Anyone out there seen this film?
I went last week and haven't laughed as much since, well, since Parker & Stone's "South Park, the Movie..."
The film is utterly obscene (if anatomically incorrect puppet sex counts as obscenity), the language is appalling, it's full of juvenile gags about body excretions, and it is so politically incorrect that I'm surprised the PC-Police haven't shut it down.
It's one of the best satires I've come across in any medium. It's what Michael Moore might have done if he really gave a damn about much beyond himself.
It's also one of the most succinct statements of the way US foreign policy is being carried out today, at least from the conservative/libertarian point of view.
Parker & Stone make it pretty clear that they think the USG is pretty ham-handed when it comes to fighting terror. They show, for instance, the near total destruction of the Paris monuments as Team America takes out four terrorists threatening to explode WMD. The Team also manages to wreak havoc in other historically significant sites.
But they save their truly sharp stilettoes (and occasional club) for Hollywood liberals, the UN, and the generally clueless.
The music is great--as it usually is in their films--with several very memorable themes. It's a pity that in most states you can't actually sing them on the street because of the vulgar lyrics. Humming, though, is good.
At the showing I attended, there were mostly university-aged students in the audience. They couldn't stop laughing. While they certainly caught the humor in jingoism, their longest and loudest laughs were reserved for demise of the leadership of the "Film Actors Guild". These students clearly got the point of the film. I rather liked that.
If you take offense at filthy language, explicit sex (as I said, puppet sex), at things that make liberals wince, and have a thin skin or are humor challenged, please Do not see this film. If you can take all that, then you're going to be laughing a lot.
John, thanks for the review of this movie. I'd only seen the previews and had pretty much dismissed it out of hand. Sounds intriguing.
JB - you violated your own rule..... you - the thinnest of sensitve, compassionate-conservative skins - actually sat through such a film? Interesting.
What was your opinion of Farenheit 9/11?
I thought F911 was about par for Moore. Which is pretty pitiful.
He does have a talen for insinuation, however. It's a really handy tool because it allows one to suggest facts and relationships where there are none. He has no respect for facts, anyway, as he's demonstrated in every film since "Roger & Me".
I do regret that he only got about five seconds' worth of footage in Team America, though... I'd have prefered something more protracted.
I was watching an interesting book analysis on
""Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man
David T. Hardy, Jason Clarke""
Really seemed great.
Roger Redwanski - Class of "68"
"Never argue with the person packing your parachute"
The book is good. While its tone does go hyperbolic at times, it nails the "Dude from Flint" (not, exactly true, but what can you expect from Moore?) on the facts. Or, more exactly, the way he picks, chooses, then twists facts to make his points.
Not worth buying--you're not going to want to re-read it--but certainly worth bothering your public library to buy!
JB - I believe that you should know quite a lot about recognizing the value of "insuinuation".
Wasn't that what you did for the USG?
Gee, Tim, no it wasn't.
My job, as I always construed it and did it, was to present the United States as a complicated country with many competing voices working with and against each other to create a policy.
I was always quick to point out the policies were not universally accepted by all Americans, and would bring out people who argued both sides of the story.
I certainly based my work on my own, personal ethics, though. And those ethics demanded that complicated issues needed complicated discussion. I was even known to use the word "nuance" from time to time.
I've never really cared for insinuation as a tool of public discourse. The "knowing wink and nod" is never a good way to treat people respectfully. It assumes that one knows more than the other, which isn't always the case, and avoids making rational argument.
But thanks for asking.
That's very agile, JB..... a great insinuation that you had other tasks than spinning the USofA into a modern Athenian political utopia.
So your latest effort, the Saudi lovefest, is based on your "personal ethics" which include the need to discuss complex issues with comnplex discussion? Funny, but to some of us, it seems you don't like disagreement and any challenge to your opinions on your own turf. That is a lot like the approach of our Dear current and future administration - which you so ably and loyally served, is it not? No doubt old habits learned at the feet of the Evil Princes?
Of course, it IS your turf, so you can do whatever you wish, but don't try to sell us on your equanimity here when you censor and blacklist there.
And you are most welcome. I am pleased to act as your foil any time!
Not only did I have "other tasks," but I never had the task of spinning the US as a utopia. I was very pleased that my job was to tell the complexity of American public opinion and how it affected public policy. When DEMs were in the White House, that meant making sure REPs' points of views were also provided, and vice versa, of course. "Warts and All" was my driving force, supported by an official madate to do just that. That's what made the job fun.
My website and blog are where I intend to continue that job, though in this instance it's turned around the other way. I've already made clear why I think US-Saudi relationships are important. I think I can add significant value to a dialogue that needs to be held.
That dialogue doesn't need to be hijacked by political rants that have nothing to do with the subject matter. I delete and blacklist anti-Semites, I delete and blacklist Arab- and Muslim-bashers who have nothing to add to the conversation. Don't feel picked upon.
Based on your comments here, I see no indication that you're interested in a dialogue: you seem to want to score points wherever and however you can. If that's not the case, then I apologize, but I'm not taking the risk.
Not taking the "risk"?
What risk is that?
JB, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your opinions are no more valid than are mine. You've been listening to too many Arabs.
And BTW, if you've blacklisted me, it was something that I was unaware of.This message has been edited. Last edited by: APO Admin,
Tim, my opinions on some things are "more valuable" than yours--they're equally valid, even if not equally correct--while the opposite is also correct.
Your opinions on medicine, nursing, critical care for newborns and the elderly, labor law as it pertains to nursing, for instance, are far more valuable than mine--though mine, as "opinions" have equal logical "validity".
I think my opinions on certain topics, like Saudi Arabia, the Middle East in general, the Arabic language, fishing techniques for snook in the Gulf of Mexico, etc. may have more value because these are things I know, through experience, education, and research.
There is such a thing as "informed opinion". That may or may not have value to any given individual. I think I add value through my blog. I'm sure you feel similarly about yours. As I do not come in and pollute your blog with my political rants, I anticipate the same courtesy. But, as I'm sure you'd agree, I also subscribe to a theory of pre-emption. Thus, rather than trust my hopes, I also try to ensure a result.
JB - You have been too close to the subjects of your career for too long and have lost your perspective. It's a shame to see such an otherwise intelligent man prostitute himself so blatantly. But what the heck! No one but you could possibly have such "informed opinions" on the topics you claim, so you "pre-empt" those who choose to attemtpt to engage you in discussion to defend them.
Very chic in the halls of leadership currently. You fit right in. JB for Secretary of Spin in Bu$hco II? Could happen......
Very good comment on "value" of opinions. You are correct. Though Tim is stongly opinionated about our Eastern friends he doesn't have the vast knowledge that you have regarding it.
Your knowledge on the Eastern situation is good. Shown by the references offered in some of your posts. Reference more of the validity of your facts so I can follow them though. I don't read the newspaper anymore since I can't tolerate most of the mentioned "spin" on many of the topics.
Now as for JB prostituting himself. I really don't think so. John has the upper hand on us with his experience and experiences. As he mentions, your knowledge of medical issues would blow most or all of us out of the water.
Your job and position demands much respect and I give you that. And you know something else Tim? Your knowledge and career will effect every one of us at some point, where Johns career, though not degrading it John, may never effect any of us.
Keep the discussion on an even keel and we can all enjoy this.
And John.... I know nothing about snook fishing but with any luck I can learn some this summer.
Roger Redwanski - Class of "68"
"Never argue with the person packing your parachute"
|Powered by Social Strata|