MovieChat Forums > Live from Baghdad (2002) Discussion > Truth or entertainment?

Truth or entertainment?

posted 21 years ago by Sly_Kal
13 replies | jump to latest

I must say that from a standpoint of truth this movie misses the mark something awful. I really expected more from HBO, having seen many subjects they took on when others (newtorks/production companies) wouldn't.

As entertainment, it gets an 8, as fact it gets a 5 and that is pushing it. I may alter (lower) that mark after a second viewing. Unless you believe that OIL doesn't and never did play a crucial part in our involvement in Iraq, you have to take this movie with a pound of salt. I looked forward to seeing this movie, particularly because this was a time when CNN was growing into a REAL network, and not simply a mockup of the big 3, as it is now. And, as far as the hospital scene, it's a flat out lie that has been disproved. Shame on the producers for allowing it to raise the question all over again.

[–] weebmac 21 years ago

Wow. Way to post ignorantly. At the end of the movie in very large, unmistakable titles, the filmmakers acknowledge that the incubator rumors were quite false. On the DVD commentary the director expands on the story, explaining that the individual testifying on the incubator incidents was, in fact, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. The point of the incubator story's presence in the movie was to bury us in the thick of the situation with all of the ignorance and half-truth that entails.

As for oil, it is addressed with grace in the movie, with two entire sequences dedicated to its exploration without pinning the war either entirely or not at all based on its importance.

[–] wildcarrde 20 years ago

Good reply weebmac. If I may be so bold as to expand on your assertion, I will quote the Richard Roth character when the CNN team is en route to the hospital:

"This used to be the world's bigest forest...dinosaurs...then it all died and rotted and turned to oil. Now we're here. Fighting to to see who gets to rape a cemetery...to see who gets the oil...No wonder there's so much bad blood here...it's always been bad kharma to be a grave robber."

I don't know if that is exact but it is close enough.

[–] morph1066 18 years ago

I also enjoyed that Richard Roth quote.

[–] dswartz12 19 years ago

This was a very good movie and HBO should have tried to put it in theaters. Superb movie - best by any network that year. To say that we went over there then (and now) ONLY for oil is complete *beep* (this is in regards to the first poster. It was a reason, but not THE reason. Stop listening to Michael Moore get radical as usual and start thinking with your own head and not what the media tells you. Don't listen to the government either. Bush I and Bush JR. have stock in oil as do many rich people - it's a prosperous business. You don't make business by going to war with a business contact. This was not about oil (only) it was about morals. If someone invaded the USA i'd want britain to back us up, though i don't know how resourceful that would be. Bottom line - i liked this because it was non-biased to either side. It showed the sides that my view and YOUR view were both right and both wrong (Crimson Tide-type deal). None can be explained, nor will they ever be.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blaine3-2 18 years ago

This is a very naive post if you actually believe it. Oil is just about the ONLY reason, not only the oil in Iraq but of the whole of the mideast. The idea was to make Iraq one big US military base to control the whole of the mideast

The US government does not invade other countries for humanitarian reasons.

>This was a very good movie and HBO should have tried to put it in theaters. >Superb movie - best by any network that year. To say that we went over there then >(and now) ONLY for oil is complete *beep* (this is in regards to the first >poster. It was a reason, but not THE reason. Stop listening to Michael Moore get >radical as usual and start thinking with your own head and not what the media >tells you. Don't listen to the government either. Bush I and Bush JR. have stock >in oil as do many rich people - it's a prosperous business. You don't make >business by going to war with a business contact. This was not about oil (only) >it was about morals. If someone invaded the USA i'd want britain to back us up, >though i don't know how resourceful that would be. Bottom line - i liked this because it was non-biased to either side. It showed the sides that my view and >YOUR view were both right and both wrong (Crimson Tide-type deal). None can be >explained, nor will they ever be

[–] graeshadowe-24-676603 12 years ago

QUOTE: "The US government does not invade other countries for humanitarian reasons."
Really? What about Somalia?

[–] nygoodliving 18 years ago

I think the movie gets an 8 for entertainment, but only a 6 for fact. But that's for different reasons. The facts of the story, stated in Weiner's book, were scaled down, merged, or eliminated to make the movie more entertaining. Example, the scene where he waits all day to meet the information minister in reality was played out over many weeks not a single day.

As for the arguments about Oil, they're valid. But america's reasons for going over there was NOT what this movie was about. This movie was about CNN's journey from landing in Baghdad till that infamous night when they went live with the beginning of the war. Showing the scene with the incubators was simply meant to illustrate how they got caught up in the fog of war trying to get the story. That's all.

[–] wildcarrde 18 years ago

NY is right...

But my question is to all of you who question why the U.S. gets involved where and when it does...

When would you like us to send troops? Everyone says we get involved to satisfy our own interests. Granted. But we also have a history of coming to the aid of others for reasons that far and away outweigh our own ends.

Those weren't Franch or British or American lives sacrificed at Normandy. They were ALLIED lives. The same can be said for the end of WWI. From 1917 on, America gladly sent troops to help her allies, disregarding the cost.

But it seems that when America goes into battle on her own volition, the rest of the world gets upset and points the finger at our "nationalism." Hey, get this: nationalism was invented in Europe, not here. The general public in the U.S. would have been all but too happy to sit out both world wars. Thank God clearer heads prevailed.

So I leave it as I started with a simple question: Would you rather we sit it out and let everyone else do the work? Or would you rather we "strap up" and do what needs to be done?

BTW-- I didn't vote for George Bush and I seved this nation in the Marines.

[–] glock78 14 years ago

WOW! That was one "interesting" post.
All it lacks is "You would all be speaking German now if it weren't for USA" quote.

[–] wildcarrde 14 years ago

@glock78

Well, if you're talking about my post, you didn't read it well enough. I simply pointed out that the U.S. is damned when it chooses isolation, and damned when it gets involved.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] b-w-steward 17 years ago

Its seems fairly accurate up to a point.
However several pieces differ to Peter Arnett's account in his book "Live from the Battlefield"

One thing i find funny is that only 3 people stayed in the hotel reporting just before the war kicked off & Robert Wiener wasn't one of them.