criterionforum.org

Could I have what you two are smoking? No one saw this film (other than a handful of die-hard liberals who already agree with the "message"), so I'm not sure what you mean by "impact". And how did you get past the laughable "acting".

Best wishes.

B

I saw this film recently as well and was blown away by it. The anti-war message and the commentary on media seem to be more of an homage to a lot of later Godard video essays, but Redacted isn't really about media and politics as much as it is about this issue of taste that has permeated all of De Palma's more recent films, whether it's choices the characters make or the choices the actors make in depicting the characters -- or even the decisions a director might make. I found the film to be quite awesome all around and if any of this paragraph sounds remotely interesting then it is worth your time.

But again, most people are seeing it merely as an anti-war film or and silly commentary on media. It's not. It's about as much about these topics as The Black Dahlia was about the original source material. And I agree with the above poster that the film is a real downer, but only because of its misanthropy.

Barmy wrote:Could I have what you two are smoking? No one saw this film (other than a handful of die-hard liberals who already agree with the "message"), so I'm not sure what you mean by "impact". And how did you get past the laughable "acting".

Impact on the individual, rather than society.

And I agree with you that it preaches to the converted. That is true.

An interesting film. I have some sympathy with Bunuelian's wondering about whether the fictional event in the film is demonising US soldiers while not talking about the good things they do, however I think it is impossible to focus on the success of 'getting the trains running on time, etc' when the larger issue of a fundamentally illegal war is clouding the whole issue of Iraq.

That is where the sympathy for the individual soldier comes in though as the whole situation seems designed to drive the people on the ground having to make everything work day to day insane with the feeling of being occupiers and of trying to help people who just don't seem to be grateful (leading to anger, hatred and dehumanisation) while at the same time cushioning those in power back home from the realities of the situation.

The film itself references this futility of action, of waiting for something to change back in the US so that they can come home, in some of the comments the soldiers make (as well as seeming to take issue with Oliver Stone's World Trade Center film as a case of blind introspection and mythologising at a time when there should be a more outward questing for understanding).

I thought the comparisons between the 'right' and 'wrong' way (of driving your car through a checkpoint, of searching people, of raiding a house) were done in such a way that I was left considering whether even the 'right' way to do such a thing was still a form of assault (of the landscape by the roadblocks, of decorum in treating people delicately and with respect, of privacy and security of the home). Can you force the population through all these daily checks, searches and raids without causing people to feel like criminals and drive them away from sympathising with you and to the insurgents?

There is an interesting comparison to Casualties of War to be made (of the rape of a nation embodied in a literal assault) but beyond both films depicting an atrocity the comparison is interesting for what it doesn't carry over from Casualties of War - there's a Michael J. Fox substitute in the character of McCoy but he is not the only person to be disgusted by the acts of his colleagues so he does not seem like one person against the system. More importantly he doesn't get a 'you must have had a bad dream but you are awake now' absolving by a Iraqi substitute as Fox did at the end of Casualties of War from the asian girl on the train.

Incidentally, I don't find that ending of Casualties of War as controversial as others did, perhaps because I felt that it was only a superficial absolution that would never supercede the trauma of what Fox had witnessed. I think the end of that film was intended to show that the nation had moved past Vietnam and while the scars would remain for the individuals the horror was 'finished' for the nation. It is telling that McCoy does not get the same kind of absolution in Redacted because this is not a retrospective film - this is not in the past and the killing is not over - but he does get a US welcome from insulated, uncomprehending friends and family who, after he recounts his trauma, can only give him a round of applause and a kiss as if to say "forget about it, you are home now", which is all he could hope for at this time.

The Collateral Damage section is incredibly powerful, I would argue, because of the black bars. The idea of someone actively blanking out the eyes of the victims is much more in bad taste, and a greater statement of the twisted approach to censorship that somehow makes these images now acceptable for viewing, than showing the bodies without that 'redaction' would be - as if even in death the dead have had one more indignity put on them. To then confont the final, staged, image of the girl from the film is shocking because it suddenly lets you see into the eyes we have been denied from the other pictures and the abstraction of various mutilations suddenly becomes the body of a whole person again.

Gary Sinise accuses De Palma of making anti-war propaganda and says he hates the military. Oh yeah, he hasn't seen the film.

I've seen it and Gary is right. BTW the film's domestic gross was $65,388. Lulz.

Right or wrong, I'll give Gary the same consideration as I would Keith David or the members of Godsmack as to what's propaganda or not.