"VICE (Vice President)", 2018 impression: a patchwork of semi-fictional history
Several friends recommended this movie, and it was also nominated for multiple Oscars (the most controversial movie nominated for the best film in history), and it is about the Bush administration and the Iraq war, so watch it For a moment.
After watching it, I was disappointed and surprised: a movie of this level was nominated for an Oscar. It can be seen that the political division in the United States has reached the point where it is completely determined by the ass. To say that this movie is good, it must be ordinary Democrats (including the entire Hollywood) and anti-Iraq war people. The bad thing about movies is most Republicans and people who have a little knowledge and respect for history.
1. This movie is very peculiar. It is also a historical reconstruction (reconstruction) and a documentary, but it contains a lot of imagination, which is actually historical fiction. It can be classified as historical fiction, and it is politically driven historical fiction. In order to achieve specific preset results, some specific scenes and dialogues must be arranged. The documentary form is not enough, so historical imagination is added. Because of the use of actors, it is necessary to reconstruct the impressions of all historical figures with actors’ participation-for example, Powell’s speech at the United Nations; Bush Jr. announced the successful conclusion of the Iraq War on the aircraft carrier. Refactor the situation again, and then add a low-resolution effect. In order to make up a small part, it is necessary to reconstruct all relevant history. I think it is possible to reach a new peak in historical movies. The effect is to make it impossible for people who are not familiar with this period of history and film techniques to tell where the film is a documentary and what is true. It combines history and fiction in a way I have never seen before. A new stage has been reached in the field of political propaganda.
2. The characterization of the movie is one-sided on the one hand, and very incomplete on the other. For example, Bush Jr.'s portrayal takes the scene of his drunk attending a father's reception. Obviously, he hopes to use this scene to give the audience the impression that he is an unreliable prodigal. Rumsfeld's imagination is very vague. What is his background? For what? What character? There is no explanation. The audience may be impressed by two scenes. One is his speech to a congressional intern, a politician's face, and the other is when Cheney asked him "What do we believe in?" He closed the door mockingly and laughed. More than that, it shows that this is a cynic and politician who has no faith. This is very coarsely dwarfed. For the protagonist Dick Cheney, I don’t know what character the author/director wants to portray? What kind of character is Cheney anyway? Is he a tender father and husband who extremely loves family (a responsible man who has fallen to the bottom but can be awakened by love, and a father who loves his two daughters deeply), or is he a scheming and indifferent big politician? What is the big concern? money? that power? A specific political belief? The description of this person is very vague. After watching the movie, you can't see anything other than that he is monopolizing the power and is directly related to the US launching the war in Iraq. The reason why the characterization of this movie is so weak is that a one or two-hour reconstructed narrative film cannot show the character background of the characters (but the documentary can do it through narration and interviews). So why should the film be made as a reconstructed narrative film rather than a documentary? Because it wants to shape and construct dialogues and interactions in specific scenes, and these interactions may be fictitious and imagined. Sacrificing the objectivity, authenticity, and integrity of historical narratives for partial fiction.
3. This movie has too many slots on historical issues, too many to come together one by one. I’m just that the film’s narrative of history is very, very, very incomplete. It only captures the very small individual events of the whole big event, and they are strung together in a very jumpy, incoherent, unreasonable, and divergent way. Lead the audience to accept a certain conclusion determined by the author/director. This conclusion is roughly:
1) The U.S. government fabricated evidence, launched an attack on the sovereign state of Iraq and subverted the regime;
2) Dick Cheney and his staff planned the war against Iraq and other policy actions (including torture and Guantanamo). They (not Bush Jr.) are primarily or fully responsible for this;
3) Dick Cheney's attack on Iraq was premeditated and related to his position in Haliburton.
4) The attack on Iraq caused casualties and gave birth to ISIS;
With just a few main conclusions, very complicated historical events are presented in a simple and rude manner, and only hints at some very important and key points, but because of insufficient evidence, they dare not make the truth. For example, it ends with the accusation that Cheney attacked Iraq for the benefit of energy companies such as Haliburton. This is the biggest and most important conspiracy theory in the U.S. Iraq war, but the film ends with this, only mentioning that Haliburton hopes to fight after the war in Iraq. Project, and the stock price rose. There is also a hint that Dick Cheney was planning some kind of conspiracy (such as expanding administrative power or even attacking Iraq) as early as 9/11, but he did not dare to say it so that readers would think so. For those who do not understand this period of history, it is easy to be guided by the hints of the movie and draw the conclusion that the director hopes to reach.
The sloppy and unprofessional description of such a major historical event is really shocking, and considering the potential influence of the film, it can only be said to be extremely irresponsible. It can be seen that in the political environment of the United States, in order to obtain the political goals of the party, all means can be used. I can only say that this kind of film may be more powerful than Goebbels' propaganda film. Compared with this film, Michael Moore's previous film is pediatrics.
4. The formation of the Iraq War is very complicated. The film basically ignored the very complicated background environment at the time, and only emphasized one clue (that is, the relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda/911), trying to explain that Cheney relied on the launch of the war against Iraq. This is not the historical situation at that time. In 2002-2003, when I was abroad, I followed up the whole incident very intensively through mainstream news reports. I briefly summarized the scene from my memory:
1) The United States was truly shocked by Islamic terrorism after 9/11. As the world's military, political, and economic leader, how could it tolerate the two landmark buildings in Manhattan being bombed by terrorism and be helpless? The whole country hopes to punish the real perpetrators and brutally attack all individuals, institutions/groups and countries that shelter terrorists. This is the overall mood and position of the United States at the beginning of this century, and it is incomprehensible if it does not return to the historical point of 2001-2003. The public generally supports all counter-terrorism measures. This is very different from when the United States launched Vietnam. Not everyone in the United States can understand proxy wars that are far away in Asia and have nothing to do with them. But terrorism occurred in the United States, and I was very afraid of Islam and very supportive of anti-terrorism.
2) The United States soon learned that the real culprit of 9/11 was Al-Qaeda, and discovered that Al-Qaida was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. After asking the Taliban to surrender bin Laden unsuccessfully, it decided to attack Afghanistan. For the United States, al Qaeda is a transnational quasi-underground network that is difficult to combat. But Afghanistan is a tangible target. The U.S. government cannot do nothing about the consequences of 9/11. It must launch a strike against whom, and it has targeted Afghanistan. But in the early days, there must be discussions about who the mastermind of 9/11 was. What this movie did was to magnify the speculation about Iraq: it specifically said that Cheney doubted Iraq, as if Cheney had premeditated and deliberately wanted to draw on Iraq. In fact, many Middle Eastern countries are suspects. Including Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from. This is how the director leads.
3) The United States quickly defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, but found that bin Laden had escaped and had not caught it. This shows that the cause of catching the real murderer of 9/11 has not been successful (it was not until the end of Obama’s first term that Bin Laden was killed by a surprise attack by American special forces in Pakistan). Looking for new goals to advance the cause of counter-terrorism
4) Iraq has quickly become a new target for counter-terrorism because
i) Iraq has a track record of attacking Kuwait. It was defeated in the first Gulf War, but Bush Sr.'s men were merciful and let Saddam go.
ii) The relationship between Iraq and the United States and Israel is very tense. Do you still remember the story of Scud confronting the patriots? Saddam hopes to establish himself as an Arab national hero, independent representing the confrontation between the Middle East and the United States. The U.S. wanted to get rid of him a long time ago
iii) A group of Republican think tanks/intellectuals who are mainly Jewish—neo-Conservatives have always had an independent agenda, that is, hope that the United States will use military/political power to promote democratic countries in the Middle East. On the one hand, it can promote the western lib dem system and core values, on the other hand, there is a subconscious mind that protects Israel. Previously, it was generally believed that neo-Conservative was a small group that hijacked and used the Bush administration to achieve its goals. In 2002, Bush Jr. proposed the Bush Doctrine (Bush Doctrine) of the United States, which is regarded as neo-Conservatives. Paul Wolfowitz is the representative of the Neo-Conservatives White House. But you can notice that this movie says almost nothing about neo-Conservative! Wolfowitz (also Jewish) is a marginal figure as a whole. I think this is a hope to downplay all other factors affecting Bush and spread them all on Cheney. In addition, the base of the Democratic Party is Jews, so we should be more cautious in dealing with neo-Conservaitve, which is overwhelmingly Jewish. This is the producer’s consideration
iv) Bush claimed to be a born-again Christian. Morality and justice are very important in his discourse system during his tenure. His behavior has ideological and value-oriented dimensions, including support for neo-Conservatives. It is not right to judge Bush and his administration's behavior only by geopolitics (even simplified to the economic interests of certain US energy or military industries).
v) Saddam is generally believed or suspected by all countries (including France, Germany, Russia, and China) to secretly develop weapons of mass destruction and possess reserves. Although Iraq claims that all weapons have been destroyed, no one has direct evidence of this. Can only doubt. However, all countries basically believe that Iraq must have some weapons of mass destruction. The concern at the time was not that Iraq would use these weapons, but that it would sell these weapons to international terrorism for economic or other purposes. This possibility cannot be ruled out.
vi) Initially, the United States requested inspections of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction through the United Nations. Saddam has always refused to cooperate and turned a blind eye to the demands and requirements provided by international organizations (people who followed the news at the time should remember the toughness of the Iraqi government and the foreign minister who ran away immediately after the war). After Iraq repeatedly failed to cooperate with UN investigations, issued strong language, and ignored the communication, the United States and its allies launched an offensive. This is the main opportunity for the US war against Iraq. Without Saddam’s stiff words, the United States could not develop at that time. Afterwards, we discovered that Saddam was like playing an Arab hero. He did not have the strength to resist the United States at all. At that time (at that point in 2003), his behavior was extremely irrational and could only be described inexplicably.
vii) Since the United States has captured Iraq, the world believes that weapons of mass destruction will be discovered soon. Surprisingly, no weapons of mass destruction were discovered! ! At that time, the American government and the British government (the main ally of the United States) were absolutely dumbfounded. In their dreams, they could not understand that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and at the same time Saddam so strongly refused to cooperate with the UN inspection. If you don't have weapons of mass destruction, won't you be over if you cooperate with the investigation? Saddam’s hard-talk and rationality ruined himself and made the United States and the United Kingdom completely miscalculate. At that time, the evidence of weapons of mass destruction provided by the United States was very weak, and it was basically pieced together, and Powell was asked to use his character guarantee to speak to the United Nations. These are all facts. The US government believes that these weapons will naturally be found if Iraq is smashed. The earlier evidence is not important anymore, and in the end these weapons were not found! Therefore, it is not valid to say that Cheney and Rumsfeld have long known that Iraq does not have such weapons and just start a war. In my impression, the movie does not dare to make such a suggestion.
viii) One of the main content of the movie is to explain: Cheney and others fictionalized the relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda/911, in order to persuade the Americans to support the attack on Iraq. This is inconsistent with the situation at the time. At that time, the American people were eager to fight against terrorism, basically referring to where to fight. It was not the focus of guidance. The focus was to convince the political and military elites in the United States and the international community, especially the Security Council, the West, and "emerging countries" willing to be US allies (mainly Eastern European countries). Those who were familiar with Middle Eastern politics at that time knew that Saddam was a secular regime that relied on personal authority to rule Iraq’s multi-sects (Shia, Sunni), multi-ethnic groups (Arabs, Kurds), etc., which belonged to the tradition. Of secular authoritarianism. He is a representative of pan-Arab nationalism, not a representative of fundamental Islam. He has nothing to do with the Islamic terrorism of al Qaeda. Even as a secular regime, Saddam may still be the object of fundamentalist opposition. But the question is: it cannot be ruled out that they have connections for interests. If there is a connection, what if Iraq sells weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations? If you imagine that he has such a weapon, and at the same time he is so anti-American, "the enemy of the enemy is my friend", it is probably not difficult to understand that he sold the weapon to al-Qaeda? Going back to the beginning of this century after 9/11, under the great fear of terrorism, this kind of association is enough. At the same time Saddam refused to fully cooperate with the UN investigation of weapons of mass destruction! This makes people willing to support the defeat of Saddam, although they do not necessarily think that Saddam has a direct connection with 9/11. This is the real reason to persuade the elites.
ix) With the above-mentioned possibility that Saddam and Al Qaeda could contact in the future as a basis, the discourse instigating the war in Iraq actually fell on the description of Saddam’s regime. I remember that Prime Minister Blair, an American ally, spent most of his time describing Saddam. This is an authoritarian despot who slaughters his own people. From the perspective of humanitarian intervention, Saddam should be defeated. This is to help the Iraqi people. Let Iraq gain democracy. This was a very important basis and narrative for supporting the war against Iraq at that time. Therefore, when the Iraq War broke out, Western society paid great attention to the actions of the Iraqi people in the war (for example, whether they actively overthrew the statue of Saddam Hussein), and the establishment of democratic mechanisms in Iraq. This is their basis for evaluating whether this war is a just war. From this perspective, the opponent’s argument is that Iraq did not have such a specific humanitarian intervention, and it is wrong to attack a sovereign country. In addition, Iraq fell into civil strife after the war, democracy was difficult to land, and the rise of ISIS was all after the fact. It proves that this war is unjust and should be criticized.
First of all, we should not put aside the mentality of the United States and the international community after 9/11 and discuss the war in Iraq without the historical context. Secondly, the launching of war is the result of the aggregation of various forces. For example, the American people hope to find a grasper to solve the problem of revenge on 9/11; people fear that Saddam will join forces with al-Qaeda to attack the United States in the future; neoconservatives hope to promote in the Middle East Democracy; Western waters’ general hatred of Saddam’s regime, etc. Ignoring all these factors as a personal conspiracy that Cheney had already brewed is an irresponsible fabrication of history.
5. I have written a lot of the above exhibition to illustrate how imprecise this film is. It is not an objective presentation, but a dramatic distortion of history in order to achieve a certain goal directed at real politics-including opposition to the Republican Party and opposition. Trump (including linking Trump's attitude toward Iran with Cheney's attitude toward Iraq, as well as criticizing Trump for expanding the president's executive power), etc. . This film has no historical value. Except for Christian Bale's wonderful performance, I don't think there is any film value. The jumping narrative inside is very disintegrating. There is also a plot in which Cheney no longer intervenes in politics and "ages for the elderly" is simply inexplicable, I don't know what I want to say.
6. Based on the strong US left-wing anti-Republican and anti-Trump stance, in Hollywood, which is dominated by the left, this film has been nominated to Oscars by many. I think the people who support this kind of film-unless they really don't understand history-are not essentially different from the Nazis who support Goebbels' propaganda films. As for the director, it can only be said that it is either dishonest or ignorant.
View more about Vice reviews
