Asylum Forums Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 28 posts from this thread on one page

Asylum Forums (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/index.php)
- Polėticās der Mondé (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=18)
-- "Going Upriver: the Long War of John Kerry" free & legal download (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/showthread.php?threadid=37621)


Posted by Paint CHiPs on 10-08-2004 02:05 AM:

"Going Upriver: the Long War of John Kerry" free & legal download

If anybody's interested: http://www.thekerrymovie.com/

Sounds like a good movie in its own right. 88% on Rotten Tomatoes. 7.8 (out of 10) on Imdb.

Ebert:

Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry

BY ROGER EBERT / October 1, 2004

Three Stars

Cast & Credits
ThinkFilm presents a documentary directed by George Butler. Written by Joseph Dorman, based on the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley. Running time: 89 minutes. No MPAA rating.

Of all the dirty tricks in this unhappy presidential campaign, the most outrageous has been the ad campaign by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," attempting to discredit John Kerry's service in Vietnam. Supporters of the malingering Bush have shamelessly challenged the war record of a wounded and decorated veteran. Their campaign illustrates the tactic of the Big Lie, as defined by Hitler and perfected by Goebbels: Although a little lie is laughed at, a Big Lie somehow takes on a reality of its own, through its sheer effrontery.

"Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry" is a matter-of-fact documentary that describes Kerry's war service and his later role as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It's not an in-your-face Michael Moore-style doc, but an attempt to rationally respond to the damaging TV ads. The most remarkable connection it makes is that John O'Neill, mastermind of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author of the current book Unfit for Command, was originally recruited by the dirty tricksters in the Nixon White House to play precisely the same role.

The movie documents this with tapes of Oval Office conversations with Richard Nixon discussing John Kerry with his aides H.R. Haldeman and Charles Colson. Kerry had made a strong impression as a spokesman for Vietnam vets who now felt the war was immoral and ill-advised. Sen. J. William Fulbright, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited the veterans' bivouac on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and asked Kerry to testify before the committee. Kerry's testimony, sampled in the film, is forceful and yet not radical; essentially, he was early with what has become the consensus about that war. In the Oval Office, it is noted that Kerry made a good impression, especially on the network news programs. "He's a Kennedy-type guy. He looks like a Kennedy and sounds like a Kennedy," says Haldeman.

"We have to destroy the young demagogue before he becomes another Nader," Colson tells the president. Asked to get some dirt on Kerry, Colson reports "we couldn't find anything on him." Then he comes up with the idea of recruiting Vietnam vets who would be coached to smear Kerry. Colson enlists O'Neill, who 30 years later has revived his old role.

The film argues that Kerry has truthfully described his role in the war. This is testified to by those in the boat with him, those on the same river at the time, and a man whose life he saved. What's interesting is to learn more about the swift boats themselves. Since the Viet Cong blended with the civilian population, anybody could be the enemy, and the swift boats were sent upriver in the hopes they would be fired on by Cong troops who would therefore reveal their positions.

Patrols like those led by Kerry had casualty rates above 75 percent; no wonder he was wounded. Yet some of his opponents have questioned if Kerry actually shed blood in Vietnam. Since Kerry carries shrapnel in his leg, it must have been a neat trick to get it in there without puncturing the skin. A case for the Amazing Randi.

"Going Upriver" has been directed by George Butler, a longtime Kerry friend who is a veteran documentarian (he made "Pumping Iron" about young Arnold Schwarzenegger, and "Endurance," the documentary about Shackleton's expedition to the Antarctic). His film is pro-Kerry, yes, but the focus is on history, not polemics, and provides a record of the crucial role of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, who because of their credentials could not be dismissed as peaceniks. Kerry comes across even then not as a hot-headed young radical, but as a centered, thoughtful man whose appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee draws respectful reviews even from its Republican members.

The Nixon instinct to smear him finds an echo today in the "Veterans for Truth" ads. It is Kerry's great misfortune that Dan Rather and CBS News have deflected attention from Bush's inexplicable (or at least unexplained) absence from National Guard duty. If the polls can be believed, many American voters are inattentive, credulous and unable to think critically about political claims. The Swift Boat ads have reportedly lost votes for Kerry, but the Rather debacle has gained votes for Bush; some voters apparently believe that if Rather was wrong, then somehow Bush's military irregularities have been vindicated.

Will this film change any votes? Doubtful, since most members of the audience will be Kerry supporters. It is sad but true that a 30-second commercial, which any literate person should instinctively question, can shift votes but the truth cannot. Not that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth know much about truth.


Posted by karen on 10-12-2004 04:46 AM:

Free live broadcast of the concert for change here

Figured this might as well go here.

I saw going upriver in the theatre(Hampton AMC 24 was playing it). Good stuff.


Posted by karen on 10-12-2004 04:54 AM:

Bruce Springsteen is demanding we take off our clothes. Odd.


Posted by karen on 10-12-2004 05:13 AM:

I believe the finale is taking place now.

edit: still going. michael stipe is singing now.


Posted by plum on 10-12-2004 05:39 AM:

The movie didn't mention how long he served there. Was it 3 months? And I doubt that commanding a boat was anything like being in the jungle, engaging real Vietcong armies. I guess that's part of what angered many of the more genuine veterans.

It took me 2 hours to get half of it on DSL; I doubt that it will be very popular for that reason. Overall great film though.


Posted by CHiPsJr on 10-12-2004 06:15 AM:

This is, of course, completely and utterly morally legitimate, unlike the dire and vile tactics of the Sinclair broadcasting group one thread down, who actually DARE to express an unsanctioned pre-election political opinion on TELEVISION instead of the internet.

Oh, the shame! The scandal!


Posted by Paint CHiPs on 10-12-2004 08:15 AM:

For a guy that sees a fundamental difference between advertising and calling you on your telephone (A FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS IN MY HOME!), you would think you'd see a difference between active and passively getting the message out. There's a difference between a website offering a download and an organization beaming it into the homes of a quarter of the country.


Posted by euphorbia on 10-12-2004 11:46 AM:

john kerry shits manna from heaven.
His cock is the body of christ.
keep sucking it.

__________________

taste the fucking rainbow & dont touch my junk.


Posted by Thimbles worth of opinion on 10-12-2004 12:00 PM:

Officer! I'd like to report a naughty post! Specifically a cock sucking naughty post! Can't have those in a political discussion unless the topic is Clinton! Mod Mod!

The horror! The horror!

__________________

My nipples are asymetrical... and that's a feature not a bug.


Posted by billgerat on 10-12-2004 01:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by euphorbia
john kerry shits manna from heaven.
His cock is the body of christ.
keep sucking it.



It's amazing that you took your tongue out of Bush's asshole long enough to say that.
__________________

"Republicans: the party that brought us 'Just Say No.' First as a drug policy, then as their entire platform." -Stephen Colbert -


Posted by Smug Git on 10-12-2004 02:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by CHiPsJr
This is, of course, completely and utterly morally legitimate, unlike the dire and vile tactics of the Sinclair broadcasting group one thread down, who actually DARE to express an unsanctioned pre-election political opinion on TELEVISION instead of the internet.

Oh, the shame! The scandal!



Myself, I don't like either, but clearly they are different sorts of things.
__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by memdink on 10-12-2004 08:45 PM:

It was a good film. I learned a lot about the protests. I didn't know they were there in the capitol for so long.


Posted by CHiPsJr on 10-13-2004 12:59 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
For a guy that sees a fundamental difference between advertising and calling you on your telephone (A FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS IN MY HOME!), you would think you'd see a difference between active and passively getting the message out. There's a difference between a website offering a download and an organization beaming it into the homes of a quarter of the country.


My phone rings. It interrupts what I'm doing and insists that I attend to it. My television doesn't.

My way out of the TV broadcast is to watch other channels. My way out of the telemarketing is to throw my phone away.

I can turn the channel on my TV with precisely the ease with which I can opt not to download the movie.

You'd think, from the screaming about Sinclair's actions, that they were beaming the thing directly into people's brains.


Posted by Paint CHiPs on 10-13-2004 01:05 AM:

If CBS announced they were pulling regular programming to air "Fahrenheit 9/11" a week before the election, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't protest.


Posted by CHiPsJr on 10-13-2004 01:11 AM:

The idea that CBS is analagous to Sinclair is ludicrous, of course. But to take the bait: CBS has the right to air what they want. In fact, I think I recall a whole lot of people going absolutely ballistic when they REFUSED to air "The Reagans". Seems that was a restriction of free speech to a lot of people on the left. Funny; now ALLOWING people to speak is a violation of equity.

And please don't even try the argument that the network is "forcing" its views on the affiliates. THAT IS WHAT A NETWORK IS.


Posted by Smug Git on 10-13-2004 01:14 AM:

The phone issue is utterly different. That is a privacy argument (which I don't think stands up to scrutiny, myself, but that isn't relevant to this discussion) and this is an argument about the regulation of political campaigning and the conditions for the granting of a broadcast license. Both of which are debateable in themselves, of course, although practical concerns probably mandate licensing for broadcast, if only for reasons of frequency assignment.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by Smug Git on 10-13-2004 01:15 AM:

I don't recall anyone here going 'ballistic' when they didn't air 'The Reagans', although that wasn't as important (by a country mile) as this would be, in any case.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by CHiPsJr on 10-13-2004 01:26 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
I don't recall anyone here going 'ballistic' when they didn't air 'The Reagans', although that wasn't as important (by a country mile) as this would be, in any case.


Both were unquestionably attempts to alter public opinion in a particular direction through the public airing of factually questionable claims. Both during an election year. Sinclair acted later; CBS would have been acting far more broadly.

Google "The Reagans" and get some idea as to exactly how apoplectic some of the American left got about the decision not to air it.


Posted by Smug Git on 10-13-2004 01:35 AM:

If a handful of nutters with access to the internerd got upset, that is entirely irrelevant to me. I just saw some of Alan Keyes, and I don't blame the American Right for him (he has gone nuts, it appears), either.

'The Reagans' was, of course, a dramatisation (a poor one, by all accounts). CBS are presumably entitled not to show something if they believe that it will harm their business, in general, although if they refused to show the presidential debates, say, that might cause some concern (as did the networks not showing that much DNC or RNC). Sinclair are, in general, allowed to show whatever they want to help their business, although there do appear to be regulations about showing political material close to an election (although the FCC won't act in time to stop it, presumably, even if it does breach the rules). The broadcast stations get their licenses from the government, and in that regard it seems to me to be fair enough that as much political 'fairness' as possible is required of them, particularly around election time (note that I wasn't impressed with the 60 minutes thing, either).

I heard that Sinclair have offered Kerry some time after they show this thing and Kerry's camp have agreed, provided they get 90 minutes (same as this show that we are talking about). Can't see Sinclair agreeing to that, though.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by billgerat on 10-13-2004 01:37 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Both were unquestionably attempts to alter public opinion in a particular direction through the public airing of factually questionable claims. Both during an election year. Sinclair acted later; CBS would have been acting far more broadly.




The difference here is that Reagan wasn't running for president now. Kerry is.

Also the furor was that the Reaganistas were bitching that CBS was taking artistic license with the movie. With the Kerry movie, it is a case of it presenting as fact that Kerry has lied about his Vietnam experience, which is a campaign argument used by Republican goons.
__________________

"Republicans: the party that brought us 'Just Say No.' First as a drug policy, then as their entire platform." -Stephen Colbert -


Posted by MstrG on 10-13-2004 02:01 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by billgerat
With the Kerry movie, it is a case of it presenting as fact that Kerry has lied about his Vietnam experience

Oh, and here I thought it was about POW experiences, dealing with their captors after Kerry testified to Congress in 1971.


Posted by Smug Git on 10-13-2004 02:27 AM:

It is, indeed, so far as I am aware.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by plum on 10-13-2004 02:35 AM:

The Kerry movie has nothing to do with POWs. It's an attempt to rationalize his views on the war by putting them into the context of the time.


Posted by MstrG on 10-13-2004 02:39 AM:

He's not talking about the movie that is the topic of this thread. He's talking about the one Sinclair may broadcast.


Posted by plum on 10-13-2004 02:41 AM:

Then why doesn't he do it in the Sinclair thread? This thread jumping is really getting annoying.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM. Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 28 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.8
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.
Copyright © 2014- Imaginet Inc.
[Legal Notice] | [Privacy Policy] | [Site Index]