This post is a response to the irresponsible accusations about the movie Charlie Wilson's war made here. The post above talks about how bad the movie was.
Anyone who takes the trouble to look beyond the obvious would be able to appreciate that the movie was exactly as it should be in order to convey a message about how the people who suffer are always those who are in the battle zone, while the congressman enjoys his recliner and Julia Roberts. (Much like the trading in agricultural derivatives in the Indian market is making farmers suffer)
What does one look for in a movie? The impact, the story, the cinematography? Maybe for a non movie buff, all one looks for is the sleaze. However, being able to appreciate the finer nuances of a movie is what makes a movie worth watching.
First of all, the film is by no means, a "comedy". It wasn't meant to be one. It follows the normal Tom Hanks tradition of satire and sarcasm during lighter moments in order to convey a deeper message to a wider audience (the sleaze catering to a particularly shallow audience - north indians, for instance).
Second, if someone were to watch the movie and get ANYTHING out of it, it would be that it was so easy to wage war (getting 500 million dollars for the purpose) and pretty much impossible to get a million for reconstruction of schools. The movie is extremely relevant as of now as the US is treading the same path in Iraq. If a democrat gets elected, the promise to withdraw troops would result in a similar situation as has been shown here.
The entire movie talks of the futility of war and more relevantly, the futility of a cold war. It shows the amount of horse trading that seems necessary to ensure that weapons just reach the agents. The CIA agent explains the story of the Zen Master and the little boy at the end of the movie although there is an allusion to it right at the first meeting with Wilson. The station chief at Islamabad seem to echo the sentiment of the cold war. All this looks to show us how war serves no purpose.
Tom Hanks pulls off a Tom Hanks as usual and is as stunning as ever. Julia Roberts cant look bad no matter what she does or wears and the entire movie is built up brilliantly to deliver the message at the end. The ending would not have had its impact if it had not been built up they way it had. It is important, of course, to understand that the movie was screened at an International Relations course to show how insanely ludicrous and historically doctored it was. But that seems to have slipped notice. The movie makes you think. It makes everyone think. You would say something as insanely egoistic as dialogue being imperative only if you feel if u have a monopoly over thinking for yourself. You call it a premier legal institute. Maybe someone else, at least 2 other people in that room that day other than you could possibly think and understand the significance of the screening. I personally find nothing wrong with this movie being screened and would go as far as to say, it was a good choice.
I am confident that a blog entry is not a start of anything. You wanna actually do something abt it (and not just crib endlessly and yell at everyone in sight to get responsibility)? Then blogging is definitely not the answer. You have to start somewhere where it matters.
Lastly, Communism deserves to be stereotyped.
It is the most wretched form of government there is, was or ever will be.
Communist pigs do not value the meaning and fragility of life (here i refer to the communist leaders and not every communist citizen in general - after all the leaders are the basis for judging the cause anyway). Why then, should we respect theirs? I have been a Marxist socialist most of my life and the one thing I hate more than capitalist blood sucking, is communism.
I believe in one principle of morality around which i have structured
my entire life.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
This is a dialogue. :-P
It wasn't meant as egoism, when I wanted people to talk about this film. Sorry if it came out that way! It's just that people with different views should discuss them, and not just remain on the opposite sides of the fence, glaring at each other. We had no follow up in class - we usually don't. This is as good a place as any to have one. Blogging is not a complete answer.It is part of the answer. As you pointed out, the futility of war necessitates other modes of response. Dialogue is one of them. Your chosen mode of response, I'm sure, reflects that.
If the film is not meant to be a comedy, then much of the levity that it (sic) unintentionally causes is rather misplaced. I see no need to cater to the shallow audiences, whoever they may be.
The futility of war, in my opinion is not something that comes across. It seems to me that the film is saying, waging war is an adventure in the hands of this charismatic man, who is doing it all for your own good, and oh, by the way, here's a little footnote about how you have to follow it up with some reconstruction too. Ending the film with Charlie Wilson as a medal-receiving hero is on the wrong note entirely. Charlie Wilson is no hero. Consider that he went to work as a political lobbyist in Pakistan for about $360,000 a year. That should have been the point.
I'm not particularly fond of Communism either, but to say that all Communists are 'pigs' smacks of bigotry to me. My point was that Communists are people, too. Afghanis are dying. Communists are dying too. The tally used was in extreme bad taste.
What is frightening about this film is that it purports some sort of political revelation, of corruption and horse trading, as you. Yet, there are massive historical inaccuracies to make the film's story flow. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't claim to be a true story. Just because you want to expose corruption in one place, you can't whitewash it in another. This is why this film is one that is intellectually dishonest. It isn't necessarily BAD, as you say. It is however, sloppy.
Finally, since you were silly enough to tell Bones that you're writing a right-wing extremist post to wind me up and earn a nasty little post on my blog about you,I posted an extensive response here. Bad Bunny, no blog post for you.
oh damn..you gotta work harder man..she figured out your motives thanks to my loud broadcasting..muahaha..i got a mention in her posts and you still havent!
ich bin krieg!
like your disclaimer though..
I thought we were a team. I feel betrayed, and worse, stupid. How could u sell me out to HER of all ppl? HOW?
You see no need to cater to shallow audiences? Is this some sort of pseudo intellectual elitist crap? It is more important that shallow audiences are educated in topics that are important (yet not very interesting) than intellectuals who would or should probably know of such things. This is why adding a little masala in such movies is definitely advisable. Greater dissemination of the news would make a lot more sense.
Oh, and the whole egoism thing was an attempt at infuriating you. Obviously, considering I was betrayed beforehand, it had no effect. The film is definitely not saying what Charlie Wilson was good . It is passing no normative judgement whatsoever. What you see in the movie is what you want to see. The movie itself doesn't portray him as a hero. It portrays him as a washout who knew a little abt the international scene. Just because a movie follows someone as the main character, does not mean he's a hero. The Third Man is a clear example where the American is followed through the movie. He is by no means, a hero. The medal ceremony was applauding his effort in the breakup of the soviet union. Do you, normatively speaking, believe that the breakup of the soviet was not a good thing? I think it was good on so many levels that it is comparable to the fall of the Nazi Regime or the bringing down of the Berlin Wall.
The tally did not speak of human life at all. It referred to machinery being destroyed. If you were to look beyond it and say, oh! each copter had 2 ppl and they died, look at the amount of human life saved. Each helicopter killed dozens of people, and these were actual people (not communists - thts a joke - dont call me a bigot). The film is based on a true story and does not ever refer to itself as being historically accurate. It is a movie made for entertainment and for the purposes of accuracy, it fails miserably. I wouldn go so far as to say it is sloppy, though. This movie is not "From Russia, With Love". THAT, is irresponsible. So much so, that the name had to be changed before it was aired in India.
You're right though, this is a dialogue. Between two people who can do absolutely nothing abt anything, least of all their own lives. So what exactly did u say the purpose of this dialogue was?
Eh, well. Do I need to point out that irony of someone who titles his blog 'Cynicism Elite' saying something like that?
Handing him medals, showing his re-election, all celebrate him. There is no tone or indication that we shouldn't take him as anything but a good hearted bounder.
Each helicopter killed thousands of people, so discounting or even making light of those deaths is alright? If an eye for an eye is acceptable, tell me again, why is the movie, in your opinion, doing a good thing by supposedly showing the futility of war?
"..it is passing no normative judgment whatsoever"
"..the film is based on a true story and does not refer to itself as being historically accurate."
As far as I recall, there was a little notice about how this film represented a true story, in the beginning. As for the other statement, what,are you naive? Heh. Very amusing. All is not interpretive flux.
Ends do not justify means, at least in my view.
As to what this would achieve, well, we're both really thinking about this film. I'm guessing the filmmakers would have wanted that, so we're making good use of what we get. More than that, people who are reading this (yes, there are quite a few) are also, as a consequence, thinking about this.
I should be clear, that I don't believe one blog, or one discussion in a comment section of a blog will change the world. Yet, if it makes a small difference to someone, (whether you eventually convince me of your point of view or I convince you, or we end up still on the opposite sides of the argument), it will have been worth it. If you don't agree, you're welcome to end this anytime, by simply not replying.:-)
As for not being able to do anything about it in our lifetimes...now that's opening another can of worms. If you like, we can go into all that. For now, I'll just say that I don't agree, because we're in a fine institution, getting a fine education, and if we don't do anything with it, it will be a shame.
Banavar:
I have two basic problems with what you're saying.
1) On Communism: It is dangerous to comment upon philosophies and ideologies with imperfect knowledge of what they advocate. Before launching into a tirade about the evils of communism, one should take the trouble of informing oneself about what communism is as envisioned by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, and not the corrupted form of Stalin and Mao.
2) On the film: The continuous references to "those bloody communists" and "that pile of rocks, Afghanistan" betrays a pronounced lack of sensitivity, and will only result in continuing intolerance. One needs to understand where other people are coming from, to connect with them, and to give credence to their points of view, even if one disagrees with them. And only if there is a paradigm shift of thought process, that is, only if people, ordinary people, change the way they think about others, can there be any hope of achieving peace/tolerance. Dialogue, therefore, is not exactly useless.
- Gautam
Oh, hey, going with what Gautam said, when I say I see no need to cater to shallow audiences, I don't mean that political films are for the intelligentsia alone.My point is that it need not be vulgar to be effective. There is a way to get a message across clearly, and powerfully - this is not it.
Also, you can't claim that the movie is not passing normative judgment, is not historically accurate, and then say it is helping in greater dissemination of the 'news'. Any film that purports to be true - and this does- is offering an interpretation of events, and is therefore \certainly passing judgment on events one way or anything. Unless you believe there is no political stance here at all, and it is for 'entertainment purposes only', which brings us back to whether it was appropriate for a course on International Relations.
First of all, it is a bad idea for me to continue on my earlier line of argument as it was meant to incite, and quite obviously seems to have achieved its purpose. Moving beyond that and the irony you see in the title of my blog (the reasons for which having little significance to this post), however, here's how i actually feel abt this.
But before that, I think this is better solved by asking some pointed questions so I understand EXACTLY where u stand on the issue.
1) Do you think the movie is bad, normatively, politically speaking?
2) Going by the movie's portrayal of Wilson, do you think he's a bad person or any less than a hero?
3) Who, in history, in your opinion is a hero, assuming u answer no to q 2?
4)"As for the other statement, what,are you naive? Heh. Very amusing. All is not interpretive flux" Which statement?
5)War occurs for a great many reasons. Cultural differences, intolerance, territorial issues, religion etc etc. The futility of war is much greater than a question of whether an "eye for an eye" is an adequate solution. In this regard, I dont think I grasp what you mean.
The statement ("who can do absolutely nothing abt anything, least of all their own lives.") has no correlation to our lifetimes. It was meant to a cheap shot abt how u lack control of your own life. Obviously, u dint read it right. Irrelevant now.
In response to Gautham,
1) On Communism: Very true. I must confess here, that I am highly illiterate. But what little I know of communism, has made me adopt this view on it. Please allow me to clarify, as i already have in the original entry, that I do not refer here to Marx. I refer, rather, to Lenin, Stalin and Mao. However, your basic premise would still be accurate. I know very little in general.
2) On the film: I completely appreciate that the History course has done you a world of good. However, look at this practically. Do u think its possible that moviemakers, or world leaders would be sensitive to other cultures? Do u think being tolerant is something any normal human would like to be, unless he HAS to? True, there are exceptons, but man is, essentially, selfish and would like everyone to follow his/her own ideology (and religion?) even if the ideology has to be shoved down the others throats. I think peace/tolerance is a pipe dream. Nothing you, or me or even Chand Bibi thinks is of any consequence because we form a very small minority. The majority of the people worldwide are bred on hatred. They are taught, from birth, to be mindful of other cultures (not saying its wrong or bad). If you consider that spreading a message of love to the people would achieve anything, I feel history has conclusively proved otherwise, time and again.
How would a film maker attract a shallow audience, if all it has is excellent dialogue? The film does not purport to be true. It purports to be based on a true story. There is obviously a political stance. All I'm saying is it shows both the bad and the good sides. It tries to be neutral while following the story of one Congressman. It shows his flaws alongside his virtues. The final judgement lies on the viewers shoulders. This is true of very few movies which seek to show a hero . Such movies focus on the virtues and ignore the vices. However, this movie had equal quantities of both, the non chalance and rebellious Avrakatos showing the stupidity of Wilson's way of doing things.
Lastly, I do not think dialogue is useless. I just think dialogue among us (three as of now) serves absolutely no purpose in grand scheme of things. You may change my mind and all of us might become tolerant like Gautam. Then what? We go arnd changing ppl one at a time? Is it just me, or does that sound absolutely silly?
Dialogue, in the International Relations class seems to be a better option as u rightly pointed out. Why not suggest it (or rather force it)? It would take only 2 or 3 ppl to get a debate sparked off, anyway. Anything this controversial would need someone to play devil's advocate though. But even after this, u may convince 50 ppl. U hope that this translates into something bigger? Its obvious its easier to convince ppl to be intolerant than tolerant. Look at Modi, hes done it time and again. Ur work with a dialogue in an Intl Relations class would hold no significance to someone who has been raised to believe that a segment of ppl are evil or stupid and refuses to question his beliefs. This someone, is, unfortunately pretty much everyone barring a few intellectuals who make an effort to be tolerant. But I guess u have to start somewhere. To ease ur conscience. Cos it has no effect in the grand scheme of things.
(The olympic protests just doesn't seem to deter China, does it?)
I think P Dot should just screen Lion King and be done with it. Nevermind the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with international relations. At least it wont force people to type out such incredibly long comments that they rival the original post itself in terms of length ;P
In few short sentences, therefore, your stance appears to be: The world is an evil place. Most people are evil. We can't do anything about it. So let's not even try.
I don't accept that. I think it's cynical in the extreme. I think it's the easy way out. We don't need to change the world. We can't change the world. But we can make a start by changing how we think about things ourselves.
So we change how we think about things ourselves. Then? What does it achieve? Does it change anything at all? Will us thinking differently make any difference to anyone but us?
If uve already conceded that u dont need to change the world and that you cant, even if u wanted, what exactly are u making a start towards, anyway?
There's a rather big difference between changing the world inasmuch as ending world poverty and ending war, and changing what is in your power to change. I'm surprised you can't see that.
In any event, posting here seems much like talking to a brick wall, so this is my last response. If you want to be a cynic and spend all of your life ranting, then all power to you. I think it's an absolutely miserable, meaningless and pathetic way to live one's life.
Ohhhh... Hitting where it hurts eh? Somehow you haven't ever talked of this distinction earlier. I'm glad you see the distinction though. It'll stop you from being miserable, as you put it. (Even if its a fool's paradise)
Just for my understanding, you're making a start to changing what's in your power to change. (And what exactly is in your power to change? Circuitous argument. Best to quit while you think you're ahead)
You and your meaningful, dignified and distinguished life (and comments) will of course be sorely missed at the blog.
waa..these uncles remind me of a scene inside my head
bill hicks says:"you're not alive until you're in my phonebook"
uncle says: "well you may be misguided here. I believe that "life" begins when the fertilized egg turns into an embryo. it is important not to misinform with reckless ideas sir. of course if you truly subscribe to this line of "thought" then you must be leading a pathetic life"
of course you're far from being funny banavar or even remotely likeable but yes you have succeeded..you wanted them uncles' panties all twisted,you sure got 'em.
I dont really think u grasp the situation here. Its NOT about what one says in jest. Its about the facts. The truth. The cold, hard, bitter truth. Can't you appreciate that, you thick skulled idiot?
It's because of ppl like you that the world is so hopelessly ruined. Wake up and smell the coffee. The age of Bhatia is upon us.
...And God said, "Let there be peace and tolerance..." and there was Bhatia.
Post a Comment