Here’s a hint – it starts with the letter “O.”
Director Robert Redford’s new historical drama “The Conspirator” is a not-so-veiled indictment of military tribunals told through the lens of history. The story follows the court case of Mary Surratt, a woman accused of conspiring to kill President Abraham Lincoln.
Redford’s liberal bona fides are unconditional, but here’s guessing he didn’t know his movie would arrive in theaters just weeks after President Barack Obama declared that the mastermind behind 9/11 and four co-conspirators would be tried in military tribunals after all.
When you’re reviewing a film with obvious ties to modern policies, it seems mandatory to mention that fact. Don’t tell that to many of today’s premier movie critics.
NPR didn’t reference Obama’s recent ruling. Nor did Entertainment Weekly, The Los Angeles Times, Movieline, The New Yorker, New York Magazine or Time.
|
|
Slate magazine brings up President George W. Bush as if Obama never existed, let alone continued much of his predecessor’s War on Terror strategies.
Roger Ebert does invoke Obama, but completely ignores the fact that his administration JUST gave the go ahead to military tribunals:
The language and reasoning of Stanton echo with similar statements by Bush and Cheney in defense of the Patriot Act, and Reverdy Johnson [Tom Wilkinson's character] in this reading would represent Obama, more a compromiser than an idealist.
Ebert’s the king of Twitter. Surely he’s read about Obama’s flip flop, right?
Media bias doesn’t begin and end in the news section of your local newspaper or favored web site destination. The verdicts reached on some movies also is impacted by the reviewer’s ideological baggage.
This critic found “The Conspirator” to be one of Redford’s more impressive directorial achievements, but so far the film has mustered only a 55 percent rating at RottenTomatoes.com. I wonder if that figure would be higher had the movie hit theaters during the Bush administration?
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Obama’s never displayed much passion for foreign affairs, and seems to treat them as a mere distraction from his domestic agenda. Members of his liberal base are clearly following the same script; their unspoken agreement seems to be: we’ll let Obama get away with compromising his anti-Bush values on the war on terror if it means he gets to keep his focus on his government expansions.
Having studied this event quite a bit I must say I was, and really still am looking forward to seeing this film. But people should ask themselves, can Mary Surrat really be all the good Redford makes her out to be when she was CLEARLY a friend of Booth and Co. and an ardent southerner?
At any rate, I’ve always thought the best version of this story was told in a book called “Manhunt” which was about Booth’s escape and the aftermath. That was to be made several years ago with Harrison Ford, but apparently it fell through. It’s a shame, because it’s a great book.
I saw the movie Friday. Did not care for it. I wanted to see this time period on film, but Redford’s liberal in your face message was too much. The movie is boring.
I just want to say, I went to the theater and paid to see Atlas Shrugged. After that movie was over I sat in on this film. Redford and his liberal pals did not get a dime from me. So I saw the movie for free, yet I still disliked it.
Neither did the theater, you stole a viewing from them. And does your (and, for that matter, my) dislike for Redford’s politics make it OK to steal from him too? You could have just waited until this was on TV.
Why would the liberal media point out that Obama is continuing Bush’s policies?
They have not mentioned that he is a Muslim born in Kenya either.
jic….I do not care. I am happy I stuck it to the movie industry. They have been sticking to me for years.
I am sure Redford will be OK with the loss of money from me.
I am proud I saw his film for free. That is the way he would want it. After all he is for spreading the wealth. I was just doing what he and Obama asked me to do.
Here’s an idea, Chris: stick it to the movie industry by not going to the movies in the first place. Don’t act like an antisocial, amoral jackass.
Mr. Perlman, really, Birther stuff? Come on. It’s Obama: you can do so much better, in terms of criticism, than that. Like that he seems to think Nicolae Ceausescu is a model of statesmanlike behavior (also economic policies). To bring up the Birther/Muslim stuff, even if it were true which I don’t think it is, is like limiting your criticism of Henry VIII to “His father was illegitimate”, when Thomas More’s and Anne Boleyn’s heads are right in front of you.
As for the movie, do they mention that Booth and Co. weren’t, really, so much “pro Confederate” as “anti war”? That seems like an uncomfortable detail, to Redford and co.
Liberals can take an Eric Holder mindset to the resumption of tribunals and rationalize their resumption away as something Holder and Obama didn’t want to do, but the evil, conspiratorial Republicans forced them into (How they managed to cut funding from the Gitmo trials last year with Pelosi and Reid controlling the House and Senate isn’t explained, but, hey, it’s probably another conspiracy).
Redford’s main problem here isn’t that his movie is going to end up having the same ill-planned effect as Francis Ford Coppola and George C. Scott’s “Patton”, where the military hero they thought they were denigrating as an allegory to the anti-Vietnam War era crowd ended up being embraced by pro-Vietnam War audiences, but that his name has become so associated with far-left filmed polemics that he’s already lost 50 percent or more of his potential audience before the move even opens. Redford’s name no longer evokes the thought of “1970s Matinee Idol”, but of “21st Century Liberal Scold”. People can stay home and watch re-runs of the final few seasons of “Law & Order” if they want to be lectured by actors on the politically correct ways of life.
I like the way you put that. Yes, the birther stuff is a gigantic waste of time. Even if somebody managed to prove that Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be “natural born” under the law because his mother was a US citizen who lived at least five years of her life in the US, at least one year of which was when she was over the age of 14 (I know some claim that law goes against the intent of the constitution, but good luck convincing the Supreme Court of that – assuming you could get standing in the first place). And even if you did convince the SCOTUS that Obama wasn’t constitutionally eligible to become president in the first place, what exactly happens then? Can a sitting president even be removed for such a reason? And if he can, who becomes POTUS, Biden?
You’re exactly right, go after him for the things he’s actually done.
Jic, if you want to support libs like Redford and their lies, so be it. Don’t expect me or others to do the same.
I guess you are a Michael Moore fan. that would explain your comments.
If I could find another movie to pay to see, I would do the same.
Maybe today I will pay they price for one newspaper like the Chi. Sun-times or NYT and take all of them. How about that.
No I would not do that because that would only hurt the paper guy. But the theaters, give me a break.
Jic, if you think Obama is doing a good job, then you have mental issues.
I really hope you don’t claim to be a conservative, Chris. Conservatives respect property rights, we obey the law to the best of our ability, and our moral and ethical standards aren’t conditional on how much we like the people we are dealing with. If anybody is behaving like Michael Moore here, it’s you.
By the way Chris, I like your “you think Obama is doing a good job” strawman – not only does it have nothing at all to do with my comments, but I made a comment that disproved it a mere four minutes earlier.
This comment thread seems to have gotten off on a tangent. Anyway, to get back to the original blog entry, you write: “this critic found “The Conspirator” to be one of Redford’s more impressive directorial achievements…” So let’s see, the “guilt” of Mary Surrat is certainly controversial, but the historical consensus – see Blood on the Moon by Edward Steers which uses primary sources in its investigation – concludes that she was guilty as charge. Thus, we have a script which paints a biographical portrait unsupported by the facts. Furthermore, and most importantly, we get to the real objective of Redford’s polemic – excuse me, film: “see, look here, these military tribunals were biased in this case and they will be again in dealing today with those poor, unfortunate GITMO terrorists.” “That’s Entertainment” it’s not. Therefore, we are all on tenterhooks. What are the elements of the film – apart from a Leni Riefenstahl/Sergei Eisenstein-like skill at political propaganda – that makes The Conspriator “impressive” entertainment?
Glad you did that, Chris-I used to do that too, cause if I was going to see a crappy liberal movie, Id be damn sure not to give them one thin DIME of my hard-earned money! Nowadays I just forego the whole movie experience, since I can get any movie I want almost instantly, and I have a plethora of older movies wating for me on my DVR, in HD, that I can see at my leisure! So, take that, follywood!
just ONE more hollywood libratard piece of TRASH I will NOT GO SEE or rent.
“you keep doing that Butch,.. it’s what you are good at” – SunDUNCE kid.
Steal this movie!!!
jic must be a communist. I am sticking to the “Man”!!!!!
Atlas Shrugged was my first movie sine An American Carol. I do not go to movies. I watch TCM and live in the past glories of classic holly wood.
I do not feel guilty about not paying to see the Conspirator.
jic must be a relative of Obama or Redford.
I am a conservative and damn proud of it.
I hate it when I get suckered into wasting my time on a troll…
Yeah, jic is an OBozo shrill-monitoring these boards for dissent from the masses,,those private eyes, theyre watching you,,
Chris can blatantly miss the point without apparent shame.
One more time …
1. Theft is theft no matter your dislike for the victim.
2. The biggest victim is not Redford nor any movie studio but the theater owner who, quite possibly, has political views you might endorse.
So all of your replies above miss the point at a minimum of two levels.
You are not very good at using that rhetorical trick. Perhaps more practice will help. You can start with this post! (Don’t try the name calling attack — that would be too transparent.)
Ahhh, blow it out your ear-was that rhetorical enough? I made my point, used humor and satire, but gave a fitting rebuttal to your butt! Somewhere down the line, Redfords getting his cut, so screw him!
jic and all his pals are nothing but Obama supporters. Anytime you can stick to Liberal filmmakers, YOU do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never go to movies anyway, so my little free movie will not break the theater owner. LOL
These libs her like jic crack me up.
Does Booth come across as having gotten away with the crime in this film? I have seen and read many thoughts that he had, which is why (according to this theory) everyone who was around the person who was wrongly killed as Booth was quickly imprisioned for life or hung.
The theory claimed the photos of the dead “Booth” show his wrong leg was broken, he had red hair (Booth had black) and he had a beard (Booth did not). Also, in Canada (according to one program on the History channel) a man claimed on his death bed that he in fact was Booth.
No matter why pages of Booth’s diary were torn out and destroyed and why the guard for Lincoln disappeared just before the assassination and no matter why Gen. Grant turned down a Presidential request to accompany him to the theater that night, the history reads like a wild cover-up and perhaps (as some wags claim) a military coup derailed by an unseen assassination event.
Terrific topic for film makers and writers that makes the Kennedy assassination weak tea in comparison IMO.
Youre right as rain, Chris-who are we to HAVE to support libs like Redford shoving some left winged revisionary history down our throats and WE have to pay for it? He can beg his butt buddy OBowmah to do it for him-Im sure he has a stimulus pkg ready for Follywood and their “losses” due to “right-winged illegal downloading of their movies” Come and get me, Commies!
The movie was awful. Redford’s A River Runs Through it was a great movie.
This movie just plain sucked.
I saw that when it first came out-thought it was ok, sort of slow and meandering, but I guess thats what fly fishing is all about,lol! One movie he made I did like, which was Ordinary People-quite a depressing flick, but great in its own way. didnt deserve to beat Raging Bull for best picture, not nevertheless one of, if not his best.