I recently tried to re-read Kayla William’s Love My Rifle More Than You:, which I liked the first time. Didn't get into the second time -- the 'tude of the author annoyed me this time, but don't really agree with this review either. That is an unfair simplification of her substantive analysis of military life and life during wartime Iraq. The author later commented about a U.S. solider who she knew, one who committed suicide in part probably because of her negative response to exposure to torture.
Torture is just one thing we have to be ashamed of as a country in the last decade. The continual blockage by Republicans (and now a spare Democrat, on specious grounds) to DADT repeal, even though everyone except them (even many of their family members aren't on board -- see McCain's wife and daughter) thinks it is the right and pragmatic thing to do. The President, top military officials, the troops themselves, the House, 57 or so votes in the Senate (more if faux procedural concerns are taken seriously), the American people, justice and basic morality ... well, heck with all that. Maybe, we can blame this on the '10 elections, like they apparently show the people want to extend tax cuts to millionaires. Increasing the debt ... the Tea Party way.
There were blatant moments where I basically stopped taking the President, Republicans and their enablers seriously, one being the proposal to amend the Constitution to block same sex marriage rights. [A nod to those like Eugene Volokh who thought it a serious question, if you know, it was limited to full faith and credit issues ... also, torture? not really something I want to think about. Not my thing. Need to spend more time on gun rights and age of consent laws]. But, the Valerie Plame matter is up there. Someone who was out there actually doing something about WMDs and her husband who back in the day did something about Saddam Hussein without bullshitting the American public into war over it.
Not that the press came off totally well in that affair as with the WMDs issue as a whole. In fact, the first film on the affair (to the displeasure of some) was a fictional one that focused more on a Judith Miller type. Didn't see it. It sounded like it dwelt on serious First Amendment issues though given how things went in real life, the portrayals of the reporter (much softer here than the original, down to the casting of Kate Beckinsale) and agent (the accounts suggest a more bitchy character than the socialite vibes of Plame) would probably be hard for me to put aside.
This one is basically VP's story, one deemed "essentially accurate" by real reporters contra to their paper's op-ed smear job. The reporters note that the film does give her more control than real life apparently warranted, but dramatic license usually does things like that, so singling out any one film on that level is silly. The bit about the Iraqi scientist is unclear though. But, I can't really judge how much blowing her cover meant to the agency. They denied to meant that much, but would they actually fully admit that one way or another? The fact some unnamed source told the reporters so doesn't really convince me one way or the other.
[The movie cites both of the Wilsons' books as source material; I reviewed her own here. Suffice to say there is a lot more than can be said here or in the movie, but the source material does underline this is not just Valerie Plame's story. Joseph Wilson also is a major player, various scenes about him alone.]
Dramatic license about such things as if Valerie Wilson really seriously worried about divorce or the like is even less problematic. The "affair" put serious pressures on their marriage. That's the point and it was portrayed well. Below even suggests that "there needs to be a hero and a villain" shouldn't be taken as if the film is simplistic. Rove actually has only a small role here, the original much longer script perhaps more anti-Bush in that respect (Rove is an easy villain; Libby comes off as more complicated, if deep down, maybe he isn't). Joseph Wilson (Sean Penn excellent, down to the body type, which is much different than the more skinny looking Mayor Milk ... another Oscar nomination is quite possible) also comes off as flawed -- letting principle overwhelm discretion at times. Valerie might come off a bit too heroic, though Naomi Watts is quite good. A bit more nuance there might be warranted. As the reporters note, she did eventually take that Vanity Fair interview.
As with other things, the matter is so wrong that even a reduced level of outrage is enough to make it an archetypal symbol of how the Bush Administration operated. Mr. Libby (I will avoid the stupid nickname) is actually portrayed with a somewhat light touch, but the insidious nature of lack of doubt (if there is 1% risk, can we take the chance? of what? killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?) and "changing the story" by releasing classified information (declassified for that purpose) and smearing the Wilsons comes off probably even worse given that. And, the film underlines that WMDs was and continues to be an important issue.
Seriously addressing the problem, as shown in a documentary that Plame herself took part in, is too important to use those doing their part as playthings for power politics. They should not be "fair game" and the fact that saying as much remains a partisan issue is a major problem. I don't agree with Sandy Levinson totally but structure is a problem. As is anything that lets this go on.
[With Wikileaks and all, this discussion by me is relevant on why the Plame affair is a problem. It isn't because any leak is a problem. Thanks to the person who accessed it.
One more thing. "Joe Wilson" had a great point in the film when he asked an audience how many know the "16 words" that helped us go to war -- few -- then, how many knew his wife's name -- many. Again, change the frame, the frame becomes the story, not what is really important or even worth knowing. I might have said this but it's important enough to repeat. And, the clarity of the scene underlines why the film is well worth seeing.]
Torture is just one thing we have to be ashamed of as a country in the last decade. The continual blockage by Republicans (and now a spare Democrat, on specious grounds) to DADT repeal, even though everyone except them (even many of their family members aren't on board -- see McCain's wife and daughter) thinks it is the right and pragmatic thing to do. The President, top military officials, the troops themselves, the House, 57 or so votes in the Senate (more if faux procedural concerns are taken seriously), the American people, justice and basic morality ... well, heck with all that. Maybe, we can blame this on the '10 elections, like they apparently show the people want to extend tax cuts to millionaires. Increasing the debt ... the Tea Party way.
There were blatant moments where I basically stopped taking the President, Republicans and their enablers seriously, one being the proposal to amend the Constitution to block same sex marriage rights. [A nod to those like Eugene Volokh who thought it a serious question, if you know, it was limited to full faith and credit issues ... also, torture? not really something I want to think about. Not my thing. Need to spend more time on gun rights and age of consent laws]. But, the Valerie Plame matter is up there. Someone who was out there actually doing something about WMDs and her husband who back in the day did something about Saddam Hussein without bullshitting the American public into war over it.
Not that the press came off totally well in that affair as with the WMDs issue as a whole. In fact, the first film on the affair (to the displeasure of some) was a fictional one that focused more on a Judith Miller type. Didn't see it. It sounded like it dwelt on serious First Amendment issues though given how things went in real life, the portrayals of the reporter (much softer here than the original, down to the casting of Kate Beckinsale) and agent (the accounts suggest a more bitchy character than the socialite vibes of Plame) would probably be hard for me to put aside.
This one is basically VP's story, one deemed "essentially accurate" by real reporters contra to their paper's op-ed smear job. The reporters note that the film does give her more control than real life apparently warranted, but dramatic license usually does things like that, so singling out any one film on that level is silly. The bit about the Iraqi scientist is unclear though. But, I can't really judge how much blowing her cover meant to the agency. They denied to meant that much, but would they actually fully admit that one way or another? The fact some unnamed source told the reporters so doesn't really convince me one way or the other.
[The movie cites both of the Wilsons' books as source material; I reviewed her own here. Suffice to say there is a lot more than can be said here or in the movie, but the source material does underline this is not just Valerie Plame's story. Joseph Wilson also is a major player, various scenes about him alone.]
Dramatic license about such things as if Valerie Wilson really seriously worried about divorce or the like is even less problematic. The "affair" put serious pressures on their marriage. That's the point and it was portrayed well. Below even suggests that "there needs to be a hero and a villain" shouldn't be taken as if the film is simplistic. Rove actually has only a small role here, the original much longer script perhaps more anti-Bush in that respect (Rove is an easy villain; Libby comes off as more complicated, if deep down, maybe he isn't). Joseph Wilson (Sean Penn excellent, down to the body type, which is much different than the more skinny looking Mayor Milk ... another Oscar nomination is quite possible) also comes off as flawed -- letting principle overwhelm discretion at times. Valerie might come off a bit too heroic, though Naomi Watts is quite good. A bit more nuance there might be warranted. As the reporters note, she did eventually take that Vanity Fair interview.
As with other things, the matter is so wrong that even a reduced level of outrage is enough to make it an archetypal symbol of how the Bush Administration operated. Mr. Libby (I will avoid the stupid nickname) is actually portrayed with a somewhat light touch, but the insidious nature of lack of doubt (if there is 1% risk, can we take the chance? of what? killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?) and "changing the story" by releasing classified information (declassified for that purpose) and smearing the Wilsons comes off probably even worse given that. And, the film underlines that WMDs was and continues to be an important issue.
Seriously addressing the problem, as shown in a documentary that Plame herself took part in, is too important to use those doing their part as playthings for power politics. They should not be "fair game" and the fact that saying as much remains a partisan issue is a major problem. I don't agree with Sandy Levinson totally but structure is a problem. As is anything that lets this go on.
[With Wikileaks and all, this discussion by me is relevant on why the Plame affair is a problem. It isn't because any leak is a problem. Thanks to the person who accessed it.
One more thing. "Joe Wilson" had a great point in the film when he asked an audience how many know the "16 words" that helped us go to war -- few -- then, how many knew his wife's name -- many. Again, change the frame, the frame becomes the story, not what is really important or even worth knowing. I might have said this but it's important enough to repeat. And, the clarity of the scene underlines why the film is well worth seeing.]