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

How Suzanne Brockman lost me.

I just finished reading the latest paperback from Suzanne Brockmann. _Dark of Night_. I'm disappointed and that's a sad thing because I've absolutely loved her series of romances about SEAL team 16 and the Troubleshooters. Aparently I'm not alone. My complaint isn't the same as most of the others... I'm great with Sophia and Dave. I even am okay with Tracey being people smart. She and Decker did seem to come out of left field. I thought Decker was great even if I thought his overwhelming conflict was pretty lame. What I didn't care for was the politics. I read for escapism, for studly dangerous men acting like men, for sex, and adventure with guns, where our military are the good guys and the SEALs are supermen and military contractor's are heroes, too. (I wonder if Ms. Brockmann realizes that the Troubleshooters ARE Blackwater?) I do not read sexy action adventure to be presented with a *cause*. It's small things but they don...

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...

The Shooter

I just watched the DVD. When I saw trailers for this I wanted to see it. It's the sort of movie that I usually enjoy. It wasn't bad. In fact it was pretty good in some ways and the annoying bits weren't too hard to ignore. The end was sort of bad. Not the choices that I'd make. It took conspiracy a bit too far, away from conspiracy to "this is the way the world works." It *should* have been enough to expose the Senator and his fellows. Where was the press in this? The idea wasn't too bad. The speech his spotter's widow gave about her dead husband's choices was good. (Though why she'd go back to using her maiden name I can't imagine.) Among all those willing to look the other way were several people who were... righteous. But overall it wasn't a "conspiracy" movie. There wasn't a "conspiracy" there was only finding out the "truth" of reality. In this world president Bush re...