I read it. I don’t think this Roger guy is doing a good job. I just can’t understand his sentence:
“If Winter is a disgrace to the uniform, so in a way is Irwin”
This seems just plain wrong. How can anyone come to this conclusion? How is Lt. Gen Irwin a disgrace to the uniform? I can see how Col. Winter is, but ...
Am I just too stupid to see it, because I don’t f*cking see it?
Perhaps it is the premise of the 3 star “hero” concept. From what little I remember, this “hero” thing was contrived to give Redford as rebel against authority some legitimacy.
If you think about it, It’s like a veiled classic anti-war holdover from the late 60s peace movements. Redford as the ‘hero’ against establishment leading the ‘revolution’. Warden as the classic fake tiger (the establishment), all topped off with Redford’s self-sacrifice in the prison yard. I just didn’t buy it.
My basic problem with the move is the general-hero thing, especially for an actor who was never in the military. It’s just about as realistic to me as Sean Penn’s latest movie with him playing a super warrior spy type, all the while both of them vehemently anti-gun.