What to make of the film (which I found rather boring and old-fashioned)? It makes the U.S. government look like it is populated by a bunch of whoring, drunken sleazebags, so in that sense it's accurate enough. But there are a number of things both the book and the film are suppressing.
I think Chalmers is right about the Carter Administration's blundering do-gooderism; I mentioned it in my blurb about the flick. And of course most of his detailed refutation of the film and the book is spot-on. But I think the film is critical of what we've done and what we're doing in Afghanistan, but in a very sly way (the Zen Master story/the yahoo-cowboy footage of Soviets blowing up everything willy-nilly). Had it bludgeoned the point it would have been less likely to be made. Is it perfect? Hell no, but I found it reasonably entertaining. Perhaps if the film had ended with footage of Osama bin Laden packing up a SAM missile in the desert Chalmers would be satisfied.
And in case anyone doubts the Iranian claim that we faked that footage of speedboats taunting US warships: remember the Vincennes Incident bullshit cover story, and the Gulf of Tonkin bullshit.
No comments:
Post a Comment