rocketpig said:
Oh wait, I forgot how it's only okay for directors to show black and white. Shades of grey are obviously unacceptable. You know what The Hurt Locker needed to not be propaganda? A massive rape scene of Iraqi women and/or cattle. It's the only way Bigelow could have shown the "evil" of the war, even though that wasn't the point of the film AT ALL and would have turned the movie into a true propaganda piece but you guys would have been okay with it because it'd be propaganda YOU agreed with. As I said earlier, the lead character was an asshole. He wasn't necessarily "bad" per se but he certainly wasn't a good guy. Neither was ANYONE ELSE in the film. The main character was a fucked up guy who continually did fucked up things to his fellow soldiers, family at home, and then constantly put them all at risk. Whooooooo! My HERO! |
But rapes, mass killing, torture, mass incarceration have been committed by US soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you will agree? (google to find numerous news about these events)
So according to you, if a movie decides to depict the vicious crimes of an invading and occupying force that occured in Iraq and Afghanistan, which btw is depicting the truth, makes that movie a propaganda?

It is better to die on one's feet
then live on one's knees







