tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8288666414384718002.post5735716756980416683..comments2023-10-24T10:23:55.159-04:00Comments on The Film Buff Blog: W.La Sporgenzahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10543562450051712414noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8288666414384718002.post-13853975365851360932009-04-15T15:16:00.000-04:002009-04-15T15:16:00.000-04:00No doubt... I didn't mean that I don't admire Ston...No doubt... I didn't mean that I don't admire Stone for making the film, more the idea that time changes our perspective and rarely does a bio-pic get made without this built-in delay. I wish he hadn't sat on the fence quite so much, but realize why he did.La Sporgenzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10543562450051712414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8288666414384718002.post-53356318015694487592009-04-15T13:20:00.000-04:002009-04-15T13:20:00.000-04:00some interesting and thought-provoking notes, for ...some interesting and thought-provoking notes, for sure, sporge. i agree with you on one hand, but i think that it is at the very least intriguing that stone chose to make the film now, BEFORE the president has a chance to be smoothed or sharpened, either by revisionist historians, or by the eroding and streamlining effects of history itself. what we see here is what we got, and while it is incredibly frustrating for some critics that stone did not lambaste bush, i think that this way was the braver approach. bush is such an easy target, and to slam him would have been a cinematic cop-out. i'm not saying in any way that bush deserves the opposite, but to show things merely "as they were" is a laudable show of restraint on oliver's part. the film will continue to frustrate both camps, as you say, but by siding with neither, i don't think olly has weakened his approach, but strengthened it, much in the way an objective documentarian does.<br /><br />and how miscast was thandi newton as condi? god...the coelacanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10034292021589028600noreply@blogger.com