|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 10, 2019 12:34:14 GMT
Nice NYT article but such a shame they quote The Guardian review without mentioning the conflict of interest (again, the author who criticizes mainly the morality of the film and the way Leave figures were presented instead its artistic value is married with a prominent Leave campaign figure. Neither she or the newspaper revealed this bit of information)
By the way, I watched it and I have to retract of something I said! I will write my opinion later. It's very frustrating to see that the obviously most influential review is not just the only negative one but also a)a bad conceived review that centers on something outside the movie: its right to exist; b) a very compromised one, written by someone with a personal interest in the issue.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 12, 2019 13:24:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 12, 2019 14:11:10 GMT
I was thinking that I don’t think the critics are fools, they are all activists from both sides, including the journalists. They don’t understand what they don’t want to understand and the only version they would totally accept is that they are totally right and the other side is totally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 12, 2019 14:48:45 GMT
The title made me laugh: Of course, it didn’t that wasn’t the point! It’s not an investigative documentary! Anyway he is open about his role in te campaign because that’s what decent a decent journalist/newspaper do: He also thinks the author’s vision was altered! I really doubt that their dreamed and fair projects for a free UK were edited by Channel 4, tho. Again the film wasn’t exactly about political platforms but about the division and how it was/is being exploited: blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/brexit-the-uncivil-war-didnt-reveal-the-truth-about-vote-leave/
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jan 12, 2019 16:23:29 GMT
That’s an interesting article for the Spectator to publish, considering Dominic Cummings’ wife writes for that paper.
I think he’s wrong about how the movie came across to those of us who weren’t actually involved with the events in the story. It’s understandable that he can nitpick because he was there, but it was a movie! I never had the impression that DC wrote on every wall he saw - but if he really did write on walls, why was that a big deal?
It reminds me of another example: I was a big fan of Sex in the City, and I remember the ongoing criticism of them always showing the ladies eating. People said that it wasn’t realistic for them to eat that way and still be that skinny. As a longtime viewer, I knew that those meals were just a way for the show to get the ladies together to talk. Sometimes they would eat, sometimes shop, but they also had lives and jobs apart from each other. They regularly got together for breakfast or lunch on Sundays, and just because they might show several of those breakfasts in one episode didn’t mean that they sat around eating that way all day, every day!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 12, 2019 18:31:18 GMT
They are involved so they, of course, will nitpicking little things! Especially because the movie is very clearly anti-Brexit. That’s why I found slightly perplexing to read pro-Remain people moaning about it (but not pro-Brexit types: they are right, the film is criticizing them!). I say “slightly” because again I think most of them are activists and they are bothered by humanized versions of characters as Cummings even when at the end he is presented as a very flawed human being who was stupidly wrong. For them, it would be better if he is just presented as a mustache twirling villain.
Also one tweet I read was very illuminated to me: someone angry because one of the central theme were the dissatisfaction with the establishment, he didn’t even could accepted that dissatisfaction exists because Brexit is “a crime scene”, he said. They committed fraud because the overspending so every other reason explaining Brexit victory is just a lie and propaganda! The thing is, no matter what the criminal investigation will say or what will happen next with the electoral institutions, the dissatisfaction is real and sadly it’s not just in the UK. It’s everywhere! But their main objective is trying to stop Brexit so the most extreme of them can’t even accept it! Such a shame because their work is indeed valuable but maybe they should also try to attract and convince those disaffected people. They won’t disappear and clearly something is not working.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 17, 2019 13:48:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 17, 2019 14:21:20 GMT
It contains new BC quotes: www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-benedict-cumberbatch-brexit-movie-hbo-20190117-story.htmlI don't know exactly what she wanted to say with the All Presiden's Men comparision but it was indeed written inmmediately after Watergate. The scandal was slowly exposed in 1972-1973, exploded with the biggest revelations in 1973-1974 with the book published in 1974 (and Nixon resigning the same year) and the movie was released in 1976. Contrary to this there was a criminal case (so it seems the classical movie would be illegal in the modern UK) that ended with the conclusion of the last appeals until 1977. As Graham said in an early interview this movie has almost the same time span: Brexit referendum (the theme of the movie as the journalist investigation was the theme of All the President's Men) was in 2016 and this was released in early 2019.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jan 17, 2019 19:51:36 GMT
In this week’s People magazine:
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 18, 2019 16:57:09 GMT
|
|