Brietbart.com and Glenn Greenwald Love/Hate, respectively, movie they have never seen

[arely staircase]

You can't make this shit up. The latter thinks it glorifies torture and that is shitty (which it would be but I have no idea and neither does Glen Greenwald.) The former thinks it glorifies torture and that fucking rocks (which is fucking nuts but I have no idea and neither does Brietbart.com)

Zero Dark Thirty: new torture-glorifying film wins raves

Can a movie that relies on fabrications to generate support for war crimes still be considered great?

"I have not seen this film and thus am obviously not purporting to review it; I am, instead, writing about the reaction to the film: the way in which its fabrications about the benefits of torture seem to be no impediment to its being adored and celebrated."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/10/zero-dark-thirty-torture-awards

Well, all right then, Glenn

Then there is this sh*t.

“So will the film impact the public’s perception of bin Laden’s death?” writes Breitbart.com’s Christian Toto. “After all, the media gave credit to President Barack Obama for capturing the terrorist leader even though Obama spoke out specifically against enhanced interrogation. … In theory, bin Laden would still be alive and plotting more attacks had Obama’s ‘no torture’ policy been in place.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/critics-on-obama-dark-zero-thirty-84894.html#ixzz2EnaPlXg5

Nevermind the Academy Award winning makers of the film say that they are both wrong.

“Zero Dark Thirty” writer says “it’s misreading the film” to say torture led to bin Laden capture

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/zero_dark_thirty_writer_says_its_misreading_the_film_to_say_torture_led_to_bin_laden_capture/

I think I will wait and make up my own mind.

[Bjorn Against]

1. Did you even read Greenwald's piece?

He explicitally said he is not reviewing the movie...

I have not seen this film and thus am obviously not purporting to review it; I am, instead, writing about the reaction to the film: the way in which its fabrications about the benefits of torture seem to be no impediment to its being adored and celebrated.

If you criticize Greenwald for reviewing a movie he has not watched, you should probably read his article before you criticize him on it.

[arely staircase]

2. thank you

i forgot to put that quote in. it was the whole reason for my post - when he admits he never even saw the thing. so, yes i read it. did you read it? that is the question. if you did you would see it is a hit piece on the movie (the one he hasn't seen) not some scholarly analysis of debate between people who have seen it.

greenwald strikes again.

lol

intellectual equal to brietbart.com. commenting on movies he hasn't seen.

roflmao

[Bjorn Against]

3. So where in his article does he call it "shitty" as you claim he does?

Answer: He does not say such a thing anywhere in the article. He is not reviewing the movie and he makes that very clear to anyone who reads his piece.

What he is commenting on is the facts that have been reported by many people who have seen the movie, there is a scene in the movie that shows valuable information being captured through torture yet there is no evidence to suggest this actually happened. If the filmmakers make up such a key scene with no factual basis and present it in a way that makes torture look effective when it is really not then I sure as hell am not going to send the filmmakers my money to watch their propaganda.

Greenwald is not reviewing the movie, he is simply reporting what has been said by numerous sources who have seen the film.

Unless you can claim the scene he refers to is not in the movie then his point stands, it doesn't matter whether the filmmaking is good or bad if it is presenting false propaganda we should not support it.

[arely staircase]

5. i said he thinks glorifying torture is shitty

read

i never said he thinks the movie is shitty from a cinematic point of view.

kinda makes your posts ironic

[Bjorn Against]

9. Please explain to me why Greenwald would have to watch the movie to determine torture is shitty

Now your argument makes even less sense, if you are trying to argue that Greenwald should not be able to express his views on torture until he watches a fictionalized Hollywood movie then I don't even know how to tell you how badly your argument fails.

[Oilwellian]

16. LOL

It was an obvious attempt to smear Greenwald that went very very badly.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. Are you representative of most centerists?

I ask, because your analysis is pretty sub-par. I don't hate Glen Greenwald to start with, and as such, this post borders on the nonsensical. Really. Try to step outside the Greenwald hatred and see if you can spot it. You're making this claim that Glen Greenwald thinks this movie glorifies torture, but that he actually has no idea whether or not it does, and as a result, he's a foolish person for having penned the article. First, he quotes Frank Bruni, who clearly has seen the movie. I trust Bruni's word, so does Greenwald. You don't, for whatever obscure and antisocial reason--whatever gets you through the night, I guess. Next, Greenwald backs up his assertions with the utterances of David Eddelstein and Dexter Filkins. Let me end the suspense for you: the movie glorifies torture. Are we clear on that? Do you believe that the US landed on the moon in 1969? Were you there, on the moon? By your own standard, you're foolish if you believe that we landed on the moon, since you don't have primary knowledge of the event yourself. Next, and as the other poster stated, Greenwald clearly says he's not reviewing the movie; rather, he's talking about the reactions to the movie, including some of the reviews. Just because you have a great desire to ignore that point doesn't actually give you license to do so. Finally, I do want to point out to you that your attempted smearing of Greenwald with the Breitbart brush isn't nearly as smooth as you appear to think it is. As I mentioned earlier, your post borders on the incoherent, and nowhere is this more evident than when you attempt to draw this parallel between the two. The attempt is obvious, wooden, and completely unsurprising. If your purpose was to write a persuasive missive, I believe I'd give you a C, but permit you to completely re-work the basic premise for a little extra credit.

[arely staircase]

6. where did i say he critically reviewed it like roger ebert? nice strawman

he said it glorifies torture

he hasn't even seen it

he is a joke

get it now?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. The Moon. I'd really like to know what you think about that moon landing.

Or, just skip it. I think I now know everything I need to know about you and your motivations. Thank you.

[Bjorn Against]

10. I would also like to know if you believe the Declaration of Independence was ever actually signed

I assume you were not there to witness the signing so I don't know how you could claim it ever was signed if you believe you have to see something first hand to comment on it.

Unless of course you think we should hold reporting on a movie to a higher standard than reporting on the events that shaped history.

[arely staircase]

11. worst anology

ever

congrats.

[Bjorn Against]

13. If you think it is a bad analogy explain why

If you believe it is wrong to use second hand sources to criticize a movie explain to me why it is acceptable to use 10,000th hand sources to report on the important events that shaped our nation.

I am really curious to know if you think second hand sources are acceptable in some cases but not others and how you determine when they are acceptable and when they are not.

[arely staircase]

14. it is a bad anology because it isn't analogous

eom

[Bjorn Against]

15. So when is it OK to use second hand sources and when is it not?

Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

You clearly seem to believe that it is OK to use second hand sources to talk about history so I am really puzzled as to why you would be opposed to using second hand sources to report on a scene in a movie. Please tell me the line in which it becomes unacceptable to use a second hand source.

[SidDithers]

7. They deserve each other...

they're different sides of the same coin.

Sid

[arely staircase]

12. +1

eom