| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
 Posted - 01/25/2007 : 15:15:43
|
Potential spoilers....
So who else has seen this one over in the States? It's yet to be released over here but I got to an advanced screening a few days ago and I really loved it. A great cast, many doing some of their best work in years - especially Demi Moore and Sharon Stone who particularly surprised me. It's pretty long, and it does meander in an Altman-esque way through a lot of characters some of whom are inevitably less interesting than others, but what it builds up to is twenty odd minutes of a very powerful conclusion. I have no hesitation in saying I cried -not just for the fate of RFK and the characters we'd been following, but because of the massive difference it appears to me his assassination made to the modern history of America. The contemporary parallels were incredibly telling. I know it's had a good whacking from a fair few American critics, but I can't help think that a political stance is affecting a lot of those reviews, particularly as it has a strong following on IMDB and the users section of Rotten Ts. I'm hoping an unbiased British press will give it the recognition it deserves - and what a surprise to find Emilio Estevez's directing debut to be so accomplished. I'd love to hear some US opinion on what is obviously a contentious subject.
[By the way I am aware that all of the characters Estevez wrote are fictional or are based on people who were at the Ambassador and it's not a true telling of the events exactly and that Sirhan Sirhan is not given any lead up, explanation or context (or a name in the film actually) - I didn't feel these things took away from my enjoyment of the movie or its powerful message.] |
Edited by - demonic on 01/26/2007 01:09:51 |
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 16:27:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I have no hesitation in saying I cried -not just for the fate of RFK and the characters we'd been following, but because of the massive difference it appears to me his assassination made to the modern history of America.
If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been shot, he probably would have been elected President. If he had, I think the Civil Rights legislation Nixon signed into law still would have been signed by Kennedy (eventually), but I doubt the former AG - that authorized the FBI to tap MLK's phones and bug his hotel rooms looking for information from his personal life to discredit him - would have funded the civil rights enforcement efforts as generously as Nixon did. It's also doubtful that the debate would have eventually included the importance of economic and class issues, which is a major change that the Nixon Administration initiated. Of course, many people probably have no idea what I'm talking about because of pervasive - and dangerous - misconceptions about what the two major political parties in the US have done over the years. Forget the rhetoric...look at the POLICY and trackrecord.
And I have no doubt whatsoever that RFK would have continued Johnson's Vietnam policy instead of the drastic troop reductions Nixon initiated.
And then there's China. |
 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 21:59:53
|
I admit I know very little about the ins and outs of American politics and appreciate your input Downtown but I'm a bit confused - but wasn't one of the main policy points of Kennedy's campaign in California and almost his entire raison d'etre to do with social and economic divisions and the whole Civil Rights movement; after Martin Luther King he was the foremost public figure acting on behalf of African Americans - in fact he said in early 1960s that "it seemed to envelop almost every area of his public and private life".
In my reading I found regarding Vietnam he was also publicly opposed to it and took a stand against Johnson's policy - having advised not to commit ground troops in 1965, and then withdrawl in 1967 which Johnson ignored. I doubt he would have continued Johnson's policy at all and unlike Nixon who took four years to leave Vietnam might have prevented many years of unneccessary bloodshed and political embarrassment.
The other matter that strikes me as key in the "what if" scenario is the instance of Nixon's corruption and lying during the Watergate scandal and his resignation that began a popular disenfranchisment with politics that still pervades. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 18:16:03
|
LOL Bobby Kennedy wouldn't be the first candidate to say a whole bunch things he didn't mean just to get himself elected. JFK promised a new Civil Rights Bill and ended up getting 70% of the black vote, giving him a narrow victory over Nixon. Two years later, he still hadn't submitted any proposed legislation to Congress. Nothing at all. If he really tought it was that important, he wasn't in much of a rush to get it done. I have no reason to believe his younger brother was any different.
The Democratic Party is where social movements go to die. It gobbles them up and renders them neutral or non-existant. The Party loves to talk big when it comes to the Civil Rights Movement, but the real history is very underwhelming. The only President from the Democratic Party to really throw their weight behind the movement and truly support it was a Dixiecrat: LBJ. And actions speak louder than words. RFK's actions as AG speak volumes about what he really thought of Dr. King's "movement." For crying out loud, we're talking about a Kennedy. There's a reason Jackie didn't want her kids growing up in that environment.
As far as the war goes, I just don't see a Democrat having the guts to redeploy upon finally getting into office. Talking about something and actually doing it are two very different things. Only Nixon could go to China and only a Republican could get us out of Southeast Asia. |
Edited by - Downtown on 01/26/2007 18:30:49 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 02:02:56
|
Something just occurred to me Downtown, you wouldn't happen to be a staunch Republican would you?  |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 15:38:15
|
| Nope, I would most certainly not. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 10:14:41
|
Bobby
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Demi Moore and Sharon Stone who particularly surprised me.
I did not realise it was either of these!
quote:
It's pretty long, and it does meander in an Altman-esque way through a lot of characters some of whom are inevitably less interesting than others, but what it builds up to is twenty odd minutes of a very powerful conclusion.
I didn't find it long. It's only about 1:45 and didn't feel longer to me. However, I did find that it dramatically flags in the last third; I think the developments in the characters' stories are not interesting enough. It redeems itself in the ballroom/shooting scene, especially with the desperation of those with the seemingly abandoned wounded while Kennedy is whisked away.
It definitely worked well that the assassin is not focused on at all, and that the Kennedy actor is only shown blurred/partially - this made it really look like him and also defined that he is not a character in the film.
The film's stance is clearly that things would have been better had Kennedy lived. Downtown is correct that we cannot assume that they would have been, but similarly we cannot assume that they would not. Apart from anything else, a leader does not affect his country only by his policies. Rather, he can affect the whole mood of the country and thus people's personal actions. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
"Bobby" - possible spoilers
