 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: "Apocalypse Now:" a very overrated film. posted by tinear on October 11, 2006 at 10:36:49:
"In general, the problem with our Vietnam movies is that they must exalt the Americans when, in fact, we were hardly "heroes."
"Casualties of War" is a far superior film. "And therein lies the problem. You are looking for a film to tell the Vietnam story in such a way that it is consistent with your political viewpoints. Which is fine. But because the film, in your view, does not comport with your political beliefs, does not a bad film make.
Not having scene the film in some time, and am not a rabid fan of the film, I cannot be too specific, but I'll try:
(1) I did not regard the Duvall character as herioc. I regarded him as a caricature of some soldiers - war is a vocation, not a blip in one's life. THIS was his holiday. You may regard it as cartoonish, but those scenes certainly communicated, to those not predisposed to avoid the point, what Coppola was attempting to show.
(2) Sheen is not in the top echelon of actors. But for this role, he was believable. The disenchanted soldier, likely went to Vietnam believing Johnson and McNamara's propaganda on television, then landing, and finding a different reality. He did the deer in the headlights thing well. His scenes with Brando underscored him not being a "heavyweight." Ever consider that same statement would apply to a litany of actors who have shared a scene with Brando? Thought not. But then that would be inconvenient to your argument.
(3) "In general, the problem with our Vietnam movies is that they must exalt the Americans when, in fact, we were hardly "heroes."
"Casualties of War" is a far superior film.This statement sums up your real issues with Apocalypse Now. Casualities of War is a good, but a different, film. I dare say that the overwhelming majority of soldiers who fought in Vietnam were good men. Casualties of War is about the very few that were not. It is not a film about Vietnam, but is a small story of a few men. I suspect that you have not progressed to the point that most of the Vietnam anti-war crowd have, the leaders of which have expressed remorse that while they protested the war, they also protested the soldiers that fought, and that perhaps they should have protested the war and embraced the soldiers.
Heroes can be such without acting in a noble cause. I dunno' Tin, the soldier who smothers a grenade during Vietnam, saving other soldier's lives, is a hero in my book, regardless of the politicos that initiated the war. At least to the other soldier's families. Or perhaps that soldier should have allowed the other soldiers to expire? They probably deserved to die because they answered their countries' call to fight in a war you disagreed with. I am curious - how old were you when the war ended?
"Good cartoon, yes, but again a gigantic breach of directorial decision-making."
I'll bite. Please explain. With some facts. Not merely conclusions.
I am not sure why a film cannot depict the majority of soldiers who were good men, did not commit atrocities, murder children, etc. without being realistic. That you would place Casualities of War as a better film Apocalypse Now speaks volumes about your political beliefs, and maybe that chip.
Follow Ups:
annihilating war upon a people that NEVER attacked them, directly or indirectly and didn't even pose any sort of future threat. At the age of 18, young men, hopefully, have been reasoning creatures for a decade, at least. The innocent, pie-eyed, manipulated soldier boy isn't an argument I accept, having been 18 in '66.
Since Nuremberg, following orders in the military hasn't been an acceptable excuse for atrocities.
Yes, it is nice to blame Vietnam on Presidents and generals but the fact is, with a drafted army, the INDIVIDUAL always has a choice. Unless, of course, you disbelieve in free will, which is another discussion, altogether.
My argument is that morality--- or lack of it--- in a work of art IS important, even crucial, in considering its worth. But I think AN falls below greatness even in purely artistic terms.
Perhaps its a problem inherent from following the story of a group of American soldiers: making them the centerpiece almost certainly makes the audience empathethic, a phenomenon as strange as the Stockholm Syndrome.
The audience also empathizes with those whom it most closely resembles: the Vietnamese are "foreign," different, and almost "primitive" in their grass huts.
All stops are pulled out to make Sheen a "victim," an almost "innocent" participant in his crimes. Remember, he was an assassin, this was not a one-time mission.
You grossly were manipulated in the film and I find it almost astonishing you didn't and still don't realize it.
How many veterans you have had the courage to discuss this matter in person?And here is the hypocritcal nature of your argument. Many in the liberal community have argue that most of the solders were not willing participants, that their economic station in life forced them to enter the military before there was a draft, which then forced them to go to Vietnam. But not, the leading liberal thinker on these here boards, calls them willing participants. I guess when the rich boys are allowed to defer, then let's talk about the non-voluntariness of service. When not convenient, let's talk about all these eighteen year old boys being murderers. At least have the courage to call them what you think them to be.
Comparing Nuremberg and Vietnam is wrong. The United States entered a Civil war on behalf one side. Which I think, in retrospect was wrong, it was certainly defensible. Should the South Vietnamese people have been allowed to be governed by a government of their own choice, no matter how corrupt? I think so. That the U.S. chose to interveve to protect that right was probably a mistake, it was philosophically defensible. Because a small minority of soldiers committed atrocities does not change that fact.
On the other hand, W.W.II was a war as a result of one countries aggression towards a race of people within it's borders, but, more relevantly, because of that countries' aggression toward other sovereign nations. The Nuremberg trials were designed, primarily, to bring Nazis who were responsible for killing Jews to justice. Those were not acts of war, but of civilian crimes by a government on it's own people.
Morality is important in art? Well, is it essential? Without dredging up more vitriol, I am of the opinion that Saving Private Ryan is the best anti-war film ever made. Why? Because it shows, better than any other film of which I am aware, what war is really like, in the trenches. Yet there is no overt message that "war is bad." Your political viewpoint suggests that if SPR were made with the Vietnam War as a backdrop, it would cease to be a good film, art, because it did not do justice to what you regard as important - depicting the Vietnamese as "people", or showing them backwards. On the other hand, if Germans are protrayed in a bad light, who cares.
And therein lies my point. A good film should be a good film, regardless of the backdrop. I think Coppola was making an anti-war film, he simply may have been using a language that you did not understand. Sheen was made amoral by the war, Duvall was crazy, not someone I would trust to pump my gas, and that to some people war is a profitable enterprise. Those are not the statements of an amoral man or film.
during your replies. Your lack of self-control really does make discussion challenging.
How many veterans you have had the courage to discuss this matter in person?
--Well, that's hardly pertinent but I have many friends who were Vets and with whom I've disagreed for years. I also ran a homeless shelter for years whose clients predominantly were Vietnam-era vets."And here is the hypocritcal nature of your argument. Many in the liberal community have argue that most of the solders were not willing participants, that their economic station in life forced them to enter the military before there was a draft, which then forced them to go to Vietnam.
--If this is their argument (why do I feel it's really yours?) it is incorrect. When we had our 500,000+ troop levels, which we did for years, in 'nam, the vast majority were draftees."But not, the leading liberal thinker on these here boards, calls them willing participants. I guess when the rich boys are allowed to defer, then let's talk about the non-voluntariness of service. When not convenient, let's talk about all these eighteen year old boys being murderers. At least have the courage to call them what you think them to be."
--I should leave you a tip for bringing so many words to my mouth. Surely you'd agree that one could be a volunteer and then refuse to fight in a specific war? In other words, a man cannot be coerced into killing another.
Secondly, "murderers" is your word. I think a lot of young men went over to have fun, shoot guns... be John Waynes. They didn't think of the children, women, elderly, and innocent men they'd be killing or help to be killed. Ignorance or non-consideration of consequences, of course, is not a strong defense."Comparing Nuremberg and Vietnam is wrong. The United States entered a Civil war on behalf one side. Which I think, in retrospect was wrong, it was certainly defensible. Should the South Vietnamese people have been allowed to be governed by a government of their own choice, no matter how corrupt? I think so. That the U.S. chose to interveve to protect that right was probably a mistake, it was philosophically defensible. Because a small minority of soldiers committed atrocities does not change that fact."
--You need to read a condensed version of The Pentagon Papers. Hint: we didn't intervene out of any great desire to see a better life for the Vietnamese. One reason was the Domino Theory, advanced first by Ike. Another was to send a message to China that we wouldn't stand for communism in a SE country. Then there was the fact that Vietnam was the "rice basket" of SE Asia. You may wish to take a gander at F. Fitzgerald's "Fire in the Lake" and be disabused of your right-wing rantings."On the other hand, W.W.II was a war as a result of one countries aggression towards a race of people within it's borders, but, more relevantly, because of that countries' aggression toward other sovereign nations. The Nuremberg trials were designed, primarily, to bring Nazis who were responsible for killing Jews to justice. Those were not acts of war, but of civilian crimes by a government on it's own people.:"
--Arguing with yourself again? The Nuremberg PRINICIPLE is that "just following orders" is NOT a justifiable defense in conflict of ANY sort."Morality is important in art? Well, is it essential? Without dredging up more vitriol, I am of the opinion that Saving Private Ryan is the best anti-war film ever made. Why? Because it shows, better than any other film of which I am aware, what war is really like, in the trenches. Yet there is no overt message that "war is bad." Your political viewpoint suggests that if SPR were made with the Vietnam War as a backdrop, it would cease to be a good film, art, because it did not do justice to what you regard as important - depicting the Vietnamese as "people", or showing them backwards. On the other hand, if Germans are protrayed in a bad light, who cares."
--I think "Saving Private Ryan" is an outstanding film precisely for its verisimilitude. It also manages the very difficult task of showing war for what it is... a great waste which turns ordinary fellows into killers.
Of course morality is critical to a film's standing. Art does not occur in a vacuum. For instance, slasher films which glorify torture and killing as "sport' no matter how cleverly filmed, well-acted, or perfectly scripted must always be execrable trash.
Art is, after all, for human beings, not wild animals.And therein lies my point. A good film should be a good film, regardless of the backdrop. I think Coppola was making an anti-war film, he simply may have been using a language that you did not understand. Sheen was made amoral by the war, Duvall was crazy, not someone I would trust to pump my gas, and that to some people war is a profitable enterprise. Those are not the statements of an amoral man or film.
---You have twice missed my points about why this film is amoral. Go back and try again.
"How many veterans you have had the courage to discuss this matter in person?
--Well, that's hardly pertinent but I have many friends who were Vets and with whom I've disagreed for years. I also ran a homeless shelter for years whose clients predominantly were Vietnam-era vets."It is pertinent, because you indicted those soldiers that chose, if they volunteered, to fulfill their obligation (contract), or if they were drafted, their countries order. You essentially called them killers, a point which you reiterate in your post - "They didn't think of the children, women, elderly, and innocent men they'd be killing or help to be killed." If killing children is not murder, then what is it? At least have the courage label it as you describe it.
You are able to label these soldiers are killer. I was simply wondering whether that was a view you provide here, somewhat anonymously, without actually confronting those you are accusing, or whether you have the "cajones" to tell these soldiers to their faces that they were "killer" at best, or murderers or aiders of murderers of children. I think I know the answer.
"--If this is their argument (why do I feel it's really yours?) it is incorrect. When we had our 500,000+ troop levels, which we did for years, in 'nam, the vast majority were draftees."
Givne your age during that period in our history, I am surprised that you missed the point. The anti-war groups complained that this was a poor man's war not only because the poor enlisted man presumably had no other choice but to enter the military for economic purposes, but also because, those drafted, lacked the finanical wherewithall and family connections to either defer, or dodge the draft. Therefore, there was no socio-economic difference between the drafted and the enlisted soldier.
"Surely you'd agree that one could be a volunteer and then refuse to fight in a specific war? In other words, a man cannot be coerced into killing another."
Certainly. Which dovetails to the original point - have you personally criticized as killer those soldiers who allowed themselves to be cooerced into killing another - or do you leave that to posting, where there is little chance of consequence (read - pissed off vet).
"They didn't think of the children, women, elderly, and innocent men they'd be killing or help to be killed. Ignorance or non-consideration of consequences, of course, is not a strong defense."
You know this? How about those massive bombing runs over Berlin? You mean these soldiers were duped into thinking there is no collateral damage? Not only do you think them murderers (my word - but call it what it is), you think them stupid and naive. Heightened sense of superiority?
"You need to read a condensed version of The Pentagon Papers. Hint: we didn't intervene out of any great desire to see a better life for the Vietnamese. One reason was the Domino Theory, advanced first by Ike. Another was to send a message to China that we wouldn't stand for communism in a SE country. Then there was the fact that Vietnam was the "rice basket" of SE Asia. You may wish to take a gander at F. Fitzgerald's "Fire in the Lake" and be disabused of your right-wing rantings."
No doubt our intervention was due to a perceived need to protect our "interests", which at that time was the containment of communism. But this was a war, ultimately, to stop South Vietnam from becoming communist, as opposed to ending communism in North Vietnam. At the end of the day, it was a civil war, whereby North Vietnam was attempting to make South Vietnam communist, thereby uniting Vietnam. I merely wrote that this was a defensible position - not the U.S. motivation.
"Arguing with yourself again? The Nuremberg PRINICIPLE is that "just following orders" is NOT a justifiable defense in conflict of ANY sort."
That was not the point of Nuremberg. The "following orders" defense has been used as a defense to committing atrocities long before Nuremberg. The purpose of Nuremberg was to bring criminals to justice. Some Nazi underlings attempted to defend their actions by claiming they were ordered to commit atrocities, and had no choice, while others offered no defense. Nuremberg had nothing to do with those soldiers who fought in uniform against allied forces. Following your line of logic, every soldier who fought for Germany (most of which were not Nazis) would have been prosecuted for killing allies, for bombing London, for pillaging the Soviet Union, etc.
Article 6 of the Nuemberg Charter:
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such planYour statement that Nuremberg stood for the proposition that "following orders" is not a defense in conflicts of ANY conflict is factually and historically incorrect. Many of the defendants never wore a uniform.
"Of course morality is critical to a film's standing. Art does not occur in a vacuum. For instance, slasher films which glorify torture and killing as "sport' no matter how cleverly filmed, well-acted, or perfectly scripted must always be execrable trash.
Art is, after all, for human beings, not wild animals."Which would seem to run counter to your love of Tarantino, particularly Pulp Fiction. Jules viciously murders for a living, killing unarmed, helpless people. His punishment? Walking into the sunlight a' la Caine. Marsellus, the ringleader of the carnage, calls his peeps over to give some rapists "what for", apparently carrying on his criminal enterprise with nary a reprocussion. Maybe you are a proponent of moral relativity. But heaven forbid a filmmaker not protray Vietnamese people to your satisfaction. I might start throwing out all those John Wayne westerns where the Indians say "How."
"---You have twice missed my points about why this film is amoral. Go back and try again."
I have not missed them. They simply make no sense.
At this rate, you can just transfer all your worth to me 'cause the tip is a growin'.
You mistake "purpose" of Nuremberg to the principle which it established: a combatant may not commit crimes against civilians or enemy soldiers and claim they were ordered to do so and therefore were only following orders. You seem unable to limit your arguments to germane issues. Uniforms, Nazis, etc. are not pertinent: btw, soldiers at any level found to have worked at the concentration camps WERE prosecuted.
The link here to our argument is that American soldiers were in uniform and carried out much violence against civilian personnel, you may wish to study up on the Phoenix program.
Of course Allied forces could have been tried under Nuremberg rules, too, but you know the saying about winners in war, right? (Your point about civilians being tried makes what point? Duh.).
Are you conscious of the fact that once you get your butt shot off on one of your major points you shift to another, unaware of the sudden breeze? Example: percentage of Vietnam troops that were draftees.
Anyhow, if you don't know the difference between killers and murderers you should study the terms: they are not interchangeable.
I told you I've spoken of the issues with Vietnam era vets, that personally I know many (it is my generation, after all) and some went to my military high school with me, and that I spoke to many when I ran a homeless shelter.
What that means to the veracity of my arguments only you know...
To return for a moment: you don't think SPR is anti-war? You may wish to return and listen a bit more closely to the words of the Tom Hanks character. Yes, there was much valor shown in the film but what a grand waste of humanity, what a horrific enterprise.
Apocalypse? Sheen carries right on.
Of course, there is a vast difference between WWII and Vietnam: when one is attacked by an enemy that has murdered hundreds of thousands and whose ally busily is swallowing Europe it is quite a different proposition than, 13,000 miles away, decide to intervene in a (your assertion) civil war between two factions that had been at war for decades and that had just thrown out its colonial power (France; you do know it was known as Indo-China, right?)?
Since (really) you seem uanble to grasp the cogent argument I twice previously made, I'll walk you through it:
A war film about a failed war, wherein the aggressor (you do concede Vietnam had not attacked the US [here again, I'm assuming also you know the Gulf of Tonkin "attack" was fictional?] is the only force portrayed INVARIABLY ends up making heroes of the killers: in the viewers' eyes.
It is a well-known effect in film.
As I pointed out, this occurs in "gangster" films, as well.
Sheen AGAINST GREAT ODDS is tasked with a terrible challenge. One HAS to hope for his success if for no other reason to keep the film "going."
Impossible for the viewer NOT to become supportive; as I pointed out, this collusion is similar to the Stockholm Syndrome.
Anyhow, the Vietnamese largely are NOT portrayed.
So, an American director attempting to portray Vietnam realistically, fairly... must have tremendous skill and take great care or his effort (even inadvertently) will be that of chest-thumping.
You seem unable to see the moral in-equivalency of German soldiers, Vietnamese soldiers.
Vietnamese were fighting to determine the fate of THEIR country.
Germans... to determine the fate of others'.
Since you cannot seem to discuss without creating myriad straw men and then standing back and admiring your work, I'll have to say "thanks" but "no, thanks" to a continuation of this.
"You mistake "purpose" of Nuremberg to the principle which it established: a combatant may not commit crimes against civilians or enemy soldiers and claim they were ordered to do so and therefore were only following orders."You can read, but not analyze. Nuremberg did not estalbish that a combatant may not commit crimes against civilians claiming they were ordered to do so any more than the state statute of fantasy land where you live estalblished that murder is wrong.
"You seem unable to limit your arguments to germane issues. Uniforms, Nazis, etc. are not pertinent: btw, soldiers at any level found to have worked at the concentration camps WERE prosecuted."
Once again, you are factually incorrect. The IMT tribunal (International Military Tribunal) tried 22 German war criminals, and Americans another 12 under the rubric of the IMT. They did not prosecute every guard at every concentration camp. Try again.
"The link here to our argument is that American soldiers were in uniform and carried out much violence against civilian personnel, you may wish to study up on the Phoenix program."
No doubt that American soldiers committed war crimes, I never insinuated otherwise, and should be punished accordingly. The problem is that you indict every member of the service because they served based upon the actions of a few bad soldiers. That is where we depart.
"Of course Allied forces could have been tried under Nuremberg rules, too, but you know the saying about winners in war, right? (Your point about civilians being tried makes what point? Duh.)."
Maybe under the Nuremberg "rules", but not at Nuremberg, because, as you are probably aware, Nuremberg was specifically chartered to punish Nazi War Criminals. Not allied soldiers.
"Are you conscious of the fact that once you get your butt shot off on one of your major points you shift to another, unaware of the sudden breeze?"
I have never had my butt shot off. Have you? May explain a lot, as I think most of your brain is located in your posterior.
"Anyhow, if you don't know the difference between killers and murderers you should study the terms: they are not interchangeable."
I know the legal difference. Killing defenseless women and children is murder, which is how you characterized the actions of the American Soldier in Vietnam. Perhaps you can finally bring yourself to call the soldiers what you have been describing their actions to be, but have been unwilling to label. By your own description, the men who bombed Berlin would also be murderers.
"I told you I've spoken of the issues with Vietnam era vets, that personally I know many (it is my generation, after all) and some went to my military high school with me, and that I spoke to many when I ran a homeless shelter."
Again, you read but do not understand. Have you called them baby killers? Not merely asked them whether they want bread with their soup.
"To return for a moment: you don't think SPR is anti-war?"
Man, you really are daft. Please re-read. I specifically wrote that I thought SPR was the greatest anti-war film, for the reasons I wrote. Time to check the meds.
"Of course, there is a vast difference between WWII and Vietnam: when one is attacked by an enemy that has murdered hundreds of thousands"
This is choice. Ever seen Animal House? Belushi screems "When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" Um, Tin, apparently your knowledge of history is as vast as your knowledge of Architectects. The Germans never attacked the U.S., and hundreds of thousands did not die at Pearl Harbor. If I need a mental image of you, I guess I need only watch Animal House. (I hope you got better grades)
"decide to intervene in a (your assertion) civil war between two factions that had been at war for decades and that had just thrown out its colonial power (France; you do know it was known as Indo-China, right?)"
Here is what happened. North and South Vietnam, agreed that they would have a nationwide vote in 1956. Previously France provided military and economic help to Vietnam. South Vietnam was formed from the former French compatriots. When it became evident that South Vietnam would loose the nationwide vote, they decided that they would not acquiesce ot the vote. France decided (probably prudently) that they were not willing to expend the troops necessary to defend South Vietnam. The U.S. then entered the fray for the French. committing troops in 1965, advisors in 1959.
When Diem canceled elections, North Vietnam began forming and funding the nice guys now known as the Vietcong to bring down the South Vietnamese government. Rather than attempt a political solution, using such things as world pressure, which we are seeing now with Korea, North Vietnam attempted a military solution. Oddly (or perhaps not) enough, you have no critism for North Vietnam for not seeking a diplomatic solution.
"INVARIABLY ends up making heroes of the killers: in the viewers' eyes."
You still have yet to provide the difference, in your estimation, between killers and murderers. Perhaps another try. The second part of your sentence displays your arrogance. You assume that because you interpreted a scene or a movie a certain way, then most of the other viewer's did so as well. I never took from the film that the Americans, on the whole, were heroes, or that the war was just. Perhaps you believe that unless the film depicts Vietnamese as you would like them depicted it there, de facto, means that the Americans are protrayed as heroes. That is your hang up, not the film's.
"One HAS to hope for his success if for no other reason to keep the film "going."
Completely incorrect. It could be a matter of not whether he will unsuccessful, but when. The WHEN is what keeps the film going, not the WHETHER. Which is why most bad guys die at the end of the film. You confuse success with morality.
"Anyhow, the Vietnamese largely are NOT portrayed."
Because, as nother poster accurately pointed out, it is not a Vietnam film per se, but only uses it as a backdrop, for the same reason that SPR could have taken place during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Korean War, or the Vietnamese War. But then, that salient fact does not comport with your political views.
"You seem unable to see the moral in-equivalency of German soldiers, Vietnamese soldiers."
You really are a dolt. Care to specify?
"Vietnamese were fighting to determine the fate of THEIR country."
South or North? They were two countries, both sovereign. Who fired first? Much like North and South Ireland. East and West Germany. North and South Korea. They all co-exist, to degrees, somewhat peacefully. North Vietnam decided a military solution was appropriate, rather than maintain two sovereign nations, and freely allowing people to decide on which side they wanted to live. Hardly commendable and deserving of accolades.
A war film about a failed war, wherein the aggressor...is the only force portrayed INVARIABLY ends up making heroes of the killers: in the viewers' eyes.
It is a well-known effect in film.
--------------------------------------------------------------------I gather you must be a huge A Clockwork Orange fan.
Seriously, climb outside your box, or at least try.
Otherwise, if you're really looking for something to tell you right from wrong because you cant figure it out yourself, stay away from art and stick with fables, comic books, and polemics, and all the other pleasant guides for goodness.
Art demands critical participation.
Has Apocalypse got its problems? Sure.
But none of them have to do with its morality, its politics, or how closely its sketch of an insane war may or may not have mirrored an actual American conflict with the North Viet Namese.
To be candid, I cant understand how you can criticize the film
on moral grounds- Appocalypse Now! is no more a film about Viet Nam than The Godfather is a film about the Mafia.Both films are uncompromising meditations on the jungle that is morality itself.
... are similar, but I do think, although I completely accept your analysis of nthe film, you have missed the (or at least "a") point:
America is grossly manipulated.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
