I think it is to an extent while throwing some doubt (Streep and Redford's characters as left wingers) into the mix. My friend believes it's essentially a right wing propaganda film encouraging all young americans to join the war effort.
Which do you think it is and explain.
I dont think so, especialy when the scene is shown where you see the two soldiers laying down to stand up and Die instead of probably being captured, and seconds after they get shot the Air Strike Missiles launch and you see it was all for nothing
[Excuse my english im not Canadian/American/English/Australien/whatever...]
Not even close.... this movie has 2 themes:
- debate of the War on Terror
- pointing out the need for our young people to get involved in our country
if anything it is pretty negative against the war and our leaders... it points out that the main reason we are here is due to our citizenry ignoring our government and just accepting whatever they do.... and how our press is failing to inform the electorate
if anything it is pretty negative against the war and our leaders... it points out that the main reason we are here is due to our citizenry ignoring our government and just accepting whatever they do.... and how our press is failing to inform the electorate
are you kidding? this is total and complete liberal propaganda.
i felt manipulated. i actually lean way more left than right, but it was painfully obvious this was hippie BS.
anything redford does smacks of it anyway, so nothing new under the sundance.
I think the war is just the stage and not the topic. Thus pro and contra are irrelevant.
The topic is doing something. Doing something you think its right and should be done. Even when you think its for a lost cause.
In that manner the senator is doing something. And tries to sell it for better than its worth.
The prof is doing something.
The student, who gave up, is considering again.
The reporter is considering... at least she decided not go against her intuition.
The two soldiers are doing something. That brought them death, but they died knowing they did something.
The stage could be as well within the US. Like the described place where the two soldiers grew up. Where you get shot for minor reasons.
Could be even about a different country.
And Im sitting on my couch, doing nothing.
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
It gives a fair hearing to more than one point of view so it confuses people who thing every movie about politics or war is propaganda for one side.
shareStreep "How about a strategy to bring the troops home?" Afghanistan, Iraq. Can you imagine the money and time and more important lives saved in '08 if someone made this decision.
shareI would say this film was very much pro-military (lion), but anti-hawk. It bashed both right and left wing hawks at the same time. The senator even tried to guilt trip the reporter by reminding her that she and her ilk had supported the neocon hawks the first time around, so they couldn't rightfully stand in judgment against the neocons for the past (or this time around) without coming off as hypocrites.
And while the film respects the troops, it doesn't support the war that they fight. This is because it is against the hawks who are running it.
The professor repeatedly pleads for his star students NOT to join the military and go to war.
He denigrates the hawk leadership from beginning to end.
He lauds civil service at home far more than in a war zone.
And the two Army Ranger ex-students of his die in a useless, blown op. We are never shown that their service and passion and patriotism ever did one lick of good for anyone.
I don't see how anyone could think that this movie encourages anyone to go to war.