FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2      Non-Film Score Discussion: Robert Redford in BBC interview     1 2    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Apr 25, 2013 - 7:07 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) The actor/director in 'fitting' form. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22289404    Posted:   Apr 25, 2013 - 10:28 AM     By:   gone   (Member) Interesting interview. I have always like Redford... wish I had been as enthusiastic with some of his later films as I was with earlier efforts. Perhaps these newer films will have a stronger screenplay than something like Lions for Lambs, which I considered weak, considering the rich and deserving territory it addressed.    Posted:   Apr 25, 2013 - 1:03 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) I agree about Lions For Lambs, although, it did make it's point (as have so many other middle east movies of recent years). My personal favourite will probably always be Quiz Show. Story and character-wise, it has a nicely rounded feel to it. And Scofield seemed to still wear the inviolate conscience of Sir Thomas More within it's walls.    Posted:   Apr 25, 2013 - 7:02 PM     By:   gone   (Member) My favorite is A River Runs Through It, which I consider to be a very special movie. The Horse Whisperer is also good... so I guess that I'm into his 'personal story / western mountains' stuff. I remember seeing Quiz Show years ago; will need to check it out again. LFL seemed to be a matter of holding back on the screenplay, resulting in a half-hearted attempt.    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 3:52 PM     By:   vinylscrubber   (Member) Just returned from seeing THE COMPANY YOU KEEP and have to say how wonderful it was to see a film that was actually. . . ABOUT SOMETHING!    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 3:56 PM     By:   Eric Paddon   (Member) Just returned from seeing THE COMPANY YOU KEEP and have to say how wonderful it was to see a film that was actually. . . ABOUT SOMETHING! Yeah, all about glorifying people who did the same thing that two sick brothers in Boston did recently.    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 4:06 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Mr Redford did say that when a cause flattens itself by it's very own burdensome self it ceases to be (or words to that effect.) I have not seen the film yet. But I think I'm going to.    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 4:20 PM     By:   Eric Paddon   (Member) And when you do, make sure you also read all about the victims of the Brinks armored vehicle robbery who were killed by the real life counterparts of this movie. http://www.ogradybrown.com/history.htm    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 4:45 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) And when you do, make sure you also read all about the victims of the Brinks armored vehicle robbery who were killed by the real life counterparts of this movie. http://www.ogradybrown.com/history.htm Thanks Eric, I did. The perpetrators were brought down. Well and good! I'm not as familiar with American news history as you'd be, of course. I can only wonder at Boudin's actions. A rebel without a cause?    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 6:14 PM     By:   vinylscrubber   (Member) Eric, your totally predictable, horseshit replies are getting truly tiresome. (And I'm sure you're not going to rest until you get the last reactionary word on the matter--but I am DONE!) GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY! Grecchus, don't let this kerfuffle keep you from seeing a genuinely thought-provoking film.    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 6:16 PM     By:   Eric Paddon   (Member) Eric, your totally predictable, horseshit replies are getting truly tiresome. (And I'm sure you're not going to rest until you get the last reactionary word on the matter--but I am DONE!) GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY! Hey, if you want to think the victims of the robbery pulled off by the real life counterparts of the people Redford lionized (they who had previously engaged in terror bombing plots identical in nature to the Boston bombers) were horseshit, go right ahead. That just tells us where your priorities in life lie. Try looking up their names though and their real stories, and see which is more "thought-provoking". The real story of what happened to them or the falsified story Robert Redford concocted. Waverly Brown Edward O'Grady Peter Paige.    Posted:   Apr 26, 2013 - 7:02 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Eric, I've always respected you as a patriotic american. I can remember your stance over Oliver Stone's 'presidential' films and that you didn't necessarily agree with his projections and interpretations. That's fine by me. I like to think that I can hop about from different peaks and try to see things from a varying number of different vantage points. That can only be possible if one maintains a certain neutrality. That's basically where I stand. I think that Stone and Redford would object vociferously if they were classified as anything other than patriotic americans themselves - but in their own, made in America, way.    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 8:53 AM     By:   ZapBrannigan   (Member) Shortly before the Boston Marathon bombing, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Robert Redford, who was promoting his Weather Underground movie. Redford: "When I was younger, I was very much aware of the movement. I was more than sympathetic, I was probably empathetic because I believed it was time for a change." Stephanopoulos: "Even when you read about bombings?" Redford: "All of it. I knew that it was extreme and I guess movements have to be extreme to some degree." After the atrocity in Boston, Redford talked to a stand-up reporter from the TV show EXTRA. He briefly mentioned his "shock and sorrow" with no mention of his own prior support for terrorism. Then he quickly segued into a lament about journalism today having "too many voices," which makes it harder for people to find "the truth." Ah, I see...    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 9:11 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Former members of the IRA were given seats in parliament even after the bombing in Brighton could have wiped out the affected government while it was in conference. It is a democratic right to have an opinion on that. It is sometimes not so much a question of what is right or what is wrong but of what hangs in the balance, where every shade of grey you can imagine resides. You can simplify things by standing on one end of the see-saw or the other. All three stances are mutually exclusive to one other by their very nature.    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 9:21 AM     By:   Eric Paddon   (Member) The issue is not one of Redford and his "democratic right" to express an opinion. The issue is one of Redford's appallingly dishonest portrayal of history to promote a dishonest and dishonorable point of view that there was something noble about the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group that loved to bomb buildings and whose members were mostly spoiled rich white kids with all kinds of privilege in their background (in short the ethnic makeup that some people were hoping the Boston bombers would be) who had absolutely no cause for their hatred of the United States other than the fact that they were flat out evil, just like the Boston bombers who thought their concept of "justice" and the things they felt were evil about America somehow justified their bombing campaigns of terror. And the parallel doesn't stop there. Redford not only makes a movie lionizing people who got their start bombing buildings that killed innocent people, but these same people, much like the Boston bombers then proceeded to kill a guard in a robbery while on the run (in this case the Brink's guard) and in the same robbery two Nyack, NY police officers (one of them a black man I might add; this to render nonsense the assertion made by Redford in defense of these people that they were motivated by principles to racial justice). Redford can say exactly what he wants to say. It's just that he should now having done so be shamed out of the realm of the supposedly respectable mainstream by others exercising their democratic right to point out the inconvenient truth behind Redford's fairy tale version of history. And that's a perspective that should transcend the regular barriers between mainstream conservatism and liberalism.    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 10:05 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) My impression of Robert Redford's film is that it is taken from the point of view of someone from the Weather Underground on the run from the authorities, much like the characters of Bonnie and Clyde were in a movie that attempted to show their point of view in a serious dramatisation made famous by Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. As I haven't seen Redford's film yet, I can't say exactly in which way it slants.    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 11:52 AM     By:   gone   (Member) As I haven't seen Redford's film yet, I can't say exactly in which way it slants. Yes, unlike Eric I have also not seen the movie... so will wait until I do before I consider (or condemn) Robert Redford as having 'lionized' any of the participants of events having occurred way back then. In my own experience of those days, I do not recall anyone I ever knew who expressed the least bit of admiration for the Weatherman movement. Actually I do not recall having discussed them at all, as they were a minor side note of the much larger anti-war movement.    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 12:10 PM     By:   ZapBrannigan   (Member) In my own experience of those days, I do not recall anyone I ever knew who expressed the least bit of admiration for the Weatherman movement. Robert Redford went on the ABC television network a few weeks ago and expressed admiration for the Weather Underground and support for their bombing campaign. Does he count?    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 12:22 PM     By:   Eric Paddon   (Member) Why is the question of which way the movie slants treated like some kind of mystery? Redford purposefully changed all the facts that didn't suit his narrative (like changing the locale and eliminating the fact that two policemen, one black, were killed in the robbery) and he has also said in repeated interviews he felt sympathy for the motives of the Weather Underground and that included *everything* they did which including bombings and murder in the name of promoting their perverted concept of 1960s idealism and social justice and desire for revolution in America. These people he portrays were not idealists, they were scum. And they left in their wake fatherless children, widowed wives and scarred communities as their ultimate legacy.    Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 12:33 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Well, much as I would like to continue this line of discussion, I don't see how I can due to the specific sensitivities involved. I'm not asking for a lockdown, but I fear it is coming and that would be a shame, because the thread could be revived to go over the film by those who will have seen it and have constructive comment to make on it. If this one gets shut down I don't see how any other thread opened up to examine Redford's film could avoid the same fate.     Non-Film Score Discussion: Robert Redford in BBC interview    < 1 2  > >>  Go to page:  1 2   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.