Posted on 07/30/2003 11:31:11 AM PDT by weegee
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Gregor Jordan set out to make a film that teasingly mocked the military.
Little did he know he would come under a firestorm from media pundits, the military and those who uphold the memory of America's first all-black cavalry unit, which was nicknamed the Buffalo Soldiers -- also the title of his new movie.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
But Jordan said that withholding the film from release is an infringement on free speech. "That to me is anti-American," he said. "That to me is unpatriotic."
You are an Australian citizen. Sod what you think, you aren't an American. Sell your "I loathe the military" sentiments elsewhere.
Disney is a publicly traded company and this is (still) a capitalist nation. Disney owes it to the investors to be sensitive to market backlash against releasing offending product. This movie is so 9-10-2001.
Black Group Demands Miramax/Disney Rename Film
I suppose common courtesy is lost on this Hollyweird moron.
The movie itself is an insult to the American military (and even President "Tear down this wall" Reagan).
(1) The Plains Indians were slaveowners, slavetraders and slavedealers just like the white man. Plenty of Indians fought for the Confederacy as well. The Buffalo Soldiers had their own reasons for fighting.
(2) Would US troops have gained from the Communists overrunning Western Europe?
If this man wasn't working in Hollywood, he wouldn't be smart enough to hold down a dishwashing job in the real world.
This is the real hypocricy. He's presenting the movie as a true story, when it's nothing but an amalgamation of rumors, innuendo, and outright lies. But as long as it drags down the military, it's fair game for the idiots in Hollyweird.
Q: If you were putting on a progressive film festival, what movies would you show?Ebert: It's a good question, because a movie isn't good or bad based on its politics. It's usually good or bad for other reasons, though you might agree or disagree with its politics.
Read this thread where I showed that Roger Ebert lied when he said this:
Roger (Bush hater) Ebert interview (post #61)
Here's just a taste: "I am sure the filmmakers believe their film is against the death penalty. I believe it supports it and hopes to discredit the opponents of the penalty as unprincipled fraudsters" (ZERO stars although he liked the acting and direction).
"I never meant to upset anyone," said the Australian director
But Jordan said that withholding the film from release is an infringement on free speech. "That to me is anti-American," he said. "That to me is unpatriotic."
Shut up, you GD civilian foreigner. The only reason anyone has any rights in this country is because people like those your movie disparages served this country. What did you do in the Cold War, asshole?
"All you have to do is look at official Pentagon documents about U.S. military deaths between 1975 and 1990," Jordan said. "There were between 25 and 30 murders on these bases every year. ... There were 100 suicides every year. And this was during peacetime."
Bullsh*t. There were not 25-30 murders per year in the entire U.S. military, let alone in U.S. Army posts in Germany. In fact, on those rare occasions when there was a murder, it was a big deal on AFN and in Stars and Stripes. And it is important to remember that the U.S. military during the Cold War numbered approximately 1.5 million troops, and, while crimes did sometimes occur, they occurred at a far lower frequency than in the general U.S. population.
He said that time period is a bad patch in the Army's history and that the movie shows part of a crackdown on those problems.
Actually, the "bad patch" was from Vietnam until around 1981 or so. Around that time, commanders cracked down on drugs - and the main problem was off-duty use of marijuana - and it was pretty much eradicated by the mid-1980s.
Actually, we've significantly reduced the number of military deaths in the last 20 years. I don't know if his numbers are correct or not (and I think he's an A$$) but there were certainly more than 25-30 murders per year in the entire U.S. military during those years. 1
Though it may have been bad for the filmmakers, there is at least one good thing for audiences in the fact that Miramax had to postpone the release of Buffalo Soldiers after the events of September 11th, 2001 — and then again the following spring when focus groups tested badly, and then again earlier this year as the Iraq war loomed. For two years ago it would have been just a routine example of Hollywood’s bashing of the American armed forces and military life in general. Now it is a perfect time capsule from a vanished era of movie history.You will never again see a picture quite as bad as this one, or at least not bad in the same way.
I absolutely agree with this statement. I thought that "The Life of David Gale" was a brilliant movie despite its obvious anti-death penalty view.
I am disappointed that Ebert slammed the film for the reasons that he did. "Gale" did poorly at the box office due in part, I'm sure, to the reviews it received.
I'll probably see "Buffalo Soldiers" when it comes to DVD. I rarely see movies in the theater anymore. If it is good, I will appreciate it despite the politics. Hell, people can say that "Stripes" was defamatory towards the military and that film is a comedic classic!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.