Debate: Is this pro-military/right wing or does it leave room for doubt?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lions for Lambs
coffeegirl18 — 12 years ago(March 03, 2014 06:27 PM)
I think it is to an extent while throwing some doubt (Streep and Redford's characters as left wingers) into the mix. My friend believes it's essentially a right wing propaganda film encouraging all young americans to join the war effort.
Which do you think it is and explain. -
FreedomWatchTower — 11 years ago(August 11, 2014 01:45 PM)
I dont think so, especialy when the scene is shown where you see the two soldiers laying down to stand up and Die instead of probably being captured, and seconds after they get shot the Air Strike Missiles launch and you see it was all for nothing
[Excuse my english im not Canadian/American/English/Australien/whatever] -
smfilm — 11 years ago(August 12, 2014 05:49 PM)
Not even close. this movie has 2 themes:
- debate of the War on Terror
- pointing out the need for our young people to get involved in our country
if anything it is pretty negative against the war and our leaders it points out that the main reason we are here is due to our citizenry ignoring our government and just accepting whatever they do. and how our press is failing to inform the electorate
-
ryan-anderson — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 01:03 PM)
if anything it is pretty negative against the war and our leaders it points out that the main reason we are here is due to our citizenry ignoring our government and just accepting whatever they do. and how our press is failing to inform the electorate
True..but in that it kind of falls short of the mark of how such leaders are made in the first place. It runs with the "they aren't the best and the brightest" or they have never "bled for their country". Which is a pretty ridiculous thing to say because plenty of wars have gotten the approval of combat vets acting as Senators and Representatives in the past (including Afghanistan and Iraq). And since when have the people in D.C.
ever
been "the best and the brightest"? That very phrase was coined to describe the people who escalated our involvement the Vietnam War.
No, the question this film
should
have asked is one about what our role is/should be in the world.
Ignoring: QuesterJonesV, MythicCDXX, Creeping Jesus/Judas, RonPaul_Lies, Digby (and aliases), ibestupid, Holiday_Hobo, sharon_18, TilaMoo, Okie-from-Muskogee/boo321, NorCalNik, Nullifidian -
Merely — 11 years ago(August 21, 2014 09:08 PM)
are you kidding? this is total and complete liberal propaganda.
i felt manipulated. i actually lean way more left than right, but it was painfully obvious this was hippie BS.
anything redford does smacks of it anyway, so nothing new under the sun
dance
. -
Kent_Kainer — 11 years ago(February 26, 2015 04:22 PM)
I think the war is just the stage and not the topic. Thus pro and contra are irrelevant.
The topic is doing something. Doing something you think its right and should be done. Even when you think its for a lost cause.
In that manner the senator is doing something. And tries to sell it for better than its worth.
The prof is doing something.
The student, who gave up, is considering again.
The reporter is considering at least she decided not go against her intuition.
The two soldiers are doing something. That brought them death, but they died knowing they did something.
The stage could be as well within the US. Like the described place where the two soldiers grew up. Where you get shot for minor reasons.
Could be even about a different country.
And Im sitting on my couch, doing nothing.
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe! -
texasbeast-38912 — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 06:36 PM)
I would say this film was very much pro-military (lion), but anti-hawk. It bashed both right and left wing hawks at the same time. The senator even tried to guilt trip the reporter by reminding her that she and her ilk had supported the neocon hawks the first time around, so they couldn't rightfully stand in judgment against the neocons for the past (or this time around) without coming off as hypocrites.
And while the film respects the troops, it doesn't support the war that they fight. This is because it is against the hawks who are running it.
The professor repeatedly pleads for his star students NOT to join the military and go to war.
He denigrates the hawk leadership from beginning to end.
He lauds civil service at home far more than in a war zone.
And the two Army Ranger ex-students of his die in a useless, blown op. We are never shown that their service and passion and patriotism ever did one lick of good for anyone.
I don't see how anyone could think that this movie encourages anyone to go to war. -