 
|
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 |
58.109.51.146
In Reply to: Yes, it's a truthful depiction of what their lives are like in Iraq. The posted by tinear on March 15, 2007 at 09:10:44:
... and was immediately speechless... yes. I know its a cinema but you get the idea...
The actors were amazing and the tension was palpable.
The way they thought everything they had wanted was coming true when the Americans arrived only to have the army go past them as if they weren't there spoke louder than rhetoric ever could.
These children were sidelined in their own homeland... or what was left of it. Not even pawns in the game.
Follow Ups:
Believe me I was no fan of the invasion and am no fan of the occupation but I didn't see it that way.Yes, the couple of shots of the soldiers arriving in conveys showed them not paying attention to the kids but they were also just getting to an area that may have included people who wanted to fight them and were being professional soldiers. We never saw them hanging out once the place was secured. There was however a strong indication that they were interacting nicely with the people, especially the children as demonstrated when the boys were talking to Satellite at the end... bringing him the arm of Saddam and letting him know that the kids were on the hill with the soldiers watching TV (and that the soldiers had told one of the boys what kinds of things they'd buy from them - for dollars - so that they wouldn't have to keep risking life and limb to dig up mines). That scene certainly made it seem like the villagers and refugees still believed that the arrival of the Americans was a good and very promising thing.
If you add that all up I don't think those couple of scenes during the soldiers' arrival were illustrating what you think they were illustrating. Knowing how things have turned and being against the war/occupation could make one read it that way but I - at least - saw it differently (of course that doesn't make me correct and/or I could be mis-reading your point but there you have it).
FWIW the movie's been widely hailed as apolitical and even pro-American/invasion
And, as a purely speculative aside, my guess is that since they shot this in Iraq that they were real soldiers who were allowed to participate as sort of anonymous extras but not have any speaking parts... hence not showing them do anything more than running down the road with their fingers on the trigger (could have been filming them doing a regular patrol).
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
... filmed more or less going about their regular work.
Also many of the children may have been real... but I don't agree that US soldiers apparently telling these street kids what they wanted to loot is much sign of interaction... any more than using native prostitutes during wartime (and this is not just an American hobby).
Its just another sign of subjugation. To me at any rate.
I don't really think it is a political film... at least not in the common meaning but any film based during real world events has a political dimension.
"...but I don't agree that US soldiers apparently telling these street kids what they wanted to loot is much sign of interaction... any more than using native prostitutes during wartime (and this is not just an American hobby)."My impression was that the American soldiers were trying to give the kids an alternate source of funding so they wouldn't keep feeling compelled to try and defuse landmines.
And yeah, it can't help but have a political dimension and for sure part of what made it so hard to watch was knowing that the realities of life under US occupation didn't come close to measuring up to their hopes about the effects of the invasion.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
like this relatively are unknown while dreck plays on five screens in a 20 screen complex and endlessly hang around.
... prefer escapist entertainment.
I could rant and rave about the necessity under corporate capitalism to alleviate the tedious nature of the worker drone lifestyle, but who would want to listen to me?
Not even me!
People like to escape to a funnier, sexier, more pleasant place. A place where people can be in control of their lives, and I can understand that completely.
What I do tend to dislike is that what might be called political art is criticised for its demand that you think and because it can be used as propaganda, whilst escapist art is not, despite it almost exclusively being propaganda or at least a numbing against the painful realities of life.
I think the idea of escapism has been grossly abused. I think it died long time ago together with that image of a poor NYC seamstress who cries in the movie theater over some sad ending, before returning to her tiny room with two pair of stockings - one on her, one drying on the clothline. O'Henry... really... doesn't really exist in modern life. People just go for fun and entertainment.
Perhaps a curious question, but from time to time I watch the WWE, although not much now that the characters seem so half hearted, but that's another story...
Anyway one night, Vince McMann, the chairman and founder, I think, of the company was giving one of his "wind up the audience" speeches and he came out with something along the lines of "people like me are rich because we provide people like you with entertainment to brighten up your boring dull lives with your boring dull jobs".
Just as Caesar could have done at The Coliseum perhaps.
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 ]