Well I asked for specifics first. If solicitr doesn't want to, well that's up to him/her. I don't play the children's game of, 'You challenged me to provide specifics, but I'll get you to do it' I see *so* often.
If solicitr doesn't want to, that's up to them. I'll read into that what kind of debater solicitr is from that. I didn't come into this thread to debate debating - a standard tactic of some. I came to discuss the movie.
Of course much dialog is invented by necessity and is silly - hence my request for key material errors.
Ultimately history isn't written by who's right - it's written by who's left.
Michael Moore *shudder*
W
I agree. And the only person who has made any such assertion was laurie claiming it was all true. (Sorry, laurie, but that was an over-the-top thing to say.)Lidless wrote:Is it OK to just to make such a bland assertion and then ask others to naysay it rather than backing it up?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Parts of it are obviously "true". We know what happened, but we don't necessarily know what led up to the happenings.
From what I've read, it isn't a "hatchet job", as I said in my first post in this thread. A friend who saw it said it was surprising, she came away thinking sympathetically of Bush, and she hasn't exactly been his biggest fan before. Her sympathy didn't extend to thinking he was ever "right" (as in Correct), but she said it gave her a different viewpoint and she almost felt sorry for the guy. That he had been in over his head, and too willing to let other people tell him what to do. Is that accurate? Seems like it from here, but who knows? Maybe he's the devious one, all along.
It is, after all, a movie, not "revealed truth" and those who dislike Bush will no doubt find much to like in it and those who like Bush probably won't give it a try, so I don't think it's likely to change many minds, one way or the other.
From what I've read, it isn't a "hatchet job", as I said in my first post in this thread. A friend who saw it said it was surprising, she came away thinking sympathetically of Bush, and she hasn't exactly been his biggest fan before. Her sympathy didn't extend to thinking he was ever "right" (as in Correct), but she said it gave her a different viewpoint and she almost felt sorry for the guy. That he had been in over his head, and too willing to let other people tell him what to do. Is that accurate? Seems like it from here, but who knows? Maybe he's the devious one, all along.
It is, after all, a movie, not "revealed truth" and those who dislike Bush will no doubt find much to like in it and those who like Bush probably won't give it a try, so I don't think it's likely to change many minds, one way or the other.
Dig deeper.
-
narya
- chocolate bearer
- Posts: 4904
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:27 am
- Location: Wishing I could be beachcombing, or hiking, or dragon boating
- Contact:
OK, I finally have Internet access again and can defend my honor. What I meant by my first opening statement was that it was basically non-fiction rather than fiction, or fantasy, or science fiction. Or perhaps horror.
Unless GWB taped everything, the exact words of each conversation would be approximate, rather than "perfectly true", and that is all I would expect. But the gross assertions like getting a girl pregnant, drinking heavily, crashing the car while drunk, graduating near the bottom of his class, having difficulty holding on to various jobs, and other such details would certainly be sued for in court if they were not basically true. I'm assuming the general outline of his character is "true" in the movie portrayal, though the more subtle aspects, like the opprobrium from his father, may have been more of an artistic license.
I find it disturbing that he ended up president of the US despite numerous incidents that would indicate a flawed character, and that his behaviour was for the most part tolerated. I don't think he could get elected in today's political arena, with that kind of a past.
Unless GWB taped everything, the exact words of each conversation would be approximate, rather than "perfectly true", and that is all I would expect. But the gross assertions like getting a girl pregnant, drinking heavily, crashing the car while drunk, graduating near the bottom of his class, having difficulty holding on to various jobs, and other such details would certainly be sued for in court if they were not basically true. I'm assuming the general outline of his character is "true" in the movie portrayal, though the more subtle aspects, like the opprobrium from his father, may have been more of an artistic license.
I find it disturbing that he ended up president of the US despite numerous incidents that would indicate a flawed character, and that his behaviour was for the most part tolerated. I don't think he could get elected in today's political arena, with that kind of a past.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. ~ Albert Camus
He got away with it because he was "born again." Slate wiped clean, I guess.I find it disturbing that he ended up president of the US despite numerous incidents that would indicate a flawed character, and that his behaviour was for the most part tolerated. I don't think he could get elected in today's political arena, with that kind of a past.
I haven't seen the movie and likely won't--why rehash something I'm more than happy to leave behind? From what I've heard W. comes across as basically a cypher, there's no real insight into his character from the movie. One reviewer said that to his surprise it was really the story of Bush Sr., a story about a son failing to live up to his father's expectations.