ropey. so id like to see her do a movie in support of the NRA for her next one. the message would run along the lines of 'guns are bad.. but they get the job done'.
The violence of liberation struggle, Winnie and Nelson Mandela, Algerian War of Independence, the history of slave revolts, (of which the Baader Meinhof gang are a misdirected distortion, only slightly belonging in the lineage), can only ever be a minor fraction of the pandemic systematic violence of the state.
so yes, absolutely, i am MORE than "alright" with violence against state oppression.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
The Pakistani characters were speaking Arabic? That's hysterical.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Jesus, Jennifer Ehle - she dropped off the map since her heyday in the 1990s...
good article btw
good article btw
craner
Beast of Burden
I did wonder about the languages, but not speaking or understanding Arabic or Urdu, I had no option but to let that pass. I don't actually recall any long chatty local market scenes, I must say. Also, there were a lot of Arabs (not to mention Uzbeks and Chechens) in those areas at a certain time.
I thought this was a very good film, and I don't recognise the thing that rubberdingyrapids describes at all. Myopic? Not really. The Maya character is clearly shown to be one agent among many following their own leads, trying to convince their superiors and colleagues of the validity of those leads (and sources) and usually failing. The CIA is shown to be something close to what it is: a purveyor of assessed intelligence that is has to sell to cautious, sceptical administrations (with one notable exception). Line from an Obamoid: "My political response is 'fuck you.' I was in the room when your previous boss sold us Iraqi WMD", etc.
As for this, "terrorists who no one ever knows the reasons for what theyre doing." I see that you were not paying attention, then. There's a key scene (early on) when Maya and Jessica cross swords on tactics and tradecraft (it's brief, I admit). Maya's basic contention is that you can't simply bribe jihadis: money can't buy out ideology, although (she concedes) that did work well in the Cold War; thank you, the elder spook replies, sarcastically. This is not a film uninformed by reasons or motive, unless you're too dull to notice; with its snappy textual abbreviations (ISI, UBL, etc.) it rather presumes the audience will know its way around A-Q ideology, Pakistani politics, the significance of the FATA, U.S. military divisions, and so on. There's no point in slowing down to explain all of these things.
I think, in the space of a taught action thriller, with allowances for dramatisation and military and linguistic inaccuracies, Bigelow did a rather good job of depicting the political context of agency and military operations: both the tensions and connections. The almost imperceptible change in tone from the early Bush era ("enhanced interrogation", torture, black sites) to the Obama shift (and shiftiness) is accomplished in a fairly subtle way: there is a good moment, for example, when the agents are all talking in a back-room in the Islamabad compound while an Obama presidential speech unspools in the background. The candidate says, suddenly, that his administration will not condone or engage in torture and will punish those who do. The agents all go quiet for one, two seconds, and then carry on talking. And that's it! There is no way that all the implications of torture are not at least conveyed in this film, even if they are not accurately presented.
Jennifer Ehle is a revelation as Jennifer Lynne Mathews, but the eagle-eyed will also spot Mark Strong from Our Friends in the North and (most bizarrely) John Barrowman!
Racist? It’s about as racist as you are.
I thought this was a very good film, and I don't recognise the thing that rubberdingyrapids describes at all. Myopic? Not really. The Maya character is clearly shown to be one agent among many following their own leads, trying to convince their superiors and colleagues of the validity of those leads (and sources) and usually failing. The CIA is shown to be something close to what it is: a purveyor of assessed intelligence that is has to sell to cautious, sceptical administrations (with one notable exception). Line from an Obamoid: "My political response is 'fuck you.' I was in the room when your previous boss sold us Iraqi WMD", etc.
As for this, "terrorists who no one ever knows the reasons for what theyre doing." I see that you were not paying attention, then. There's a key scene (early on) when Maya and Jessica cross swords on tactics and tradecraft (it's brief, I admit). Maya's basic contention is that you can't simply bribe jihadis: money can't buy out ideology, although (she concedes) that did work well in the Cold War; thank you, the elder spook replies, sarcastically. This is not a film uninformed by reasons or motive, unless you're too dull to notice; with its snappy textual abbreviations (ISI, UBL, etc.) it rather presumes the audience will know its way around A-Q ideology, Pakistani politics, the significance of the FATA, U.S. military divisions, and so on. There's no point in slowing down to explain all of these things.
I think, in the space of a taught action thriller, with allowances for dramatisation and military and linguistic inaccuracies, Bigelow did a rather good job of depicting the political context of agency and military operations: both the tensions and connections. The almost imperceptible change in tone from the early Bush era ("enhanced interrogation", torture, black sites) to the Obama shift (and shiftiness) is accomplished in a fairly subtle way: there is a good moment, for example, when the agents are all talking in a back-room in the Islamabad compound while an Obama presidential speech unspools in the background. The candidate says, suddenly, that his administration will not condone or engage in torture and will punish those who do. The agents all go quiet for one, two seconds, and then carry on talking. And that's it! There is no way that all the implications of torture are not at least conveyed in this film, even if they are not accurately presented.
Jennifer Ehle is a revelation as Jennifer Lynne Mathews, but the eagle-eyed will also spot Mark Strong from Our Friends in the North and (most bizarrely) John Barrowman!
Racist? It’s about as racist as you are.
Last edited:
craner
Beast of Burden
Just to add this: the essay-review e/y links to above is very badly written and rather overwrought but does link to an essay which is (in comparison) sublime and maybe the definitive thing written about the fiilm so far: The Monitor Mentality by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky. One point to add to this essay is to say that, in a way, the torture scenes go too far: in their chaotic and libidinal sadism they conflate Abu Ghraib with the entire "Enhanced Interrogation" programme; as somebody more informed put it, these people couldn't just break off and do a quick water-boarding session for every wrong answer, as the film shows. It was systematic: brutal but bureaucratic. On the other hand, at certain moments in certain areas the sadism was as sickening as suggested, and there is proof of it. There is also the implied differentiation between national intelligence and security agencies (the logic behind 'rendition') and this is subtly alluded to without having to be CLEARLY SPELT OUT.
e/y
Well-known member
I thought that essay was pretty off the mark, total garbage. Specifically b/c the main point that:
...which yes, IRL it is, but it is not something that I saw in ZDT at all. If anything, and not surprising for a Hollywood blockbuster, it came off as stressing the importance of the human factor of w/e in intelligence operations (down to reducing the work of entire departments to the heroic struggle of a photogenic protagonist). I wish Bigelow had made a movie that did Vishnevetsky describes.
All of this has been done within the last decade by other movies which have put more stress on these elements.
also:
...wrt to Greenwald's piece of ZDT is complete bullshit - Bigelow and the dude who wrote the movie have repeatedly made claims that they are presenting an accurate, neutral portrayal of the events. They may not directly claim to be journalists, but they are trying to sell their film as being true to IRL events.
...which yes, IRL it is, but it is not something that I saw in ZDT at all. If anything, and not surprising for a Hollywood blockbuster, it came off as stressing the importance of the human factor of w/e in intelligence operations (down to reducing the work of entire departments to the heroic struggle of a photogenic protagonist). I wish Bigelow had made a movie that did Vishnevetsky describes.
All of this has been done within the last decade by other movies which have put more stress on these elements.
also:
...wrt to Greenwald's piece of ZDT is complete bullshit - Bigelow and the dude who wrote the movie have repeatedly made claims that they are presenting an accurate, neutral portrayal of the events. They may not directly claim to be journalists, but they are trying to sell their film as being true to IRL events.