Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

What could you do? The simplest thing you could say is that it benefits an awful lot of people to maintain instability and weak states in Central Africa, and it's complex because a lot of the weak actors in that region see it that way, as well.

I mean if you believe in capitalism as a mechanism for social change you can just not buy anything with diamonds, gold, platinum, miniaturized electronics, bauxite, stainless steel...well, actually just don't buy things.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




outlier posted:

It's been recommended multiple times but I finally caught up with The WIld and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia. Engrossing, sympathetic to its subject without making them heroes and kinda heartbreaking in parts. It's on Youtube, so no excuse.

Be sure to check out The Wild World of Hasil Adkins, One Man Band And Inventor of the Hunch and Bury Me In Kern County, too.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Le0 posted:

Hey thanks a lot. Just finished Restrepo, gently caress that was powerful. War sucks

Restrepo has a sequel, sort of, called Korengal.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




spankmeister posted:

It's good. One sided though.

Laughably so. I'm no Russophile but you'd never know watching this thing that Yanukovych was an elected leader opting out of EU style financial coercion or that all Euromaidan did was manage to get neo-fascists into power.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




cloudchamber posted:

The far-right played a large role in the protests and the government that took over once the president fled had a handful of members from extremist parties, but it's not really true at all to say that the Maidan led to a fascist government.

I phrased that poorly - I don't mean that the government of the Ukraine is now neo-fascist, but that there are now (even more) neo-fascists in positions of power in the Ukraine than before, while none of the more progressive and/or liberal elements of the movement have much to show for it.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Maybe my favorite 90's skinhead hype movie:

SKINHEAD USA: Soldiers Of The Race War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIKefV8_0cs

Maybe your favorite

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Bullfrog posted:

Hypernormalization (Adam Curtis) was a really great film in terms of storytelling, but he misses the mark on a few things mostly relating to the internet. This is a tiny complaint, but he also spends a weird amount of time on clips of young women, as if to make them out to be vapid young people/millennials. It's also pretty unfocused.

It's probably unfair to say he won't ever top The Century of Self, but this was a huge step down from Bitter Lake or even that VICE thing he did.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




BOOTY-ADE posted:

You can easily say that about almost any organized religion with all the wacky stuff they toss in and dumb rules they come up with

What other religion can you say that about exactly? What a weird thing to say.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Looten Plunder posted:

Domestic violence is the police force? As in Husband / wife cops?

It's about an alleged murder of a woman by her ex boyfriend, who is a cop. She was not a cop.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




I wonder if Burns will touch on the Vietnamese-Cambodian War, perhaps the most righteous foreign intervention in human history. Nominally Communist or not Minh and the Vietnamese were not having any "but they're our bastards" bullshit with the Khmer Rouge. The UN continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge (!) and eventually forced a counter revolution and restoration of the monarchy.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

That's a good idea.

How is it? The Vietnam doc bar is set very high and my feelings on the war are such that too much "unbiased" pussyfooting will get me ornery

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Mahoning posted:

It's like The Civil War on steroids. Except without a clear good guy and bad guy.

It's very bleak. Bleak. So god drat bleak. It's almost hard to watch people continue to make mistakes that digs a deeper and deeper hole in Vietnam.

There was a clear good guy. Moreso than the USCW. At least the Viet Minh didn't wait three years in until they were losing to come out against landlordism just in case they could have it both ways..

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




MonsieurChoc posted:

I watched this and it destroyed me I'm legit crying right now.

gently caress. :smith:

P sure I couldn't handle this ATM

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Herv posted:

I get let down that the majority of Americans turned into pussies and hit the panic button over communism.

Like our main thing was to be against colonialism, we even put it down as a prereq for Britain to drop the colonies if they wanted help in WWII.

Nope instead we somehow think a small, poor country in the rear end end of Asia was going to start a domino effect with a result of COMMIES IN MY KITCHEN.

The US wasn't against colonialism, they just knew they were the heirs to the empire

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




cloudchamber posted:

The films portrays both sides in the conflict's decision making as being out of touch with reality. The description of Le Duan's reasoning before launching the Tet Offensive makes him sound like an complete fantasist.

I'm assuming it focused on the conviction that a successful offensive would trigger a revolt in the South? Or on Tranh's and Le's belief that the operational focus should be on destroying US troops and materiale to end the US ability to prosecute the war?

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




cloudchamber posted:

The way the doc told it Le Duan launched the operation based on the assumption that the South Vietnamese army the US helped put together would collapse quickly and that the offensive would also initiate some kind of general uprising against American rule. Neither of these things ended up happening so the offensive cost thousands of northern troops there lives and also compromised the undercover network they's set up in the south, a situation they apparently tried to deal with by massacring civilians who were aware of it.

That is what Tranh and Le thought would happen (Giap disagreed but was strong armed into planning the attack after a large number of his supporters were arrested). They wanted to focus on surrounding and destroying US positions, however, to force them out of the war. Giap knew that wouldn't work but also knew the US wasn't willing to fight a war of attrition, so he refocused the attack to include large scale guerilla strikes on the SV army. The process that led the NVA to the Tet Offensive was really complicated and involved a lot of different competing factions within the government even at the Politburo level, so it's not quite fair to say Le's fantasies of a SV revolt fueled the whole thing. For example, he also hoped that getting the NVA involved in a more conventional conflict would force the hand of the PRC and drag them into the war as it had in Korea.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




mod sassinator posted:

I dunno, what are you expecting? The movie ends just like the war... with confusion, pain and suffering. There's really no way to tie up loose ends or draw some deeper meaning other than it was a waste of many lives.

yeah, except that's not so. Vietnam and southeast Asia continued to exist, continued to fight, and it was a critical and meaningful part of a major struggle in the history of western imperialism. There are lots of ways to discern meaning from the extended conflict ~1950-1980 in the extended Mekong region and the fact that Americans were confused by losing a war doesn't mean the actual conflict was confusing.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Mahoning posted:

So then why is your posting about it so bad?

edit: Also LOL at a living relative that vividly remembers that period. As if that matters. My parents graduated high school in 68 and 69. My mom knew one of the victims of the KSU shooting. They thought it was a perfectly fair representation of the period. My dad called it one of the best things he ever watched. Your bullshit opinion does not matter one bit to me.

Are you seriously melting down because some people don't agree with how Ken Burns represented the Vietnam War? I'm really sorry I didn't know it was so important to you

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Mahoning posted:

Are they melting down because of how Ken Burns represented the Vietnam War?

no

FWIW everyone you're talking to is in their 30s

Like I don't know what credentials you want people to have before they can state an opinion that contradicts Kenneth Burns and his Documentary Crew. Do you want a bibliography? Photos of time spent in Vietnam? Your dad liking the series is just emblematic of how the series timidly says nothing interesting about Vietnam. It's a very well done but totally spineless presentation of exactly the popular consensus on Vietnam. Incidentally, the popular consensus is bullshit

DeimosRising fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Oct 28, 2017

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:

Any attempt to counter how much of a weird baby youre being just makes you look like an even weirder baby

People who disagree with me are children, who hate white people, and also they don't know anything, but i'm not bothered cause i don't care, my dad liked it

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Mahoning posted:

Iíd love to.

I am perfectly willing to hear exactly what Ken Burns should have included in a 17 hour documentary that wasnít included.

I found the US government to continually be the bad guy in each episode, one that couldnít make a good decision if they literally fell into it. At what point do you demonize the US to the point that you can no longer count on the cooperation of the veterans who have agreed to appear in and/or collaborate on your documentary? You can call that a cop out or a compromise but a hit piece on American involvement in Vietnam (no matter how accurate or deserved) would be boring and dumb.

I mean Peter Davis did it 40 years ago and it wasn't boring or dumb, and lots of veterans were involved so I don't know what you're talking about.

BTW does anyone remember what thread all those PD Vietnam docs were posted in semi recently? There were a bunch of things posted besides Hearts and Minds on youtube and now I can't find them or remember the names, particularly one about the presence of US "advisors" and "contractors" in SV after the US withdrawal that was badass.

edit: I'm not 100% sure they were peter davis movies, but they were contemporaneous docs ~40m each and one focused on the post withdrawal period and was eerily, disgustingly relevant to Iraq and Afghanistan

DeimosRising fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Oct 28, 2017

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

"Dispatches" and "Bloods".

Bloods is ridiculously good

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Volkerball posted:

a nonpartisan account of what happened.

No such thing. Burns is pushing a perspective the same as any other documentarian or historian. Like what is your argument here, republicans buy shoes too? Or do you think it's good that the documentary portrays Vietnam as a tragedy for America so jingoists can relate?

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




SimonCat posted:

You think Vietnam wasn't a tragedy?

A tragedy for whom? If you insist on pinning an overall narrative arc to it, the good guys won. It had a happy ending. Millions of people had to suffer and die because the western imperial powers decided it was better to burn Asia to the ground and depopulate it than let it go red, so yeah there were countless awful tragedies mixed up in it. But no I don't think the failure of the US mission in Vietnam was a tragedy. The fact there was a US mission in Vietnam is an atrocity, the fact that thousands of mostly poor and disinterested US citizens died is awful, but the US military empire losing and heading home tail between its legs is not a tragedy.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Volkerball posted:

So your argument here is that Vietnam was actually cool and good just because in the end it made the US look bad, and that Burns choosing not to make this a central theme demonstrates that he is biased.

No? The wars in SE Asia were bad because imperialism is bad, and fighting wars to maintain dominance over others is bad. Lots of people died in the struggle to grant the people of the region self government, and that's bad. It's not a tragedy. It wasn't a tragedy for the US either, it was an idiotic, bungled imperial adventure.

Burns is a human being, which demonstrates that he is biased. He and the rest of the artists involved created a piece of art, which necessarily frames its subject. No frame is impartial or objective

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Mahoning posted:

Christ how are you not understanding this? Ken Burns is not and never has been one to give a modern day critical overview of history. He lets the event unfold as it happened through the lens and voices of those who experienced it.

Personal accounts, interviews, letters, poetry, pictures, clips, newspaper articles, these are all hallmarks of Burns documentaries and they all have one thing in common: they are giving us first hand accounts by people who were there. His documentaries are experiential and not judgmental or critical. Iíd argue you learn more from the former than the latter, since ďthis side was right and this side was wrongĒ is lazy and doesnít let people make their own judgements. He basically lays it all out there and letís you experience all the facts for yourself. What the hell point would there be in breaking the film down year by year and going through all the small details if you just want to force your opinion onto the audience in a very heavy handed way?

If you watched his Vietnam documentary and expected anything different than that then thatís on you, not Burns. Again, itís like watching a Spielberg movie and whining that itís not a romantic comedy. Heís not gonna change the kind of film he makes because you read a book that told you what to think.

Spielberg has made at least 2 romantic comedies but I don't see how that has anything to do with anything. I'm not criticizing what Burns should have or could have done. I'm criticizing what he did.

You seem to have this weird belief that Burns's portrayal of the war is neutral, drawing objectively from a well of pure experience and fact to show equally "what it was like" for "both sides". That's silly, of course - Burns had to decide whose experiences to highlight, whose to cut, who not to interview at all, what images would and wouldn't play with what accounts, which determines how we interpret those accounts, and so forth. Anytime something is presented to you as unbiased and you believe it, what's actually happening is you're being told what you already believe.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Do they talk about how widespread benzedrine use and abuse was in the postwar US as a recreational, weight loss and study drug?

Actually Iíd be interested to hear how and why it stopped, the transition from the wartime drug race to peacetime marketing is fascinating but it kind of blows my mind it was ever regulated

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

War on Drugs. When they came up with the "drug schedule" as part of the Controlled Substances Act, there was an attempt to separate out licit from illicit drugs, and the scheduling was a way to create a gradient that allowed for "the potential for abuse" to exist alongside lucrative and controlled commerce. Notably excluded are the "schedule 0" drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

Makes sense, Iím just surprised the speed lobby didnít have the pull to do what alcohol and tobacco did given the deep military connection and the demographics of it. Itís not like diet pills were the province of poors and browns, they were manufactured by American Pharma for use by house wives and office workers

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




She did and theyíre all great. 2 is maybe even better than the first but itís a very different kind of movie

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




precision posted:

Yeah I like 1 and 2 both a lot for very different reasons.

edit: 2 is on Youtube, should have figured it was

What about 3 turns you off?

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




cloudchamber posted:

Sounds like a balanced volume on the war.

teach the controversy I say

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

It's like 4 minutes into the first one, too. No warning at all. I'm surprised I watched em back in the day.

Paradise Lost extremely hosed me up as a kid

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Same. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

I remember reading Blood of Innocents, too, and picturing all the locations as places around the holler where my dad and grandparents lived. That and a rolling stone article where some white kids beat a black kid they went to school with to death with a six pack of mt dew (I think it was over dating a white girl, but drugs were involved too) were some of the first true crime stuff I read and the memory of just overwhelming empathy and fear are still really vivid

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Harton posted:

Yeah I donít get why they didnít just use the babysitters and just day drink, thatís the only real strange part of their behavior. It just makes more sense to assume they are dumbasses and someone took the kid rather than they drugged them and disappeared a body just so they could stay up drinking.

Leaving that side door unlocked is just stupid beyond belief.

Child abductions are really rare, you probably do much more dangerous things in an average drive to work

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Mahoning posted:

The Act of Killing, if youíve never seen it, is fascinating. Although I donít think Iíve ever felt worse at the end of a documentary before.

Good news, thereís a sequel

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




mobby_6kl posted:

^^^
Disappointed that this isn't about Nic Cage


Are there any good Manson documentaries? From the Once Upon... Thread I got the impression that it works better if you're familiar with the murders.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VQQyBIHfr8g

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




Dongattack posted:

Can you ask for documentary recommendations here? If so, anyone know of a documentary about german WW2 submarine warfare that goes into great detail about the tech and tools used that isn't super americanized (constant buttrock)?

NO you may NOT

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




I will definitely watch this

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply