| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 20:37:44
Am very interested in nationwide and worldwide reaction to this one. I saw it Tuesday night at a Lincoln Center screening, and more than a few people were openly weeping by the epilogue.
Oliver Stone focuses on a small group of people: (1) two rescuers who were trapped in the rubble, (2) their families, and (3) their rescuers, including some surprising freelancers. You never see the planes hit, only one shadow flying overhead. It's a very human-sized story, resembling PLATOON far more than it does JFK.
Like Paul Greengrass's earlier film, which takes place aboard the flight which crashed in Pennsylvania, you don't really have time to contemplate the wider consequences.
Is it too soon? It's been five years. Eventually, artists have to weigh in. [They already have in the theater, including a great piece by Neil LaBute about two years ago.]
Let me know what you all think of this one. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 15:44:41
Actually Sean, I think you're underestimating the general public. Quite often I'm disgusted by the level of ignorance around me regarding world events, but I think most Americans - I don't know about other nations - are aware that Osama bin Laden is a mega-billionaire oil heir from Saudi Arabia who went to very expensive private schools and was expelled from that country because he was constantly creating a "fuss" over that nation's alliance with the United States, and eventually decided to use his immense fortune to wage a war against Western Civilization rather than using it to improve the lives of the very people he's claiming to be fighting for.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 14:59:00
I saw the film last night. While watching it, I thought it was so-so, around 3/5. (This is low for me; I give almost everything I see at the cinema at least 4/5 and most things 5/5.) However, I had assumed that the film would be all about the characters heroically rescuing people and was pleased that it was not. There is a quite stupid review on the I.M.D.B. criticising it for not showing all the events and deaths, but this would have been a waste of time since everyone is already totally familiar with that. It came as a complete surprise to me at the end of the film that it turned out to be about non-fictional individuals. This bumped it up to 4/5, and I don't really see how it could have been improved.
With regards to its emotional impact, I was a little moved at the end, but that was all. I'm not usually moved by films about real tragedies, since they are always so much less than the tragedies themselves. But as an event, while it's more significant for me than most other events involving that number of deaths, I can appreciate that it is much more significant for New Yorkers. Having said that, Americans do seem to portray it as an American tragedy, but it is also the worst act of terrorism (I loathe how in the aftermath they decided to start using the word terror for this, which had never been used for it before) against the citizens of many other countries. I think I would be much more affected by a film about the Russian school massacre, not just because it involved so many children but because it unfolded over days and because the Russian government fucked things up so badly.
There are a lot of stupid posts in the threads on I.M.D.B. There, I also came across this - I cannot tell whether it is serious or ironic. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 00:47:57
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
The consumption part is the US economy. And though the current trade balance admittedly isn't in our favor, it's wrong to isolate the American consumer:
I think it's common to isolate the American consumer as they're by far the biggest and therefore by far the most important. I.e., turn off the American consumer and the rest of the world has nowhere to put their surplusses. Hence the ability of the American consumer to continue consuming is a big deal, like it or not. Nobody will care if the over-indulgent Kiwi consumer panics and stops consuming.quote:
Even if the US dollar has slid against other currencies, it remains the preferred currency of international business, just as English remains its preferred language. I believe this is because, on top of its ineluctable economic clout, the US is considered one of the world's most stable systems of government...
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I'd guess it's simply a function of size.quote:
What I think you may be referring to instead is the US's balance sheet, which I agree could use a hell of a lot of constructive work.
I wasn't really referring to anything other than the Federal Reserve study that I linked to earlier that said that the US is going broke (and pointed out that it can be averted with some very serious measures). I'm not an economist, hence I listen to such reports, as I listen to people like Warren Buffet and George Soros who've proven that they know what they're talking about. I certainly don't know what I'm talking about on such matters, so I just quote others. Sure, I trade financial markets for a living but concentrate specifically on market psychology, not economics or fundamentals.
"Ask five economists and you'll get five opinions, or six if one of them went to Harvard."  quote:
All this is to say that while Osama has indeed baited us into spending unnecessary billions on Iraq he has not come anywhere close to bankrupting the US.
Let's hope not. The Fed report suggests he might be closer than some think. (Admittedly I made the connection between bin Laden's goal of bankrupting the US and the Fed report 2 years later stating that the US is going broke.)quote:
And as for his boyz being so intelligent: remember the original WTC bombers in the early Nineties? The Feds had them cased, but finally nailed them because of a really stupid thing: one of these geniuses kept going back to the rental place to demand his deposit back for the van that had carried the explosives!
I laughed at that one too. A fine candidate for "World's Dumbest Criminals".  quote:
But don't tell me he's some Bond-villain Brainiac pitted against Bush's country rube.
Funnily enough, this is exactly the way I see bin Laden (although I'm well aware Bush doesn't run the USA). I think most think of bin Laden as a hairy camel-riding fanatic somewhere in the desert who managed to throw some sand into the giant's eye. I think he's far more dangerous than that.
|
| randall |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 23:17:47
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Well, the US economy is still robust.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'robust', especially after watching over two years of the US Dollar weakening against almost every other currency in the world.
A large part of the US economy is extremely robust - the consumption part. For decades the US has had an astonishing willingness and ability to consume the rest of the world's surpluses. I'd say this will continue until the rest of the world is no longer prepared to lend their surpluses to the US to consume in the hope of being paid later. I've no idea if/when this might change.
I don't want to get into a Monty-Python-like gainsaying contest, so this is likely my last post on this issue. But I'd just like to add some thoughts to the mix.
The consumption part is the US economy. And though the current trade balance admittedly isn't in our favor, it's wrong to isolate the American consumer: the rest of the industrialized world happily joins in, even when our products are not good for them [e.g., McDonalds, stupid action movies]. Even if the US dollar has slid against other currencies, it remains the preferred currency of international business, just as English remains its preferred language. I believe this is because, on top of its ineluctable economic clout, the US is considered one of the world's most stable systems of government; even when its leaders make mistakes, they're only temporary, because everybody knows those leaders will eventually be retired -- and, by the way, bloodlessly.[There have been assassinations, sure, but never a coup.]
What I think you may be referring to instead is the US's balance sheet, which I agree could use a hell of a lot of constructive work. Most sentients here don't want a budget deficit [as we have now], and don't want a budget surplus [as we had under Clinton]. What we want is to add out even on an annual basis, led by somebody smart enough to realize that the main priority of a surplus is to pay down the national debt. [Conservatives jumped on the Clinton surpluses as proof that we were being overtaxed. They are very wily people...]
All this is to say that while Osama has indeed baited us into spending unnecessary billions on Iraq [and the Osama madness probably causes you to take your shoes off before you board an airplane; that's also unnecessary, a bit of theater to make us all feel "safer"], he has not come anywhere close to bankrupting the US. And as for his boyz being so intelligent: remember the original WTC bombers in the early Nineties? The Feds had them cased, but finally nailed them because of a really stupid thing: one of these geniuses kept going back to the rental place to demand his deposit back for the van that had carried the explosives! Osama has patience, granted. [Eastern culture teaches this trait, as the Brits were astonished to re-learn when the 99-year lease for Hong Kong expired, and the Chinese, who had been waiting patiently for a solid century, said, "Time's up. Hand it over."] But don't tell me he's some Bond-villain Brainiac pitted against Bush's country rube. Both stereotypes wither in the light of reality.
Pwaah. Too heavy. Think I'll go write some reviews now. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 11:19:27
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Well, the US economy is still robust.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'robust', especially after watching over two years of the US Dollar weakening against almost every other currency in the world.
A large part of the US economy is extremely robust - the consumption part. For decades the US has had an astonishing willingness and ability to consume the rest of the world's surpluses. I'd say this will continue until the rest of the world is no longer prepared to lend their surpluses to the US to consume in the hope of being paid later. I've no idea if/when this might change. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 09:48:49
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Well, the US economy is still robust.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'robust', especially after watching over two years of the US Dollar weakening against almost every other currency in the world. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 23:16:48
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
But debt alone is not necessarily an indication of bankruptcy.
True. A company that loses money every year can stay afloat indefinitely as long as the market continues to cover it's cashflow deficit.
I'm not an economist, but I would regard a study done by the US Federal Reserve on the state of the USA that concludes "that the United States is going broke" as a cause for serious concern.quote:
Comparing Osama's IQ to Bush's is beside the point.
I mentioned this as I'm not aware of any 'mistake' bin Laden has ever made (given his raison d��tre). Whereas the Bush administration has arguably made major strategic and tactical blunders that are far more damaging to their own country than any mistake bin Laden could potentially make would be to his organisation.quote:
What Bush is is arrogant ["I'm God's candidate, and God wants the US to prevail"] and incurious ["I never much thought about foreign affairs before I became president"]. The mess in Iraq didn't come from the fairly uncreative Mr. Bush himself; he's merely the figurehead. It sprang from the people around him: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, et. al.
Yep I agree with this. |
| randall |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 12:37:07
Well, the US economy is still robust. Tax increases [or, more likely, rollbacks of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans] are undoubtedly in the cards. [Republicans like to tar Democrats as the "tax and spend" party. They've now revealed themselves as the "charge and spend" guys.] But debt alone is not necessarily an indication of bankruptcy.
Comparing Osama's IQ to Bush's is beside the point. Bush is brighter than his press would lead you to believe, not as bright as his slavish devotees would lead you to believe. For instance, his GPA at Yale was actually slightly higher than John Kerry's. But then, neither man really tore it up in college.
What Bush is is arrogant ["I'm God's candidate, and God wants the US to prevail"] and incurious ["I never much thought about foreign affairs before I became president"]. The mess in Iraq didn't come from the fairly uncreative Mr. Bush himself; he's merely the figurehead. It sprang from the people around him: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, et. al. The closest any of these chickenhawks, Bush included, have ever been to a shot fired in anger is a round of DOOM. Which may be all this war is to them. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 03:29:58
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Osama's self-stated goal was not to rack up some kind of video-game kill score, but to disrupt the economic [WTC], military [Pentagon], and political [Flight 93 was headed either for the White House or the Capitol] infrastructure of the US. None of this happened, though you might say the event did make it possible for the neocons to bully us into wasting untold billions in Iraq. In other words, it didn't work.
I'm not so sure it didn't work. Bin Laden's stated goal is the bankruptcy of the USA, here are some extracts from one of his statements to the USA as printed in the Washington Post:-
"...our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers as we alongside the Mujahedin bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy...
...al-Qa'ida spent $500,000 on the event <9/11>, while America in the incident and its aftermath lost -- according to the lowest estimates -- more than 500 billion dollars, meaning that every dollar of al-Qa'ida defeated a million dollars... As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record, astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahedin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan..."
- Osama bin Laden, November 2004
Now see what Professor Laurence Kotlikoff has to say in a report published in the July/August 2006 issue of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. The report was commissioned by the US Federal Reserve. Here's the abstract (my bold):-
Is the United States bankrupt? Many would scoff at this notion. Others would argue that financial implosion is just around the corner. This paper explores these views from both partial and general equilibrium perspectives. It concludes that countries can go broke, that the United States is going broke, that remaining open to foreign investment can help stave off bankruptcy, but that radical reform of U.S. fiscal institutions is essential to secure the nation�s economic future. The paper offers three policies to eliminate the nation�s enormous fiscal gap and avert bankruptcy: a retail sales tax, personalized Social Security, and a globally budgeted universal healthcare system.
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, July/August 2006, 88(4), pp. 235-49.
here are three possible solutions as outlined in this report and summarised elsewhere:-
1) Double personal and corporate income taxes
2) Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 67%
3) Cut Federal discretionary spending by 143%.
naturally none of these are acceptable or even possible, but an alternative would be to implement ALL of the following:-
1) An immediate national sales tax of 33%;
2) privatize social security in which only accrued benefits are paid, not the projected benefits, plus putting an immediate lid on medical costs; and
3) reduce discretionary federal spending by 20%.
So, I fear that Osama bin Laden has quite possibly already won this particular dispute. I think his IQ is substantially higher than the US President's. And he has a much longer time-frame than is common for Western governments who seldom think beyond the next election (remember him talking about the 10 years to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan as if it was a non-issue). The way I see it, bin Laden set a trap, the USA fell deeper into the trap than what bin Laden could possibly have hoped, and is going to have great difficulty extracting itself from this trap. |
| randall |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 21:39:47
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
On WTC, I'm curious about whether there's any emotional disconnect among people who don't live in NYC or DC, or among non-Americans; IOW, does it affect you less the farther away you are from Ground Zero? After all, the Bali massacre was senseless, horrific, utterly evil, but we in America were half a world away: we were shocked, saddened, but not stunned into incoherence like we were on 9/11. We were freaked the morning of the London bombings, but that was partly because we knew particular people: my first thought was, is benj OK? [Not understanding exactly where benj lives, mind, but still.]
Yes, very much so. And coming from Israel, I can tell you that while 9/11 was a huge tragedy for the USA, and New York in particular, people are starting to think that the US (and George Bush in particular) should really start calming down about it, already.
Let's put this into perspective:
The number of people who died is around 2900.
The population of the USA is over 290 million. That means that .001% of the citizens of the USA died that day.
The US has active troops in the amount of 1.4 million. Over 2700 troops have been killed in Iraq so far. That's almost .2% of your military.
What we wonder is: why is it that there isn't more outrage at the deaths of your soldiers in Iraq and this useless war there, than there is mourning for those that died on 9/11?
#1: Osama's self-stated goal was not to rack up some kind of video-game kill score, but to disrupt the economic [WTC], military [Pentagon], and political [Flight 93 was headed either for the White House or the Capitol] infrastructure of the US. None of this happened, though you might say the event did make it possible for the neocons to bully us into wasting untold billions in Iraq. In other words, it didn't work. This is why we in New York are a little antsy about nukes thse days.
#2: There are plenty of Americans who are outraged at the deaths of our soldiers, and who do not subscribe to President Bush's response. Plenty. |
| duh |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 15:24:15
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Anyway, that's the excuse I use to tell sick jokes shortly after something bad happens. 
Which reminds me of the novel that most influenced me during my formative years, Stranger In A Strange Land. My favorite part is where the characters discuss the nature of humor and why tragic things are sometimes funny. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 09:02:21
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
On WTC, I'm curious about whether there's any emotional disconnect among people who don't live in NYC or DC, or among non-Americans; IOW, does it affect you less the farther away you are from Ground Zero? After all, the Bali massacre was senseless, horrific, utterly evil, but we in America were half a world away: we were shocked, saddened, but not stunned into incoherence like we were on 9/11. We were freaked the morning of the London bombings, but that was partly because we knew particular people: my first thought was, is benj OK? [Not understanding exactly where benj lives, mind, but still.]
Yes, very much so. And coming from Israel, I can tell you that while 9/11 was a huge tragedy for the USA, and New York in particular, people are starting to think that the US (and George Bush in particular) should really start calming down about it, already.
Let's put this into perspective:
The number of people who died is around 2900.
The population of the USA is over 290 million. That means that .001% of the citizens of the USA died that day.
The US has active troops in the amount of 1.4 million. Over 2700 troops have been killed in Iraq so far. That's almost .2% of your military.
What we wonder is: why is it that there isn't more outrage at the deaths of your soldiers in Iraq and this useless war there, than there is mourning for those that died on 9/11?
I was sort of hoping that the TV series Over There would have done something to remedy that, but I see it was cancelled after only one season.
(Perhaps it should have been a sit-com instead of a drama.)
|
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 00:26:50
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
On WTC, I'm curious about whether there's any emotional disconnect among people who don't live in NYC or DC, or among non-Americans; IOW, does it affect you less the farther away you are from Ground Zero?
I'm in Indiana, so I was fairly far away. I remember waking that morning to something I was hearing on television and started immediately calling my family and friends because at the time, no one knew what was going on. It felt like an enormous hand pushing me under water as I watched. Even today, when I think of it, it feels that way.
I don't think I feel more detached, it was a morning of total fear. We knew by mid-afternoon there was a no-fly order for the entire country, so when we were working in the yard and heard a jet overhead, we were stunned. Dayton (Ohio) Air Force Base is only about 80 miles away and they were flying overhead in their normal flight patterns. Our town's water tower happens to be a "practice target" - not that they shoot at it, but it's a target they focus on for whatever reason (visual navigation?). Hearing that jet was terrifying. I don't know to this day why they were up there, unless it was precautionary. Personally, I've not shaken the feelings of horror, mortification, dread that I felt that morning. Not entirely, anyway.
I haven't seen world Trade Center yet. With my vision, I wait for the DVD release. However, I have seen both Flight 93 (television film) and United 93. They served to reinforce those feelings. I know there will never be a clear picture of what happened on that particular flight, but I'm fairly certain the passengers tried to do something positive before they died.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 02:16:15
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
On WTC, I'm curious about whether there's any emotional disconnect among people who don't live in NYC or DC, or among non-Americans; IOW, does it affect you less the farther away you are from Ground Zero?
Probably. I was pretty stunned like everyone else, I heard about the event at about 7am NZ time (six hours after the event) when a friend in Perth rang me and told me to get up and turn on my TV.
My reaction to it was more along the lines of "Oh shit, now what's gonna happen?" I.e., I knew that whoever was responsible had just changed the way the Western World was going to operate (as was presumably the intent), and that it wasn't going to be a good change. So my reaction wasn't stunned incoherence, it was more a deep sense of foreboding and dread of a gloomier future.
A couple of days later it became a little bit more personal when I went looking for the weekly column of Bill Meehan in TheStreet.com as I had been doing for a year or so previously, and found an obituary instead. 
I have never been to New York (or the USA other than airports). So one could argue that I was able to dissociate myself from the immediate human toll of 9/11 and think immediately about the future of the planet because of the significant geographical and cultural disconnect between me and the 9/11 murder victims, until I was able to put a face to one of them.
So, where do I put 9/11 now? I've filed it among the countless other instances in human history where people have slaughtered civilians for 'political' reasons. E.g., 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, Oklahoma, Lockerbie, countless Vietnamese villages napalmed, Dresden, Hiroshima, Zarqawi's beheadings, Srebreniza, Auschwitz etc, the list is far too long. (Incidentally, I'm not commenting on whether these were 'good' or 'bad'; some of these massacres very likely prevented even greater massacres, and some (most) almost certainly didn't.)
On the issue of laughing about death/murder? I don't have a problem with it. In fact I think it's a good thing. Laughter is the best medicine, it stimulates endorphin production. Stimulating endorphins in any way possible after an 'endorphin-reducing disaster' can only be good, I'd guess it helps prevent people falling into that deep pit of despair from which it can be difficult to extract oneself. I wasn't aware of TheOnion's approach, but from the headlines mentioned above I'd give them 10/10. 
Anyway, that's the excuse I use to tell sick jokes shortly after something bad happens.
Edit: I haven't seen the film, although I will when it arrives here, but I don't think it will have the effect on me that it would have on New Yorkers - unless it's an unbelievably well-made tragedy like Grave of the Fireflies and successfully transcends geography and culture and becomes utterly personal. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 22:10:42
I have copies of that day's Times and USA Today, as well as copies from the next three days.
But The Onion really reported it better, anyway. "Hugging up 76,000 Percent," "Rest of Country Temporarily Feels Deep Affection for NYC," "Gen X Irony, Cynicism May Be Permanently Obsolete," and of course, the all time best (aside from the main headline I already mentioned): "Bush Vows To Defeat Whomever It Is We're At War With"
And then, of course, there's this TV Guide page: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38450 |
|
|
