You know any other movies except for "Mad City" and "Wag the Dog"?
shareIt's been awhile since I've seen it, but I think
"Dog Day Afternoon" would fall in that category.
fbnb2 is right. Dog Day Afternoon is still the benchmark for this kind of film. This movie shows Costa-Gavras still has something, but it's a bit fringed at the edges. This movie can't hold a candle to DDA.
shareHey Binc,
I haven't seen it yet but try "Control Room". IT's a documnetary, 2002 I think about the U.S.'s war with Iraq covered by Al Jazeera, the Arabic television channel.
I've seen "Control Room" a couple times. The approach is low-key, and I believe, even-handed. But I'll admit, I oppose the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq, which will color my perception of the film's balance.
On the other hand, I'll stack my objectivity regarding al-Jazeera against Donald Rumsfeld's, any time. And that was what I saw in the film: a media outlet that was struggling to see through the "fog of war", and as such, portrayed as an outlet for the enemy.
(It would be much later when we learned that the U.S. was paying Iraqi journalists to submit stories under their byline to the Iraqi newspapers, that were written by U.S. media flacks. And let's not forget the U.S. government produced VNR's - video news releases ... aired by American stations as "the news".)
Cliche's anyone? The first casualty of war, is the truth. I'd say "Control Room" is a film about manipulation OF the media, by government, as opposed to manipulation of the truth BY the media.
Can we tell documentary from non-fiction, from news?
Control Room sounds interesting...I kind of have a beef with this type of movie though. Let's look at movies like those done by Michael Moore , along w/ Control Room and there's a new one at my local indie movie theater "Why we Fight"...when I look at all these lumped together, what are these movies really doing for us?
I propose that they are getting us (referring to those between 18 yrs - to late 20's yrs old) all riled up and we don't even know why or we may not have the right rationale behind it. I'll put this into context. I was watching Bush on TV the other day talking about immigration, it was during a naturalization ceremony for new migrants. He was going on about how the new American citizens had proceeded in a lawful manner. He compared this with those who tried to cross the border illegally and therefore made immigration/seeking US citizenship that much more difficult. The thing is regardless of all the things Bush does that I don't agree with, I do agree with that. I don't think it's fair to describe anyone or anything with a blaket statement (I admit to being guilty of this)...b/c there is always that one thing that goes against the stereotype.
I think it's healpful to be critical of everything we watch and not let it colour our image of any one event, thing, person as black or white.
That's just my 2 cents. I'm off to watch "Brokeback Mountain" ...should be interesting.
hotel rwanda
shareJust curious, what's the reference to media manipulation in Hotel Rwanda?
shareIn Hotel Rwanda they show some news crews trying to get the story out- but are taken out of the country before they can finish the story- not really manipulation- but it's there. They also manage to get some footage of the massacres.
shareIn Hotel Rwanda there was only one radio station and all they were saying all the time to kill the roaches.
shareIn Australia about ten years ago there was a very dark comedy series called "Frontline" that presented a real look at current affairs programming down here. I think it was called "Behind the Frontline" in the US because there is another show with the same name.
Many storylines involved real reports file by programs such as "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair" and how certain "Spin" was used to make the people involved either look good or evil
Very dark? Not at all... it was a satirical and comedic look at Australian current affairs. Thats like calling "The Games" a very dark look at the organising of the Sydney Olympic Games....
shareThe granddaddy of them all has to be Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole from 1951. Kirk Douglas plays a down-on-his-luck journalist who deliberately delays the rescue of a man trapped in a mine in order to revive his career. Mad City is almost a remake in many ways.
Very perceptive about ACE IN THE HOLE (Kirk Douglas). I brought the similarity up on the set of MAD CITY, with the producer; He confirmed that is where the story came from.
I think ACE IN THE HOLE is more clear and the stakes are higher. It was very controversial at the time. MAD CITY was not.
Yes, I couldn't believe they went "soft" on the whole idea, especially in a more "modern" movie, and that one in 1951 was so much harder hitting. I always wonder how they forced Costa-Gavras into this, as I'm sure by looking at his other films, that looking at the more cynical side would have appealed to him more.
shareCosta-Gavras (director) and the writers of MAD CITY (Tom Matthews & Eric Williams) certainly knew they were re-working an old (and great) Billy Wilder story. Americans interested in movies (their own, anyway) should also know about it:
Ace in the Hole (Kirk Douglas, 1951) was put down by the critics!... I wonder why :)?
Wilders next picture, Stalag 17, made lots of money, but Paramount told him he wouldn't get any part of it --
he OWED them money for Ace in the Hole, they said.
Some peoples names stay with us. Some disappear in the big 'they'.