Vice (Dick Cheney biopic)

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Personally I didn't think that was the case at all - felt the film had a clear, unambiguous perspective about Cheney. It is explicitly critical of the war-mongering nature of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton (Washington isn't rid of that mustachioed hawk just yet - his fingerprints all over today's nuclear treaty announcement) and co., and repeatedly highlights the futility and human costs of the wars they started. There are scenes that 'humanise' the subject and try to understand his motivation, yes, but ultimately the film overtly condemns him, his ideology and his actions (as well as those around him who were also playing the game). There's literally a scene where the camera

lingers on his broken, dead heart

for the guts of 30 seconds :pac:

I don't think political film needs to be objective or even-handed - I'm all for directors unashamedly saying what they think about any given subject, and if they do it poorly or clunkily (ala Michael Moore) it's still their right to say what they want to say. I would suggest that Vice is more 'liberal' and 'anti-Republican' than 'left' (Sorry To Bother You is a true lefty film) but again don't think there's any obligation on it to adopt any middle ground. Ultimately its failures are less to with its political-leanings and more to do with its under-baked writing and direction.

Well Cheney is a warmonger or was a warmonger, there's no getting away from that whatever side you are on but it did present his different motivations, and in my opinion brilliantly laid out the making of the man, why he became what he did, and his own justification for doing his various deeds.
Take the perspective for example of someone who was affected directly on September 11 with a family member getting killed after enemies of the state flew multiple planes into a building their son or daughter was in. They would first think that their country is at war, they would likely want to go to war, and would want their government to do it for them and protect them from the invaders. Cheney sees himself as that defender of the realm... at least from certain scenes its presented that way. And its no stretch to imagine an Americans first motivation for their leader to do those things for the country, other then say making money from owning weapons factories and defense contracts which is another view on it.

I agree there is no obligation to adopt the middle ground, but I think its a much more skillful thing to do in filmmaking to present both sides when possible. Nixon, is one of my favorite films if not my favorite. Every part of the man is presented in that film - what made him what he was. It generates a much deeper and greater perspective on a biography, instead of a single portrait through a single paradigm of a directors vision who may not like the person, or have a political leaning. I for one find that a much more honest and artistic way to make a film....lets look inside and see what we can find, instead of someone telling us what we should find and how we should think about it all. I believe its a sign of respect from a director to the viewing public when you can make up your own mind after seeing a biography.

Can't agree on the directing. From the first 5 minutes the style of the film had gripped me and I found it a riveting presentation all the way through, probably because it was such a reminder of Olive Stones style of editing when he was making these kinds of movies.