Not about Communism at all. Its a pro- free speech, pro- tolerance - Trumbo (2015) Discussion

[–] Jack_LesCamela 9 years ago

The screenwriter John McNamara said he wasn't interested in Communism when writing it either. He was interested in the man and telling his story. Here's a great article/interview with McNamara about writing the movie:

http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=270440&ver=html5&p=22#{"page":22,"issue_id":270440}

"I speak Spanish to God, French to women, English to men, and Japanese to my horse."

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

Tolerance is what is uniquely American

 seriously? Tolerance is only found in the US? Not saying it isn't found there, although I'm sure a lot of people would disagree about how important it is there (ask Matthew Shepard's parents or the Rosenbergs) but "uniquely American"?

You know that there are other parts in the world than the US and Syria, right?

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] quemen2 9 years ago

Matthew Shepard was killed by his gay lover/drug dealer. Stop trying to promote the lie he was killed by intolerant "homophobes".

reply

[–] DaveR011 9 years ago

Matthew Shepard was killed by his gay lover/drug dealer

That's the version Sheppard's killers tell. There's little evidence to support that version and some reason to question their motives in so claiming..

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, though, were indeed agents of the Soviet Ministry for State Security (better known perhaps by its post 1954 name, the KGB). They did, in fact, commit the serious crimes of which they were accused and received a legally appropriate sentence. Bad luck on their part to have been caught at a time the US was in a shooting war with a Soviet ally.

reply

[–] activista 9 years ago

Not sure about that---it's come out since then that the Rosenbergs may not have guilty of some of the crimes they were accused of doing, and that they may have been simply victims of the whole Red Communist scare going on at that time. And it's also been said that they were executed to be made an example of, not because the crimes they were said to have committed were executable.

Here's a couple of articles with different takes of the case:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1537:the-true-crime-of-the-rosenberg-execution

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17-story.html

reply

[–] DaveR011 9 years ago

Both links agree that the Rosenbergs were active and dangerous Soviet agents and quite guilty of espionage. There is some legitimate criticism about the conduct of the prosecution, though. As I noted, the sentence was legally appropriate, if more severe than most espionage sentences.

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

oh, murderers got away, while communists did not.
The big US of A is not, perhaps, never was, in any case, has not been for a long time the nation of rights and democracy.
In 2015, I would have liked to see more politics in my movie. But, it's not time yet, is it ?Trump and tea-party (let me laugh)are all around,so don't make waves in hollywood.just find me the next superman!(god knows i won't watch it)

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

yeah, the rosenberg were guilty.of what ?,no kidding, guilty. With no two ways about it.nevertheless, they were scapegoats. looks like they were double agents...like everybody else, at that time.

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

yeah, the rosenberg were guilty.of what ?,no kidding, guilty. With no two ways about it.nevertheless, they were scapegoats. looks like they were double agents...like everybody else, at that time.they divulged US secrets, too bad. Not like USSR wanted to go to war, anyway.But a lot of people missed the point. So nowadays, snowden gets a few secrets out about what the USA does, and it's a crime to say it. just illegal to do it. Nothing new under the sun. Oh, yes, real terrorists...just a few thousands of them. This movie is "lukewarm" as far as politics goes,from our perspective. People were condemned because they could think by themselves.Propaganda was all the rage on both sides. Americans and russians led the terrororist wave we face now. Everyone sold them weapons.But really, if not for the cold war,if not for oil...we might still be arguing about trade unions.

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

As far as I know, they traded a few secrets. But they were an example. They could have been (i'm french,so) Dreyfus (scapegoats). As far as the french are concerned they were low level spies. but spies. Did they deserve death, that is an entirely different question.In 2015, dalton trumbo would be a beacon of hope for some, a communist for others, but who could stop him from writing, if not terrorits ?

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

As far as I know, they traded a few secrets. But they were an example. They could have been (i'm french,so) Dreyfus (scapegoats). As far as the french are concerned they were low level spies. but spies. Did they deserve death, that is an entirely different question.In 2015, dalton trumbo would be a beacon of hope for some, a communist for others, but who could stop him from writing, if not terrorists ?

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

In France we have two words :McCarthysm and witch hunting. Which means that witch hunting in salem and hunting communists are on the same level. Ok, there were communists everywhere, but, you couldn't very well round up every factory worker, could you ? This movie gives us an insight from a witch's family point of view.
I Was kind of glad of the portrait given of "john wayne". He's such a charachter by himself. I knew it, but, without really "knowing", you know. Yeah, you do...

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

that's what I didn't like. Communism is not "Stalinism". Great ideals on the paper (which are present in the movie, when he asks his daughter if she shares her lunch).No communist at that time had realised that a dictatorship, no matter who had the power was "fated" to remain totalarism. But, now, it would be nice to remember that the country you fought to get rid of is a much better example of democracy than you are. Europe finally got it.
You had a revolution not to pay taxes, and you were right, at the time. You all had guns to protect yourselves, and you were right, at the time.
Times, they are changin'

reply

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

Actually, there was plenty of evidence that Russia had become a Stalinist dictatorship by the time this film was set. Communist Party members either chose to ignore this or didn't care. James P Cannon, Max Shachtman and Farrell Dobbs amongst others had left the CP for that very reason.

I don't know if you're implying that Putin's Russia is a better example of democracy than the USA, but if you are, you should really think again. No matter how popular he is at present domestically, Putin follows in the tradition of Stalin and the Tsars - wealth and privilege for the few, exploitation for the many, suppression or death for the dissenters.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] elduderino09 9 years ago

That was the scene in the movie that bothered me the most. The question Trumbo posed to his daughter was not communism, it was charity (a noble trait). Communism would be the richest fathers kid in the class bringing 2 sandwiches, but telling her to divide her sandwich in half and giving some to the unfed child. Granted, not true communism. But the way it's ALWAYS been instituted in communist regimes.

The other thing that bothered me was how heinous John Wayne was during this part of history. He's considered the icon of American values, yet he endorses a "thought police" mentality that is the antithesis of the founders intentions.

reply

[–] magguilmot 9 years ago

that's what I didn't like. Communism is not "Stalinism". Great ideals on the paper (which are present in the movie, when he asks his daughter if she shares her lunch).No communist at that time had realised that a dictatorship, no matter who had the power was "fated" to remain totalarism. But, now, it would be nice to remember that the country you fought to get rid of is a much better example of democracy than you are. Europe finally got it.
You had a revolution not to pay taxes, and you were right, at the time. You all had guns to protect yourselves, and you were right, at the time.
Times, they are changin'

For morons: the country is england, of course. Not russia. why do I feel compelled to add THAT ?

reply

[–] johnmartindj 9 years ago

No country has ever had a revolution NOT to pay taxes. The American Colonies never fought so they would not have to pay taxes. They only wanted representation in government. This is one of the most misunderstood policies in American History. The Tea Party is about guns and no taxes. The founders did not make the right to bear arms so that the people could revolt against the government they were creating. Only to provide an army (militia) when necessary to PROTECT their government. History is not for everyone.

reply

[–] timlin-4 9 years ago

And what would they do with that representation if not to eliminate the tax? Americans wanted freedom, and that means guarding against being enslaved to a new tyranny. Of course you are just playing dumb, the only history you believe is one fabricated by Marxists

reply

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 9 years ago

And what would they do with that representation if not to eliminate the tax? Americans wanted freedom, and that means guarding against being enslaved to a new tyranny. Of course you are just playing dumb, the only history you believe is one fabricated by Marxists

Shows a profound ignorance of American history. The failure of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 demonstrates that the Founding Fathers-- especially Washington and Hamilton, who both played important roles in crushing the rebellion-- were A-OK with the idea of taxation with representation.

The Whiskey Tax was eventually abolished-- in 1801, after the election of Thomas Jefferson-- but it was abolished by legal, democratic, constitutionally-protected means, not by anarchistic "Second Amendment solutions" as today's right-wingers would have you believe.

So was George Washington a Marxist? I don't bloody well think so.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

[–] DaveR011 9 years ago

that's what I didn't like. Communism is not "Stalinism".

It was in Trumbo, the CPUSA, and the Soviet Union's opinions. That there may have been a small number of Communists who disagreed is not especially relevant to this film or the issues involved.

reply

[–] rainegrewal 8 years ago

I would say this movie is about fear or xenophobia and the drastic measures that people in high places/governments will go to to when they feel that their way of life is threatened. As a Canadian watching this film, it brought to mind the similarities of that time and what's happening with the "threat of terrorism" now. Are there Americans who feel the same? I thought the film timely...

reply

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

It is a movie that reminds of the danger that results when the government and movements are used to demonize and intimidate those who have a different opinion or ideology.

Christian conservatives haven't changed much, have they?

If I don't reply, you're probably on my ignore list for something I forgot already

reply