Skip to main content

Mark Cuban - Redacted

Pat Dollard is not impressed...

So far neither he or DePalma have explained how they can be “bringing the truth of the Iraq war to the American people”, as Louie DePalma has said, when neither of them have ever been to Iraq, filmed any of “Redacted” in Iraq, or spent one minute with any soldier in Iraq.

h/t to Ace.

Here's an article about DePalma and the movie in Venice.

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

Mark Cuban, in the comments to Pat Dollard's post says,

If and when you see Redacted, you will know it is definitely Anti War. But it is also Pro Troops. The hero is the soldier who recognizes that those involved in the crime (which takes up just a small part of the movie), are the aberration and someone needs to make sure the truth is told so not all troops are condemned.

Read what the article says about DePalma and what he said about the goal for fliming this movie and try to reconcile that with what Cuban had to say.

Since DePalma has stated that his goal is to "nauseate" the American public, I doubt very much that his "reality of what is happening in Iraq" is going to be a portrait of scores of heroic soldiers standing up for truth and justice against the aberration of a very few.

Pro-Troops. One is tempted to say, "this word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Palma also said that he would be making stuff up as he went on, "based" upon stuff he got off youtube and what not.

So what else is he making up and how do we tell what was based upon what? Naw, we're just supposed to sit in front of the dumb arse tube and listen to the prophet speak the Truth, I suppose.
Synova said…
*Brian* DePalma?
Synova said…
Yes, Brian.

I wonder if Dollard was saying "Louie" on purpose.
Ymarsakar said…
Whichever DePalma was doing the interview on the Reuters concerning his Redacted movie and its sources.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...