Propaganda is boring


Alot of threads here debate the merits of the film artistically and its political "message." The real point is that "art" with a clear political agenda is usally bad art.

In the "making of" extra on the DVD, Sayles plainly states that he made the movie "to kick George Bush's ass."

Sayles is the most interesting working filmmaker. In SILVER CITY, he lost his fascinating vision in his desire to bash Republicans. The film has everything risky about John Sayles movies (slow pace, unclear plot, numerous underdeveloped characters, unsatisfying ending) with NONE of the genius that makes most of his movies triumphant.

reply

Yeah, I have to agree with that assessment. Sayles' genius really didn't shine through. The Cooper (Bush) scenes were beautiful, but that wasn't nearly enough to carry the movie.

For a good Sayles movie, check out Matewan. It's about my hometown. :)

reply

I disagree. I think the Cooper scenes were a little over the top. Bush isn't a great public speaker, but the man has a bachelor's from Yale and a masters from Harvard, so he's no idiot. The Cooper scenes were clearly just an idiot sputtering. . .



"Sex is so overrated. Especially the way I do it." Do YOU know where this quote came from??

reply

I don't think he's an idiot, either, but have you read any of the Bushisms books or web sites? The guy has trouble completing coherent sentences when a script isn't in front of him. I think Cooper mimicked him perfectly.

reply

Bush graduated with a "C" average, and he prolly got that because his dad donated a new library or something. The man is a s dumb as a post. Doesn't matter, since he doesn't really run things.

reply

I disagree. I think the Cooper scenes were a little over the top. Bush isn't a great public speaker, but the man has a bachelor's from Yale and a masters from Harvard, so he's no idiot. The Cooper scenes were clearly just an idiot sputtering. . .


um thats cause his dad got him in. if it weren't for his daddy, he would never have gotten into either.

reply

Ahahahah bush is no idiot! Ahahahah tell me another one.
The man who brought you world war 3 is no *beep* genius let me tell you son!

reply

I did not see this film, and was advised NOT TO SEE it. I am not a Kerry backer, or liberal, but do prefer John's earlier films like Eight Men Out. Good film, gave John Cusack and others the opportunity to stretch their acting legs.

reply

disagree. this film is not propaganda. that michael moore's movie is. i like silver city, quite amusing.

reply

Actually Michale Moore's movie is a good chunk of the TRUTH
While FOX NEWS is propaganda.
Glad I could clear that up for ya.

reply

Why? Because MM tells you what you want to hear and FOX doesn't? Study and research gets you the truth but, being a hard leftie, you wouldn't know. Moore is full of $h!t as are the demoncrats & pretender GOP. FOX gives more truth than MM but they're not beyond missing the mark.

Glad I could clear that up for ya.

reply

A number of the threads attached to this film offer some of the most polarised and virulent debate I have ever noticed on any forum posted at IMDB.com. My two cents is that this was a great film overall, and a good Sayles film. The man never really has a blockbuster (though the climax of "Matewan" was unbelievable). The attitude I glean from Sayles' films is that her is posing a number of questions and pointing out a number of never easily resolved issues. If this is a propaganda film--I disagree with this assessment--for whom is it propoganda? Everyone is indicted in this film; the over-eager reporters, the go getter do gooder too enraptured in their own intentions to see clearly when they are wrong or being conned; the psychotic behaviour of someone who thinks he has a mandate to control open, publicly owned land; a well-meaning but not so quick-thinking politio and his manipulating handlers.

I do not like George W. Bush are his administration. However, while this film can be seen to make fun of him, it also asks that we question _every_ aspect of our politcal system.

All said, at least John Sayles made a movie that has us doing more than debating a crappy "zing" ending.

reply

"The real point is that "art" with a clear political agenda is usally bad art."
There, I now have reason to dismiss anything you say. You may go about you day now.

reply

I'm not American, and I wanted to see this film to entertain myself. It left too MUCH to be desired. It sucked BIG TIME.

I mean honestly, how crappy can a movie get? I did try to give it a chance, but it's horrid film making at it's best.

Seriously.... wtf?


Don't watch. Please. At all.



Oh, and the in the DVD, the only part which used my surround system was a small scene from the 'Making of'.

reply

Agreed! It would have been better to see Hannah killing a bear!

reply

I think the agenda of most classic Hollywood Westerns, to cite just one example, is crystal clear. Almost all of them before 1950 were unabashed propaganda vehicles.

However, I do agree that if a message is too explicit or ham-handed in its delivery, there's less to analyze and less to enjoy. Didacticism is off-putting and Sayles should do himself a favor by avoiding that trap. His talents are too great to waste.

That said, I did enjoy the performances as well as the effort that went into giving Dubya a sound "kick in the ass."

reply

[deleted]