NPR Loves Bad Cinema -- If It's 'Laudable Agitprop' Against the Troops

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

National Public Radio's arts-and-culture show "Fresh Air" recently displayed how its leftist ideology trumps artistic judgment, especially when it comes to movies designed to get America out of Iraq before our crazed soldiers senselessly kill more civilians. Film critic David Edelstein lauded Brian De Palma's new movie "Redacted" as a "laudable artistic response to an unpopular war," even as he conceded the movie is terrible as a work of art.

Edelstein knew some people hated the exploitative display of Iraqi corpses at the film's end, noting that De Palma thinks rubbing Americans' faces with the collateral damage will get us out of Iraq: "I think most Americans are immune to those techniques, but I respect his impulse. 'Redacted' is a crude piece of work but it's the kind of outright agitprop that rarely makes it to the big screen."

Edelstein also claims the movie centered around savage rape and murder by American troops isn't anti-troops: "But it's an act of sympathy to suggest that soldiers on their third tours of duty in a place where they have no knowledge of the culture, where they can't tell who's on their side and who wants to blow them up, stand a good chance of losing both their moral compass and their minds." Here's the transcript from the November 16 review:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

DAVID EDELSTEIN: Brian De Palma's "Redacted" is a fictionalized account of the rape of an Iraqi teenager by US soldiers and the murder of her and her family. The reviews have been terrible, even from the director's champions. The defense -- that's me -- will concede almost every point. The movie is heavy handed and punishing, the acting stilted, but I think of it as a charcoal sketch of a movie, something scribbled furiously out of the director's sense of outrage and impotence. And I think it represents, along with many recent and imperfect films, from "In the Valley of Elah" to "Rendition" to "Lions for Lambs," a laudable, artistic response to an unpopular war.

In content, "Redacted" could be a sequel to De Palma's 1989 "Casualties of War." In form, it could not be more different. De Palma dispenses with the multilayered tracking shots that have become his signature. He seems to be saying there's no time for aesthetics, that the film has to be in the present tense. So we get an assemblage of fake documentary footage, much of it from soldiers' camcorders.

For another view, De Palma intercuts a fake French documentary about Americans at a security checkpoint in Samarra. That so-called documentary contains "Redacted"'s best scene, which features a long, long shot of an approaching car from the soldier's perspective. Closer and closer it comes, and neither we nor they know who's inside the vehicle. De Palma makes you understand on a visceral level how it feels to live with uncertainty for a moment, never mind day after day for months.

But the center of the movie is the rape and murder, a whim that hardens into an obsession.

(Soundbite of "Redacted")

Unidentified Actor #1: (In character) We got to go back to that house.

Unidentified Actor #2: (In character) Yes.

Unidentified Actor #3: (In character) What are you talking about, man? What house?

Actor #1: (In character) That house we raided last week.

Unidentified Actor #4: (In character) I didn't see any orders about that.

Actor #3: (In character) What house we raided?

Actor #1: (In character) Dude, we're going to...(unintelligible).

Actor #2: (In character) (Unintelligible)...house, that's right.

Actor #3: (In character) Come on, guys.

Actor #4: (In character) What are you guys talking about? That's not--we just...

Actor #3: (In character) There's nothing in that house.

Actor #4: (In character) We were there. Yeah. There was nothing to start. I mean...

Actor #1: (In character) I wouldn't say that that tasty skank is nothing.

Actor #2: (In character) We're going to take some initiative and go to that house.

Actor #4: (In character) That has nothing to do with it.

Actor #2: (In character) She's a spoil of war.

Actor #1: (In character) That's right. That's exactly right.

Actor #3: (In character) Oh God.

Actor #4: (In character) OK. You guys are...(word censored by network)...crazy. You're drunk, so it's good.

Actor #3: (In character) Come on. They're drunk. They're drunk.

Actor #2: (In character) Dude, we're all drunk.

(End of soundbite)

Mr. EDELSTEIN: It's not subtle writing. Two of the four soldiers are gung-ho, one driven around the bend by seeing a superior blown to pieces, the other a true sociopath. But there's also a would-be filmmaker who hopes a video he shoots of the assault will be his ticket to film school. The fourth wants no part in the crime and runs away. He blows the whistle too late to save the family and too late to stop the eventual retaliation against American soldiers.

The rape scene has led to a familiar charge, that De Palma is a misogynist who relishes violence against women. Yes, he's attracted to material in which women are victims of male sexual rage, but apart from "Body Double," a thumbing of his nose at feminists who attacked him for "Dressed to Kill" and a big mistake, he wants to explore that rage, not eroticize or perpetuate it. No one who sees the suffering faces of the victims in "Redacted" and "Casualties of War" could be turned on.

Another charge is that he's anti-American or anti-troops. But it's an act of sympathy to suggest that soldiers on their third tours of duty in a place where they have no knowledge of the culture, where they can't tell who's on their side and who wants to blow them up, stand a good chance of losing both their moral compass and their minds. Here, and in "Casualties of War," De Palm is dramatizing the idea that even decent people in such circumstances can convince themselves they're entitled to do anything.

"Redacted" has a notorious postscript, photos of actual Iraqi corpses, mostly women and children. I averted my eyes, and I'm of two minds about them. On one hand, they don't belong in an otherwise fictionalized depiction. On the other, De Palma thinks and has said he can stop the war by rubbing our noses in the so-called collateral damage. I think most Americans are immune to those techniques, but I respect his impulse. "Redacted" is a crude piece of work but it's the kind of outright agitprop that rarely makes it to the big screen.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anti-America

The NYT exposed our intelligence.

The Seattle Post refused to publish pictures of terrorist suspects.

Cuban et al creates an open door invitation for the terrorist world to hate America on an even higher level.

These 'people' are truly mindless.

JDW

Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters

 

Edelstein Preaching to the Choir

All you need to know about Edelstein's sanity can be found in his wiki entry, which notes that he was close friends with fellow film critic Pauline Kael.

Ms. Kael, as we all remember, was shocked to discover Richard Nixon had won a 49-state landslide victory in the 1972 Presidential election, because nobody she knew had voted for him.

"But it's an act of

"But it's an act of sympathy to suggest that soldiers on their third tours of duty in a place where they have no knowledge of the culture, where they can't tell who's on their side and who wants to blow them up, stand a good chance of losing both their moral compass and their minds."

1. I am sure that any soldier on his third tour of duty knows much, much more than any film critic about the Iraqi culture.

2. Our soldiers are not asking for sympathy.

3. The moral compass of our armes forces is quite intact.

Nortonalec

Three direct hits, Nortonalec.

Clearly Edelstein's "knowledge" on today's soldiers is rooted in the old Vietnam template of the interloping, trigger happy, mind-numb grunts as depicted in, of course, the movies. If Edelstein spent any significant time with a real soldier he'd have realize why most americans would rather trust their security with "soldiers on their third tour of duty," than lefty film critics stuck in the seventies.

Throwing Chanel No. 5 on a rotting skunk

But it's an act of sympathy ...

 

"Act of sympathy", my (thankfully!) shrinking ass!

The troops do not want sympathy.  The troops want respect, loyalty, patience, support, and prayers.

 

Roughly three hours of DePalma's abomination cannot touch the 3+ minutes of things such as this that ordinary people who REALLY DO SUPPORT THE TROOPS take the time and care to put together :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMZ-AQeQks

The first thing that pops

The first thing that pops in my mind while reading this is how long did it take NPR to find someone that had actually seen the movie.  The movie has grossed a whopping $97,000.

So far, the above ticket sales account for the cast and their families seeing the movie.  Well, maybe not all family members . . .

Yeah, anti-war movies don't seem to be doing very well.  Hey, don't tell the schmucks in Hollyweird.  They haven't lost enough money yet.

On friday I went to a

On friday I went to a local cinemaplex to see "The Mist".  There were about 9 other movies available at several times a day; the usual  cinemaplex routine.

Redford's bomb, "Lions for Lambs" was scheduled only once at 8PM.

Guess that's a reflection of how much in demand it is.

}}---> Lions for Lambs

How many ways can these goobers say "I hate America"?

An "unpopular" war?

This guy's an ignoramus. An "unpopular" war --- as opposed to a "popular" war ?? What an ass! I always laugh when I hear the manner of speech on NPR. They remind me of a butler in a comedy routine, spewing innanities in such an "intellectual" fashion. "Ew, I'm a film critic, look at me." The great popinjays, these "liberals" make fools of themselves every day. LOL

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Boffo!

From the NY Post:

“Redacted" - which “could be the worst movie I've ever seen," said critic Michael Medved -took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters, which means roughly 3,000 people saw it in the entire country.

“This, despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity, high praise in the Times, The New Yorker, left-leaning sites like Salon, etc. A Joe Strummer documentary [of punk-rock band The Clash] playing in fewer theaters made more in its third week," e-mailed one cineaste. “Not even people who presumably agree with the movie's antiwar thesis made the effort to see it."