I just saw that John Hannah retweeted that Carole woman tweet about Len Blavatnik financing the movie! What a fool! Yesterday I read some reactions and her followers are insane! First he isn't credited as a direct financier of the movie. He participate in the funding of Tessa Ross' The House company.
1) He uses to finance a lot of entertaiment including A LOT of popular music acts.
2) She is one of the most respected British producers. She also produced movies like 12 Years a Slave, Carol, Happy-Go-Lucky, Billy Elliot, Slumdog Millionaire and other awarded films
3) The other financier of her company is the BBC!
So considered this movie was greelighted by Channel 4 and ex-The Guardian's editor Ian Katz then you have some of the most respected British names and companies working for the Russian government! Right?
Wait, yesterday were also theories by randoms but feeded by that stupid tweet that BC was, of course, a Russian agent or something similar! The proof is that he played Assange. He apparently says he is a Remainer but he is a professional actor so... (yes, someone said that!). Then the consipancy grows! First, there is actually a connection: Katz is shown on TFE, played by Dan Stevens (they coulsn't know because they clearly didn't watched the movie!), so he knew Assange. Of course, later in real life he was accused of betraying Assange (and TFE was attacked by Assange and friends) but who cares for details?! Actors and movies are 100% symphatetic to their main characters! Most important we know that financiers dictate what political movies say so who is behind TFE, surely wasn't just BC: Well, it was produced by Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks and Disney!!!! So... CHANNEL 4, THE BBC, HBO, SPIELBERG AND DISNEY ALL WORK FOR PUTIN!!! That's the logic conclusion, doesn't? I should work for The Guardian!
It seems it's the biggest conspirancy EVER!!!! The question is why an awarded journalist doesn't write about it? Why just post suggestive tweets? She should be careful or another journalist can win her "the world first"! But yes, she was careful to say that she isn't talking about a conspirancy. She was just saying that Russian money is everywhere! But of course, her dumb followers didn't read that!
Again , what's the diference of Trump fans saying Mexico government has editorial control of The New York Times because his main shareholder was a Mexican and what these fools are saying?
I only read a Google translation of those remarks but they did seem very supportive of engaging the arts to comment on current events. Heavens, without such artistic freedom of expression we never would have Picasso's masterpiece Guernica. It was painted by him as an IMMEDIATE response (the bombing took place on April 26/37 and Picasso started the mural May 1st and finished by about June 4th of 1937) to the fascist bombing of the town in 1937. Or do the supporters of Cadwalladr's viewpoint think that Picasso should have waited for the Nuremberg Trials to be completed before looking into the horrors of fascism? Ridiculous!
And yes, art is monetized also to support certain POV - Picasso's painting was used to raise funds for Spanish refugees in 1938. And Picasso made sure the painting never was brought to Spain until after the death of Franco and democracy had been restored.
But that's just one glaring example of how wrong the "too soon" people are. There are thousands of examples from the filmic, literary, fine and theatrical arts of contemporary artistic expressions commenting on current and ongoing events.
Cadwalladr's arguments are complete hogwash!
"You're going into the water... short-arse!" - Sherlock
Her arguments are contradictory and malicious but at the center of them is she trying to censure an artist! I read someone telling another journalist that she is worry for the funding and the journalist answered saying that no, she always was against the movie. The thing about the funding, about HBO intervening in domestic issues and even her agreeing with Steve Bannon's people that the star of the movie is "evil" is all because she wanted to stop and censure a film.
She was even invited to participate as consultant but it was against her morals! Good for her but she can't impose her morals on others.
Someone defending her actually said an All President Men kind of film would be better meanwhile screaming about the timing and I was tempted to tell him that it was actually released one year BEFORE the last Watergate trials but Twitter fights aren't worthy. Rationality and logic isn't relevant on social media!
Yeah, me too. The means are wrong, tho. I don't think how fabricate conspiracies would help her to convince non-believers of the real ones (if she has something real about the funding of the film she should do a proper journalism work instead of just post suggestions on Twitter).
I just read Stephanie Zacharek´s Vice review and..
But if Vice, Adam McKay’s creaky romp through the life and career of former Vice-President Dick Cheney, really is aimed at adults, why does it treat its audience like idiots? McKay seems to think we can’t be trusted to grasp what he sees as Cheney’s Machiavellian villainy unless he spells it out in cartoon language. There are no actual cartoons in Vice, but McKay packs in so much figurative Wile E. Coyote anvil dropping that there may as well be.