- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,663
- Reactions
- 7,514
That’s Logan Lucky.Hogan Lucky
Pretty decent heist movie from the director of the Ocean's trilogy.
Not as smart as Gene Hackman's Heist but it catches you. Don't remember a dull moment.
The Post
Top cast directed by Spielberg so it's watchable on that cinematic perspective. But this being one of Speilberg's "serious" movies, it's a lightweight and biased towards American exceptionalism, freedom, free press and all that stuff.
I mean, Spielberg study histories and have made some of the best historical films around. But here it seem he follow the traditional, popular, beliefs on the Vietnam War and inadvertently show how the free press and that defender of the public are in the hands of what boils down to a handful of media magnates. Not the message they were sending, maybe not directly I hope so credit to them if that's the case.
One aspect of history the movie exposed that I don't think I've seen in movies before was that JFK isn't a saint, that he ordered or permit the CIA's operation to take out Diem. So while Nixon isn't a very nice guy, his war on Vietnam was just a continuation of US involvement in IndoChina tracing back to Truman... JFK really got it started, Johnson expanded it, Nixon pick it up a few notches.
Daniel Ellsberg's character was saying something like: 10% of US effort was to help the South VNese, 20% to stop Communism, 70% was so that the US wouldn't be humiliated for losing to a peasant army. And it's that 70% of US soldiers dying that drove Ellsberg to leak the Pentagon Papers.
I find that untrue, too simplistic and something a man like Ellsberg wouldn't have said or the reason for him to leak the papers.
I mean he, working as an analyst and nuclear war planner at Rand Corp. would know the real reason for Vietnam, know its military objectives... and those reasons aren't on the top 100 list of priorities to enter and keep the war going.
So while the movie tries to be complex and layered, and to a great extend it is for a movie, it's pretty shallow.
Then there's Kathleen Graham's rise to greatness. It's a nice story. Shows what a civic conscious media baron could achieve etc., the question it raised is what if the press barons are more of the Murdoch, Bezos type rather than the Graham type? Democracy is screwed then?
If Graham decided not to publish the papers it'll not be published. And people like Ellsberg would've been in prison, war crimes and other state policies could be hidden away.
Heroic deeds are all fine and good. A system that doesn't rely on such traits might be better?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?