. . . Warren Beatty's full open mouth deep throated sloppy wet kiss to communism?
_______________________________________
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
_______________________________________
Wow! Have you seen the film or just read the back of the box? The film depicts a real person in a real time living real events. To begin with, to examine a subject is not the same as endorsing the subject matter. In the film Beatty portrays a communist who believes that his value system is correct and as he gets further into the party and the revolution, begins to see the reality of the intrinsic problems of and indeed hopelessness of his utopian ideals. I love how so many people, still trying to revive the cold war just HATE Beatty for making this film. They don't seem to appreciate the amazing amount of artistry that went into in. How critically lauded the picture was, or how deeply moving and involving both the examination of the subject and the arc of the main characters are.
It's so weird how out "there" in America, there is still so little appreciation for art and how much fear there is around art. We live in a time when the current administration is so bent on creating and encouraging lies, stupidity and fear that now, more than ever, we need brave artists who are willing to look at challenging subject matter, rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
It can't all be Pirates, Transformers and Shrek for God's sake!
When you read some of the comments on IMDB it's amazing that art in this country manages to exist at all.
I would hope that jaybird 9 would be able to watch the film and recognize the difference between art and propoganda.
Wow. I must've hit a nerve.
__________________________________
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
__________________________________
I'm just saying that the 1917 Bolshevik revolution is a source of misty-eyed romanticism for hard leftists, and Beatty played right into that, and just noting that one thing he DIDN'T EVER DO is opt to make a movie about any of the patriots of the American revolution. And that's telling.
___________________________________
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
___________________________________
. . . Warren Beatty's full open mouth deep throated sloppy wet kiss to communism?
by - tightspotkilo on Mon Dec 24 2007 08:55:28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The movie sucks but so does your comment. Have you even seen the movie?
At the end of the movie communism has FAILED, Reed's life is treated by the communists as a convenience to propaganda, and he's imprisoned in a country where he can have no impact!!! Oh Yeah! I think I'll go out and join the party right now.
Yes! A liberal made a movie about a figure at the center of communism's failure. All that survives at the end are his ideals. He gets his face ground in communism's failure, whereas, you with all your freedom can't even entertain another viewpoint and watcha movie or it might kill you.
In case you missed it dumb***, the TITLE OF THE FRICKING MOVIE IS "REDS," a disparaging term for communists by reactionary a-holes like yourself, not "Jack Reed; Glorious Hero of the Revolution".
You either have no eyes, or no brain (you didn't watch the movie).
Of course I've seen it, little cowboy. Several times in fact. You're the one without a clue. So let me help you out. Beatty isn't in any way saying that communism failed. He wouldn't say that, mainly because he doesn't believe that. Communism is just great, then and now, as far as he's concerned. What Beatty believes is that it was the people who failed communism. It didn't work because the wrong people were in charge. And that's how it was played out in the film. Mmmm-kay??
____________________________________
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
____________________________________
Beatty isn't in any way saying that communism failed. He wouldn't say that, mainly because he doesn't believe that. Communism is just great, then and now, as far as he's concerned.
Wow! Your endless, reactionary ignorance of the film, the filmmaker's intentions, and the art of story telling itself is BOUNDLESS!
How can you possibly presume to know what Beatty truly believes in as far as the success, failure or principles of the Communist Party?
I actually happen to know the man a little and believe me, he is far smarter than you give him credit for. Anyone in the artistic community would agree that he is a major film artist and that this is a major accomplishment in American film. Oh course, I would imagine that someone like you regards all artists as "leftist" and irresponsible.
As far as Beatty not making a film about American Patriots. He also hasn't made a film about aardvarks! What can that inane comment possibly mean?
I always find it interesting that those who are most afraid of 'communism' also seem to be the first ones that would censor artists and have us living in a police state where freedom of expression is prohibited. Not liking the film on artistic ground is one thing and certainly anyone's right. But, objecting to art on a political basis, especially something that takes it's subject as seriously and fair handedly as REDS does borders on sheer stupidity.
Bet you thought John Wayne's film The Green Berets was THE definitive film on Viet Nam!
Amazing.
LOL!!! "There are none so blind as they who will not see."
Beatty is your classic wealthy leftist. Every issue he advocates and every opinion he has expressed has made that abundantly clear.
Leftist? Is this the new trendy word? As opposed to what? rightists?
Ahem. Let me ask you one thing: is it possible to make a movie about the Russian Revolution without stirring up some sort of backlash against the maker? We had Nicholas and Alexandra, we had Eisenstein's October 1917 and every time this comes up - in every page, there's a thread of outrage from someone who's clearly missed the point.
The fact is that there's nothing wrong with documenting events on film and the Russian Revolution is no exception. The point of difference is that nobody is obliged to take any proscribed position, least of all one based on competitive outrage. That Reds does little more than describe the Revolution from the point of view of a couple of people who are there does not mean that the film is naturally sympathetic to one point of view or another. There are those here who think that the story should only be told in terms of murder and repression - something which, for the most part, only came later.
The events of October, 1917 were actually less violent than the revolution of February the same year and that revolution had little to do with communists.
That said, there's no way I can believe that your opinion is likely to be swayed by anything I say because all of us have our own political prejudices. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples where people were forced to hitch their waggon to an absolutist point of view predicated on polemical trench warfare. That is more dangerous than any political philosophy because it invariably fosters violence and terror.