Kill the Messenger

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kill the Messenger

    This film disappeared very quickly from theaters despite very positive reviews, and a relatively big star in the lead. Not to go tinfoil hat but really make you wonder. Thought the script was v. good, and spoke to a well-known director who saw it and was very enthusiastic. If anyone here actually got a chance to see the film would be interested in getting their take.

  • #2
    Re: Kill the Messenger

    It was an interesting, but ultimately kind of disappointing movie, particularly if you've read into the background of the entire case surrounding Gary Webb and the CIA drug scandal. The waters are just too murky to really know the truth, but the film tries to take a much more b/w, All the President's Men approach to the situation when Gary Webb's situation was in no way similar to Woodward/Bernstein.

    The problem, I think, is that the filmmakers tried to make a very political film about the actual issue itself, instead of using the situation Webb found himself in as a means of speaking out about larger issues that still affect us today. For instance, Webb's revelation and the resounding deafness which greeted it is very similar to the lack of any real change following the Snowden leaks. The film seemed more focused on "The CIA is okay with getting black kids addicted to crack." Tough to find an audience for a film with such a mixed idea of itself.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kill the Messenger

      Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
      It was an interesting, but ultimately kind of disappointing movie, particularly if you've read into the background of the entire case surrounding Gary Webb and the CIA drug scandal. The waters are just too murky to really know the truth, but the film tries to take a much more b/w, All the President's Men approach to the situation when Gary Webb's situation was in no way similar to Woodward/Bernstein.

      The problem, I think, is that the filmmakers tried to make a very political film about the actual issue itself, instead of using the situation Webb found himself in as a means of speaking out about larger issues that still affect us today. For instance, Webb's revelation and the resounding deafness which greeted it is very similar to the lack of any real change following the Snowden leaks. The film seemed more focused on "The CIA is okay with getting black kids addicted to crack." Tough to find an audience for a film with such a mixed idea of itself.
      Hi EB,

      I read your post a few times before realizing it's so confused that it's impossible to grasp your intent. However, claiming that the film states that 'The CIA is okay with getting black kids addicted to crack', can only be made by someone who wasn't paying attention, or simply didn't understand it.

      Gary Webb had the misfortune to sail into a perfect storm of problems, no one of which would have destroyed him, but together, had sufficient critical mass to do so. First, the Dark Alliance series was terribly served by mediocre editors far out of their depth on a story of this magnitude, and obtuse and crass enough to sell it with a logo of a crackpipe over the CIA seal. It was their editing which implied, without justification, CIA intent to flood the cities of California with crack. In the script, and I understand, in the film, Webb is horrified that this is the media narrative on this story, and disclaims it from day one.

      Second, and the subject of the film, is the destruction of Webb's story and credibility by key members of the establishment press, particularly the L.A. Times, which had been scooped on the biggest story of the year in their own back yard and were fiercely jealous of the attention being paid to a journalist from such a supposedly small-time outlet. The Times assigned twenty reporters to this task. Had Webb been working at one of these more mainstream outlets, not only would have his story been more carefully edited, his editors would have had enough power (if the paper was willing) to stand behind him.

      Third, Webb, as too many characters in the film tell him, had no idea what he was getting into or who he was taking on any more than did his editors. Anyone with even a casual interest in the subject of U.S. intel is aware that there is virtually no investigative journalism on it. Why? Because the media is terrfied of the CIA and the intel community, in general - mainly denial of access, but also possible repercussions. In addition, a large segment of the press are essentially cheerleaders and stenographers for the intel world, not functioning journalists. Thus, only the biggest, and most powerful players in the media world will take them on: NY Times, 60 Minutes, PBS (Frontline, Moyers, etc.) I don't include Wapo, which has been an acknowledged CIA mouthpiece for decades. If you're not speaking as the voice of one of these institutions, the CIA will destroy and discredit you. Webb, as he later acknowledged, had no idea of any of this, and naively believed that the truth would be his defense.

      The essence of Webb's series, which has been acknowledged as true by the CIA, and only after decades, by the mainstream press, is this: the CIA looked the other way while some of its drug-dealing assets (Norwin Meneses, Daniel Blandon, et.al) ran massive quantities of crack to California cities and contributed a substantial amounts of their profits to the Contra cause. And let's remember, the Contra were entirely a U.S. creation, funded through the CIA, not an indigenous group of 'freedom fighters', as the propaganda went.

      I've posted a couple of links, one to a CJR story in which Peter Kornbluh sorts through the complexities of the story and the fallout, and one which summarizes the findings of CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz - that the CIA did, in fact, realize that they were doing business with major drug kingpins, and chose to ignore this.





      http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/storm.htm

      http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/10/wo...g-in-80-s.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kill the Messenger

        Originally posted by Captain Nemo View Post
        The essence of Webb's series, which has been acknowledged as true by the CIA, and only after decades, by the mainstream press, is this: the CIA looked the other way while some of its drug-dealing assets (Norwin Meneses, Daniel Blandon, et.al) ran massive quantities of crack to California cities and contributed a substantial amounts of their profits to the Contra cause. And let's remember, the Contra were entirely a U.S. creation, funded through the CIA, not an indigenous group of 'freedom fighters', as the propaganda went.
        It's so sad. Between this scandal and the recently released CIA report on torture, we're learning more all the time how our government is often guilty of the very types of corrupt and inhumane activities it criticizes other countries for. But that's a topic for another forum.

        Impressed with Renner for doing this movie (hear it was a passion project of his), and really looking forward to seeing it.
        "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kill the Messenger

          Originally posted by Captain Nemo View Post
          Hi EB,

          I read your post a few times before realizing it's so confused that it's impossible to grasp your intent. However, claiming that the film states that 'The CIA is okay with getting black kids addicted to crack', can only be made by someone who wasn't paying attention, or simply didn't understand it.

          Gary Webb had the misfortune to sail into a perfect storm of problems, no one of which would have destroyed him, but together, had sufficient critical mass to do so. First, the Dark Alliance series was terribly served by mediocre editors far out of their depth on a story of this magnitude, and obtuse and crass enough to sell it with a logo of a crackpipe over the CIA seal. It was their editing which implied, without justification, CIA intent to flood the cities of California with crack. In the script, and I understand, in the film, Webb is horrified that this is the media narrative on this story, and disclaims it from day one.

          Second, and the subject of the film, is the destruction of Webb's story and credibility by key members of the establishment press, particularly the L.A. Times, which had been scooped on the biggest story of the year in their own back yard and were fiercely jealous of the attention being paid to a journalist from such a supposedly small-time outlet. The Times assigned twenty reporters to this task. Had Webb been working at one of these more mainstream outlets, not only would have his story been more carefully edited, his editors would have had enough power (if the paper was willing) to stand behind him.

          Third, Webb, as too many characters in the film tell him, had no idea what he was getting into or who he was taking on any more than did his editors. Anyone with even a casual interest in the subject of U.S. intel is aware that there is virtually no investigative journalism on it. Why? Because the media is terrfied of the CIA and the intel community, in general - mainly denial of access, but also possible repercussions. In addition, a large segment of the press are essentially cheerleaders and stenographers for the intel world, not functioning journalists. Thus, only the biggest, and most powerful players in the media world will take them on: NY Times, 60 Minutes, PBS (Frontline, Moyers, etc.) I don't include Wapo, which has been an acknowledged CIA mouthpiece for decades. If you're not speaking as the voice of one of these institutions, the CIA will destroy and discredit you. Webb, as he later acknowledged, had no idea of any of this, and naively believed that the truth would be his defense.

          The essence of Webb's series, which has been acknowledged as true by the CIA, and only after decades, by the mainstream press, is this: the CIA looked the other way while some of its drug-dealing assets (Norwin Meneses, Daniel Blandon, et.al) ran massive quantities of crack to California cities and contributed a substantial amounts of their profits to the Contra cause. And let's remember, the Contra were entirely a U.S. creation, funded through the CIA, not an indigenous group of 'freedom fighters', as the propaganda went.

          I've posted a couple of links, one to a CJR story in which Peter Kornbluh sorts through the complexities of the story and the fallout, and one which summarizes the findings of CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz - that the CIA did, in fact, realize that they were doing business with major drug kingpins, and chose to ignore this.





          http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/storm.htm

          http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/10/wo...g-in-80-s.html
          My bad, I thought you were interested in having an actual discussion on the merits and marketability of the film.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kill the Messenger

            Originally posted by Captain Nemo View Post
            This film disappeared very quickly from theaters despite very positive reviews, and a relatively big star in the lead. Not to go tinfoil hat but really make you wonder. Thought the script was v. good, and spoke to a well-known director who saw it and was very enthusiastic. If anyone here actually got a chance to see the film would be interested in getting their take.
            No need for tinfoil hats.

            It was an indi film with a limited theatrical release that didn't do very well. Audiences were more interested in Gone Girl and Dracula Untold.

            It'll be on Netflix soon enough.
            Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kill the Messenger

              Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
              My bad, I thought you were interested in having an actual discussion on the merits and marketability of the film.
              All I said was that I couldn't really understand your post. If you want to try again, fine by me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kill the Messenger

                Originally posted by christopher jon View Post
                No need for tinfoil hats.

                It was an indi film with a limited theatrical release that didn't do very well. Audiences were more interested in Gone Girl and Dracula Untold.

                It'll be on Netflix soon enough.
                Hi cj,

                Thanks, but I think this is what we already knew. I was asking for a response from anyone who had seen the film.

                Cheers,

                CN

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kill the Messenger

                  I wanted to see this, less so after reading the script and seeing the trailer, though. The script was on the For Your Consideration page and they must have taken it down. Marketing makes it look like a self-righteous "Blow" without Depp and Cruz. Wahlberg territory. Also, this is a very crowded time of year at the multiplexes, so probably bad timing. On top of all that, terrible time to present a "shocking true story" based on very questionable reporting from decades ago. Americans have an abundance of shocking, verifiable truths to deal with right now. Merry Christmas!

                  No conspiracy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kill the Messenger

                    Originally posted by canela View Post
                    I wanted to see this, less so after reading the script and seeing the trailer, though. The script was on the For Your Consideration page and they must have taken it down. Marketing makes it look like a self-righteous "Blow" without Depp and Cruz. Wahlberg territory. Also, this is a very crowded time of year at the multiplexes, so probably bad timing. On top of all that, terrible time to present a "shocking true story" based on very questionable reporting from decades ago. Americans have an abundance of shocking, verifiable truths to deal with right now. Merry Christmas!

                    No conspiracy.
                    Hi Canela,

                    Thanks for your reply, although, as you admit, you also didn't see the film. You don't really go into detail re why you didn't like the script. I liked the script for what it was, but I am interested in this kind of material. I don't know who The Bitter Script Reader is, but he seemed impressed by the script and like many others, by Jeremy Renner's performance. I've linked his review below. As far as the rest of your comments, as I've said, I think these are things that everyone already knows.

                    If you are interested in elaborating further on what you feel were the weaknesses of the script, would be interested. BTW, I believe there is a copy of the script posted at Simply Scripts for anyone else who might have an interest.

                    BTW, my 'tinfoil' comment was TIC, but at the same time, I would never say never.

                    http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspo...verlooked.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kill the Messenger

                      Originally posted by Captain Nemo View Post
                      Hi Canela,

                      Thanks for your reply, although, as you admit, you also didn't see the film. You don't really go into detail re why you didn't like the script. I liked the script for what it was, but I am interested in this kind of material. I don't know who The Bitter Script Reader is, but he seemed impressed by the script and like many others, by Jeremy Renner's performance. I've linked his review below. As far as the rest of your comments, as I've said, I think these are things that everyone already knows.

                      If you are interested in elaborating further on what you feel were the weaknesses of the script, would be interested. BTW, I believe there is a copy of the script posted at Simply Scripts for anyone else who might have an interest.

                      BTW, my 'tinfoil' comment was TIC, but at the same time, I would never say never.

                      http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspo...verlooked.html
                      I didn't say I didn't like the shooting script or it was bad. It just didn't fuel my interest. The hot mama with as much exposition as cleavage, the super earnest speech in the ballroom. Fine, if not exactly fresh. Anyway, the script is not the film. I'll see how it all plays. However, Andy Garcia's terrible accent in the trailer definitely tempered my expectations.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kill the Messenger

                        Originally posted by canela View Post
                        I didn't say I didn't like the shooting script or it was bad. It just didn't fuel my interest. The hot mama with as much exposition as cleavage, the super earnest speech in the ballroom. Fine, if not exactly fresh. Anyway, the script is not the film. I'll see how it all plays. However, Andy Garcia's terrible accent in the trailer definitely tempered my expectations.
                        Okay, fair enough, and I agree w/comments re script. Re ballroom speech, I wonder though - with 'real' material, and with probably Webb's best-known words, how artful can you afford to make it? But, as you say, neither of us have seen it, and we don't know how or how much of the speech was shot. Interesting re Garcia, I didn't notice and guess much of audience also wouldn't - he is a Cuban national, but maybe couldn't pull off a Nicaraguan accent.

                        Thanks for your comments and would would appreciate an expanded edition if you do happen to see the film at some point.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kill the Messenger

                          As a sidebar, some favorites about journalists in dangerous places:
                          -Salvador
                          -Under Fire
                          -The Year of Living Dangerously
                          -The Quiet American (2002)

                          In a different category, but a must for newsies: Ace in the Hole (1951)

                          But can't think about journalism today without noting the passing of Michel duCille, great modern storyteller and fearless seeker of truth...RIP.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kill the Messenger

                            Originally posted by canela View Post
                            As a sidebar, some favorites about journalists in dangerous places:
                            -Salvador
                            -Under Fire
                            -The Year of Living Dangerously
                            -The Quiet American (2002)

                            In a different category, but a must for newsies: Ace in the Hole (1951)

                            But can't think about journalism today without noting the passing of Michel duCille, great modern storyteller and fearless seeker of truth...RIP.
                            Hi Canela,

                            Thanks for this list - agree all very much worth seeing. Three of the five involve tragically stupid blundering by the U.S. abroad. Terrific performance in 'Salvador' by James Woods, who improvised an entire scene in a church confessional. Noyce's adaptation of Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American' vastly better than the earlier version. Greene was not only a gifted writer, he was also an MI6 operative, and his portrayal of American arrogance and naivete, based on destructive CIA legend Edward Lansdale, who he had come to know well, probably remains the most prescient work of fiction on the whole Vietnam debacle. Younger screenwriters unfamiliar with Greene might be more interested in him as the screenwriter of 'The Third Man', another film featuring a bumbling American in a foreign land.

                            One film to possibly add here - Costa-Gavras' 'Missing' (1982) with Sissy Spacek, Jack Lemmon, and John Shea, which involves the search for 'disappeared' journalist Charles Horman during the 1973 coup in Chile. Like 'Salvador', a film which rarely seems to pop up in the rotation of old movies on cable channels.


                            Thanks also for the heads-up on Michel DuCille, a name previously unknown to me. A three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize, he died of a heart attack just days ago, while courageously covering the Ebola epidemic in Liberia.

                            Cheers,

                            CN

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X