| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 17:26:09
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Honestly, I don't know how anyone with two brain cells to rub together could conclude -- as I've read about this film -- that it's meaningless. Yes, it's flawed. Yes, it's funny. But it also scores points best summed up in that Frankie Goes To Hollywood song: War, what's it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Seems people are getting hung up with the plot and the craziness of the concept, purportedly based on true factual real life facts. So, going in, we figure, no, wait a minute for a second ... this can't, can not, mo-fo CAN NOT be true. No way, no how. You saying my tax dollars, MY hard-earned tax dollars are funding these military programs - maiming and killing animals, making ordinary soldiers believe they've just stepped out of the pages of the comic books of their childhoods to become their own super-heroes. That's why I did all that overtime, and told the little woman she can't have a new coat, and we took that rain-soaked two weeks in Maine instead of tanning our asses in the expensive sunshine. Shiiiiiiiiiit!
This is a fine, fine movie. His slightly wavy accent apart, Ewan McGregor steps up to the remarkable George Clooney, spiced up with some vintage Jeff Bridges and the master of poker-faced menace, Kevin Spacey -- and there's a quartet to tell a tale, however far-fetched. The message is clear. War warps minds. The military as an entity must justify its daily existence so creates the spectre of imminent attack. It corrals big-bastard budgets to set in train a variety of pre-conflict research. In short, it behaves like a lethal version of academia, forever filling out grant forms, competing with colleagues to carry on for yet another semester.
Please note: I am not, nor is this film, disrespecting any individual military man or woman. But the film definitely is questioning a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives, and which incarcerates animals and people in the name of freedom. It is definitely questioning the sanity of those who greenlight and fund insane programs of action. It is definitely stepping far enough back to see the absurd forest from the plausible-looking trees.
All this and laughter, too. The audience here in the British boonies loved it.
|
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 23:03:00
The Men Who Stare at Goats
I saw this on Christmas Eve and then by coincidence received the book on Christmas Day. I haven't read it yet but am looking forward to, just to have more idea of what is true about all this, not that I probably will. However, regardless of the particular details, there is no doubt that the military wastes huge amounts of money, on top of being involved in illegal and immoral wars. As others have said, it's shameful that the governments merrily brush over the reasons for those campaigns.
The particular truth here though did make viewing the film rather unsatisfying, despite the good performances.
4/5 |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 13:05:44
This may shed some light on the reasons for the Iraq war. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 15:42:39
quote:
Originally posted by duh 10mproper Username
quote:
Originally posted by BaftenBabe
Please note: I am not, nor is this film, disrespecting any individual military man or woman.
Thank you for that.
quote:
[i]
But the film definitely is questioning a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives, and which incarcerates animals and people in the name of freedom. It is definitely questioning the sanity of those who greenlight and fund insane programs of action. It is definitely stepping far enough back to see the absurd forest from the plausible-looking trees.
1. You're giving "the military" too much credit. Like any governmental unit anywhere, it is a huge bureaucracy with many very different heads; it does not act as a discrete, organized unit with singular purpose.
2. My daughter is a soldier. My husband is a soldier of fairly high rank in the bureaucracy at state level. He has been to the Pentagon on many occasions. My best friend's husband is a soldier. My next door neighbor is a retired soldier. My father was a soldier. My brother was a soldier. I live in a town whose livelihood is largely dependent on the fortunes of a major military installation. I would find it impossible to define soldiers as a group psychologically because they defy stereotypes. (Yes, some of them even voted for Obama and are happy with his administration.)
-------------------
Of the book the film is based on, are we to believe it is the result of legitimate research and is wholly true? "People" believe and think weird or stupid shit. I've forgotten how many times I've made myself unlikeable by arguing that pet psychics are fakes; people want so desperately to believe that the stranger to whom they paypaled $50 to psychically commune with their horse during a phone call really does have paranormal powers. (No, they don't "talk" to the horse on the phone, they perform cold reading on the owner via the phone.)
You wrote that the film questions a "cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives."
The film made by a Hollywood liberal type? So, they have a prejudice and an agenda. (shrug) What would be better than a "a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives?" Just sitting around and waiting to become victims of entities who have as their "cultural ethos," "killing and maiming in the name of killing and maiming?"
Is it not interesting that at the Ft. Hood massacre, the perpetrator was not wounded by a soldier, but by a civilian female police officer? (Perhaps she is a veteran; but I haven't found any information that says she is.) Surrounded by trained killers, a few of whom may have actually killed another human being in battle, and yet it was a civilian who took down the murderer. (Perhaps the police officer is a veteran?) Although a soldier told me half in jest that it was too bad she wasn't a better shot.
You're very clever, Baffy, and perhaps you're a genius, and you're much more culturally, intellectually, and politically astute than am I. But that comment "But the film definitely is questioning a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives, and which incarcerates animals and people in the name of freedom," taken as written, seems to me to be very lame.
Have you read "On Killing?" I recommend it.
And now I'm just going to stfu and allow the libs of this community to rip on me.
Well, duh, I hope this post won't be too lame  And it certainly is in no way meant to rip on you.
There are so many points of discussion in yours, and I hope I can address the main ones at least. We're all clever here on fwfr, and I don't think of myself as a genius or that I have any x-ray vision about politics and society.
In fact I don't believe politics as we define it is the best way to organize society. In that sense you cannot call me a liberal or a socialist or a communist or any other ist. Well, maybe a humanist. And, I hope, an empathetic pragmatist.
I do believe that the personal is political. That family structures are microcosms of state structures. That the cultural mind-set of any era influences how decisions are made 2,3 and more generations down the line.
Some of the words you use - e.g. liberal - have vastly changed meaning since I was a kid in NYC. And, having lived over in the UK for 41 years, I've seen how it means something totally different away from the US.
Words are tools and they influence thinking. When Churchill declared that "jaw jaw is better than war war" - I can't think he was regarded by anyone then or since as a "liberal" - typical or not.
My original posting was about the film, not the book, which I haven't read. I'm not that interested in whether anyone in or outside the military truly believed in psychic phenomenon, especially as tools to fight with. What interests me, and I suspect from the film itself and reading interviews with the filmmakers, is that anyone, military or not, could entertain the notion that such ideas were useful as military tools. Entertain to the extent of allocating so much money to legitimize the premise.
To me it falls in the same category as Pres Reagan and Chairman Mao -- and Cheri Booth, come to that -- all employing astrologers to influence policy matters. I find that bizarre. As bizarre as setting up a secret unit within the US military to have a post-druggie commander indoctrinate recruits to believe they could walk through walls.
It's not whether or not anyone can walk through walls that piques my interest. It's the fact that anyone would believe it to the extent that belief was made the subject of serious research.
As for On Killing, I first heard about it when I was researching violent vid games. I haven't read it, but it seemed to me to be dealing primarily with an American mind set. But you're right, I should make time to read it.
I'm reminded of the different assumptions made by Ashley Montague and Desmond Morris in ascribing primal aggressive responses. Montague, a highly honored and qualified anthropologist countered Morris's claims [influenced by Konrad Lorenz] that aggression is an inate rather than a socially-influenced response to threatening situations.
If war or fighting is not an option ... then what do you do to resolve conflict? Because, you know, for most of the history of our species, the anthropological record shows that war and fighting was not an option.
If murder is not an option within a family unit ... then what do you to resolve conflict?
It's a shame that the social messages we get today tend to make history begin about two weeks ago. Or two years. Or twenty, two hundred, two thousand.
We've been around as a species for about a million years. It's really only in the past ten thousand or so that conflict became associated with violence. There are many theories to explain this social phenomenon. Personally, I think the ones that make sense have to do with the relatively new concept of ownership. Collective enjoyment of land and artifacts and other people leads to resolving conlict in a non-aggressive way. Labelling land and people and things as mine and yours leads to aggressive protection, to concepts that I am better than you, mine is better than yours, etc
Why, I wonder, is seeking peace deemed such a vile [lily-livered liberal] concept, while fomenting war is seen as the right solution to sorting out differences. Why is peacenik a term of derision, while war monger only used for the enemy's actions, never our own.
How did a concept of negotiation become one to be scorned, while shoot first and ask questions later, or vigilantism something to promote.
We pass on cultural assumptions to the next and next and next generations. And sometimes the words and the concepts mutate like viruses, so that their original meanings render them unrecognizable.
These are the kinds of things I believe the filmmakers were addressing. It's so much bigger and more complex than Fort Hood, or any individual soldier.
People have always had wars, you say. No. They haven't. And, still, in many parts of the world, they don't now. There are other ways. Has the hatred become too dense? Is there hope that doesn't depend on absurdist if well-meaning solutions?
Collectively, we're babies in terms of societal development. With all the ignorant arrogance and self-obsession of babies. I hope we get a chance as a species to grow up. I hope that for me, and you, and your kids and their kids and ...
Surely that's a human desire, not a liberal or illiberal one.
|
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 01:44:53
I'm in general agreement as well. I don't want to see anyone dying - not soldiers and not poor brown people.
We've had a big news story over here because Gordon Brown personally penned a letter to the mother of a soldier who died in Afghanistan. He got her name wrong, his name wrong and made loads of spelling mistakes. To me that's not so much of a crime (although from a political PR point of view, which seems to be much more important these days, it was a disaster).
But when Brown has been interviewed lately on why we are actually in Afghanistan (the important issue), he can't really give an answer except to say that it is the nation's best security interests to remain. I'm sorry, what? Why? Why are we actually there? The threat, if there actually is one, seems to be because we are involving ourselves in a faraway land that we are not welcome in. There was no muslim extremist threat in this country, until we caused one. But wait, didn't we hit Afghanistan to try and find Osama Bin Laden, the boogie man? When was the last time you heard him mentioned? No, the reasons we are there are not because of what they are telling us, that's for damn sure.
Anyway, don't want to hijack your thread Baffy, so I'll leave you with a couple of links that I got sent a couple of days ago. I should preface by saying that I love American people (especially the ones on this site), but your government's got a lot to answer for.
William Blum on ZNet
Scary stats
|
| Sean |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 00:48:13
quote:
Originally posted by duh 10mproper Username
I would find it impossible to define soldiers as a group psychologically because they defy stereotypes.
This is pretty much the way I look at it. I don't really respect/disrespect soldiers any more or less than I do accountants or lumberjacks. They've each got their own motivations for their chosen profession, not the least of which is likely to be financial. (Sure, soldiering is a potentially dangerous profession, but so is logging).
There's one key difference between a soldier and me though: a soldier has presumably decided that they'll kill somebody else if their boss tells them to, which is something I'd never allow to happen. I don't have an issue with killing someone under certain circumstances, but I'm sure not gonna let someone else tell me when it is or isn't OK. Governments have a poor record of making reasonable decisions on when it's time to kill. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 10:15:31
quote:
Originally posted by duh 10mproper Username
And now I'm just going to stfu and allow the libs of this community to rip on me.
And I doubt anyone will rip on you.
Beyond a doubt, this world would be a much better place if we had no need for any military. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, and probably never will be the case. Therefore, I believe we should respect those people who dedicate their lives (or even any portion thereof) to defending their countries. It is the politicians who get military personnel into untenable combat situations that are to blame for making their defenders clutch at straws for solutions to their predicaments. These military personnel are not to blame if their ideas end up being stranger than fiction.
|
| rockfsh |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 02:21:33
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091110/LIFE/911100304/Isle warrior monk inspired role in Goats |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/10/2009 : 23:11:50
quote:
Originally posted by duh 10mproper Username
Is it not interesting that at the Ft. Hood massacre, the perpetrator was not wounded by a soldier, but by a civilian female police officer? (Perhaps she is a veteran; but I haven't found any information that says she is.) Surrounded by trained killers, a few of whom may have actually killed another human being in battle, and yet it was a civilian who took down the murderer.
Wasn't that because she was armed and the soldiers weren't? I'm guessing any unarmed soldier who tried to rugby-tackle him would have been shot. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/10/2009 : 16:37:34
quote:
Originally posted by duh 10mproper Username
quote:
Originally posted by BaftenBabe
Please note: I am not, nor is this film, disrespecting any individual military man or woman.
Thank you for that.
quote:
[i]
But the film definitely is questioning a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives, and which incarcerates animals and people in the name of freedom. It is definitely questioning the sanity of those who greenlight and fund insane programs of action. It is definitely stepping far enough back to see the absurd forest from the plausible-looking trees.
1. You're giving "the military" too much credit. Like any governmental unit anywhere, it is a huge bureaucracy with many very different heads; it does not act as a discrete, organized unit with singular purpose.
2. My daughter is a soldier. My husband is a soldier of fairly high rank in the bureaucracy at state level. He has been to the Pentagon on many occasions. My best friend's husband is a soldier. My next door neighbor is a retired soldier. My father was a soldier. My brother was a soldier. I live in a town whose livelihood is largely dependent on the fortunes of a major military installation. I would find it impossible to define soldiers as a group psychologically because they defy stereotypes. (Yes, some of them even voted for Obama and are happy with his administration.)
-------------------
Of the book the film is based on, are we to believe it is the result of legitimate research and is wholly true? "People" believe and think weird or stupid shit. I've forgotten how many times I've made myself unlikeable by arguing that pet psychics are fakes; people want so desperately to believe that the stranger to whom they paypaled $50 to psychically commune with their horse during a phone call really does have paranormal powers. (No, they don't "talk" to the horse on the phone, they perform cold reading on the owner via the phone.)
You wrote that the film questions a "cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives."
The film made by a Hollywood liberal type? So, they have a prejudice and an agenda. (shrug) What would be better than a "a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives?" Just sitting around and waiting to become victims of entities who have as their "cultural ethos," "killing and maiming in the name of killing and maiming?"
Is it not interesting that at the Ft. Hood massacre, the perpetrator was not wounded by a soldier, but by a civilian female police officer? (Perhaps she is a veteran; but I haven't found any information that says she is.) Surrounded by trained killers, a few of whom may have actually killed another human being in battle, and yet it was a civilian who took down the murderer. (Perhaps the police officer is a veteran?) Although a soldier told me half in jest that it was too bad she wasn't a better shot.
You're very clever, Baffy, and perhaps you're a genius, and you're much more culturally, intellectually, and politically astute than am I. But that comment "But the film definitely is questioning a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives, and which incarcerates animals and people in the name of freedom," taken as written, seems to me to be very lame.
Have you read "On Killing?" I recommend it.
And now I'm just going to stfu and allow the libs of this community to rip on me.
I'm sure no one wants to rip on you. I, for one, have enormous respect for you and your views. I do not want to dash off a reply which doesn't consider the points you make. Please forgive me if this takes another day or so.
Go in peace.
|
| duh |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 15:33:36
quote:
Originally posted by BaftenBabe
Please note: I am not, nor is this film, disrespecting any individual military man or woman.
Thank you for that.
quote:
[i]
But the film definitely is questioning a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives, and which incarcerates animals and people in the name of freedom. It is definitely questioning the sanity of those who greenlight and fund insane programs of action. It is definitely stepping far enough back to see the absurd forest from the plausible-looking trees.
1. You're giving "the military" too much credit. Like any governmental unit anywhere, it is a huge bureaucracy with many very different heads; it does not act as a discrete, organized unit with singular purpose.
2. My daughter is a soldier. My husband is a soldier of fairly high rank in the bureaucracy at state level. He has been to the Pentagon on many occasions. My best friend's husband is a soldier. My next door neighbor is a retired soldier. My father was a soldier. My brother was a soldier. I live in a town whose livelihood is largely dependent on the fortunes of a major military installation. I would find it impossible to define soldiers as a group psychologically because they defy stereotypes. (Yes, some of them even voted for Obama and are happy with his administration.)
-------------------
Of the book the film is based on, are we to believe it is the result of legitimate research and is wholly true? "People" believe and think weird or stupid shit. I've forgotten how many times I've made myself unlikeable by arguing that pet psychics are fakes; people want so desperately to believe that the stranger to whom they paypaled $50 to psychically commune with their horse during a phone call really does have paranormal powers. (No, they don't "talk" to the horse on the phone, they perform cold reading on the owner via the phone.)
You wrote that the film questions a "cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives."
The film made by a Hollywood liberal type? So, they have a prejudice and an agenda. (shrug) What would be better than a "a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives?" Just sitting around and waiting to become victims of entities who have as their "cultural ethos," "killing and maiming in the name of killing and maiming?"
Is it not interesting that at the Ft. Hood massacre, the perpetrator was not wounded by a soldier, but by a civilian female police officer? (Perhaps she is a veteran; but I haven't found any information that says she is.) Surrounded by trained killers, a few of whom may have actually killed another human being in battle, and yet it was a civilian who took down the murderer. (Perhaps the police officer is a veteran?) Although a soldier told me half in jest that it was too bad she wasn't a better shot.
You're very clever, Baffy, and perhaps you're a genius, and you're much more culturally, intellectually, and politically astute than am I. But that comment "But the film definitely is questioning a cultural ethos that kills and maims in the name of saving lives, and which incarcerates animals and people in the name of freedom," taken as written, seems to me to be very lame.
Have you read "On Killing?" I recommend it.
And now I'm just going to stfu and allow the libs of this community to rip on me.
|
|
|
