There were 2 obviously liberal characters and one obviously conservative character. The movie is really about decisions
-
erikriveros — 16 years ago(September 10, 2009 12:08 PM)
i could not agree with the op more!
now, please keep in mind i tend to lean more towards the GOP views on things (especially in matters of nat'l defense) and voted republican the last three timesbut i am also a huge fan of film in general but my one constant gripe is the liberal leaning in all moviesso we got a movie that touches on war themes in the middle east in the present day, oh yeah, my liberal alarm bell was ringingr.redford directing, oh boy, liberal bell going bananasmeryl streep, liberal bell exploded
HOWEVER, after watching this i did not take it to have the typical liberal spin that all other hollywood movies take.not at all! what i did find is that there is something for everyone regardless of your political affiliations
streep was the yang to cruise's yingthe way cruise discussed the hipocritical role of the media in covering the war, the errors made in flashing 'mission accomplished' signs on aircraft carriers, the importance in acknowledging the fact that this enemy is a new kind of enemy that must be dealt with differently but MUST be dealt with
streep - the liberal reporter - calls her own medium out when she returns to her boss and says, we all knew what was going on and we did nothing (which i think we can agree is the underlying theme of the movie)
cruise was not portrayed as two faced, or a liarstreep's revelation upon reading the caption underneath one of cruise's office photos was merely that cruise might (would) use HIS new war strategy as a jumping off point to the presidency one daythat does not mean he was two faced at allhis strategy would only be a good jumping off point IF IT SUCCEEDEDso he believed in what he was doing and there is every probability that it was going to succeed.
as for the boys junior year plan.i'm on the fence here about which way the film is learningas we know they had three options for all juniors..joining the army was just one of thembut if, during their presentation, they dropped down a letter saying they joined the peace corp, that'd've been a very boring ending.yes, going to war and suffering the ending they did, seems to be the liberal poster for not joining the armybut i don't knowthese boys joined up for the most altruistic of reasons.
oddly enough, in RL, the boys' junior year plan would be a better one than in the movie
i was very pleased that this movie was not the usualno, it wasn't a great movie, but i did enjpy it, and i enjoyed that it actually made me see another side of things, and i'm a stubborn jackass.
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it -
snakechalmers — 16 years ago(September 20, 2009 10:13 AM)
I thought the movie was conservative. I was actually starting to agree with Senator and honest couldnt understand why Meryl Streep's character though he was "wrong". Yeah he's a beep but he had a plan which sounded plausible. He was able to grit his teeth and make the hard choices. I lean liberal on most issues but we cant always be peaceful with our enemies. In my mind this "War on Terror" started off all wrong but we cant change that now. Its too late to say "sorry". We have to make the hard decisions.
-
skiop — 16 years ago(October 07, 2009 07:34 PM)
Yeah, it was definitely a conservative movie. Both Cruise and Redford played major conservatives here. Redford was worse, practically pleading that the handsome young man (and the audience) go away to war, because "it's doing something." I'm not convinced that it's doing anything; in fact, I opposed the invasion of Iraq to begin with.
-
Apollodorus — 13 years ago(February 09, 2013 06:58 AM)
They think it's liberal for three reasons: 1) Redford's involvement. What else could it be? 2) The journalist fairly effectively and consistently punches holes in the senator's arguments. 3) Most importantly, the two soldiers/friends who enlist to fight in Afghanistan and to make a difference in the world end up dying in utter futility over a God-forsaken snowy ridge that is part of some grand new military strategy. They are admirable only in their dedication to one another, not to the US government.
But folks should be careful here. Opposition to the continuation of the war in Afghanistan cuts across party affiliations. Republicans in the last election didn't push this cause, because it was a loser. Plenty of conservatives would agree with the basic tone and thematic core of this movie. Continuing to prop up the Karzai government makes as little sense now as it did when this movie was made. -
kennellygerard — 12 years ago(November 18, 2013 01:46 AM)
doing something instead of nothing ?
redford said nothing about oil
he said nothing about fake WMDs
he said nothing about torture
he said nothing about america making hay while the sun shines
what redford made is disgusting propaganda -