“By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staff. He was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they think they’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in.

When he died of an apparent drug overdose just shy of his 50th birthday on June 25, while rehearsing for an intense 50-show engagement in London, it seemed that this conundrum would never be solved and that his life and legacy would be forever shadowed. Then word emerged that concert promoter AEG had decided to sell extensive footage it shot of the show’s rehearsals and put it up for bidding war, which Sony Pictures won for $60 million. Debate raged throughout Hollywood and the business world about whether this was an appropriate outcome, or if it reeked of exploitation. 

Viewers can now decide for themselves, as the resulting documentary, “Michael Jackson’s This Is It,” comes out today. Packing dozens of hours of rehearsal footage into a 100-minute running time, the film offers both expected and unexpected insights into the creative process of one of the ultimate creative visionaries ever to walk the planet. 

On the one hand, audiences expect to see Jackson tearing it up as a dancer and possessing an insanely high-pitched vocal range. But they also might expect him to be a demanding diva, or to be too frail to work due to the massive array of drug addictions that allegedly killed him. Yet time and again, even on the final night of his life, his command of the stage is thrilling to watch and he’s fully friendly and engaging with all those around him. 

But there are far more compelling reasons to watch “This Is It” than the mere car-crash curiosity of seeing how obvious his afflictions preyed on Jackson. They lie in the jaw-dropping moments of creative invention and joy to be found in song after song after song in this film, as Jackson supervises and then unveils a super-suped-up 3D version of “Thriller” where he eventually bursts out of the onstage screen and into real-life action on the boards. 

There’s a goosebump-inducing, near-acapella rendition of his underrated ballad “Human Nature” that shows the self-proclaimed King of Pop was still in perfect voice, as well. Another segment shows Jackson directing CGI effects wizards on how to turn 10 onstage dancers into an onscreen field of 1000 dancers in military gear for a rousing rendition of his defiant “HIStory” song “They Don’t Care About Us.” 

But the biggest showstopper comes with “Smooth Criminal,” in which Jackson and his tour director/choreographer Kenny Ortega insert footage of Jackson jumping and running and sliding down bannisters into a Humphrey Bogart movie. As Bogie pumps a machine-gun full of lead into Jackson while the Gloved One explodes through a window for his getaway, it is impossible to keep from bursting into applause, as the audience of jaded critics did at Los Angeles’ historic Chinese Theater. 

Throughout it all, there is only one slight weak spot; when Jackson’s voice-over discusses the planet’s environmental problems in a way that’s simultaneously childlike and heavy-handed. Audiences are subjected to sticky-sweet footage of a young girl running through CGI footage of a rain-forest, surrounded by butterflies as the turgid ballad “Earth Song” plays. Yet, even here, the film is revealing a little-known side of Jackson as a social activist. 

Ultimately, director Kenny Ortega, who would have been the live concerts’ choreographer, has done a valuable service to Jackson’s legacy and for all those who are curious about the creative process of pop music’s apparent last great visionary. It was not exploitative to make this film, but rather an absolute necessity, as it strips away the horrid memories of Jackson’s alleged dark side and leaves us with him pointing us all towards the light of joy through sheer entertainment.

Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.

Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter.

A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,

…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”

If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”

How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to a Reuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,

…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.

The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.

Wow.

And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”

I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.

I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.

Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.

Irony is what happens when a Hollywood director (Oliver Stone) goes to Latin America, produces a film favorable to one of the most maniacal and politically obnoxious figures in the region (Hugo Chavez), and then returns to the States to tout what he sees as his own astounding “research” skills. In what world would legitimate research on Chavez result in any favorable representation in film or any other venue, for that matter?

Even more concerning than Stone’s own tweaked coverage and perception of the dictator is the L.A. Times’ representation of the film – and shall I say, meager, questioning of its tenants. In an article by Times journalist Reed Johnson, the paper, in all of its glory, referred to Chavez as a “…former military officer turned democratically elected socialist leader.” Talk about niceties.

While admitting that the film does not provide diverse views on Chavez, the article only mentions “dust-ups” with media outlets opposed to the regime and Chavez’s role in assisting radicals in rallying against Columbia’s government (but these mentions come only in the context of what the film, itself, does not cover).

Sadly, the piece serves as a bullhorn for Stone’s own views on the evils of America and his infatuation with the Venezuelan dictator’s charm. Instead of raising facts and figures from those who would disagree with anti-American rhetoric, the piece does little to provide well-rounded perspective. Johnson writes:

In his new documentary “South of the Border,” Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chavez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns.

These amiable, off-the-cuff snapshots of the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, respectively, contrast with the way these left-leaning leaders often are depicted in U.S.”

The article makes no real effort to delve into the human rights violations that Chavez champions in Venezuela. And while one can argue that this wasn’t the purpose of the article, Stone is minimally pressed to answer further about why he’s avoided these issues. If the L.A. Times felt it so necessary to provide a platform for Stone’s work, why not also provide a framework through which readers could better understand why many Americans dislike Chavez’s restrictive regime? The U.S. retains a negative view of Chavez with good reason.

Take the following statement from Human Rights Watch (coincidently, not a right-leaning group by any stretch of the imagination):

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chavez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

The official reason for their expulsion? “[Violating] the constitution by criticizing the government while on tourist visas.” Ironically, they weren’t even on tourist visas. But this is only one example. One wonders what happens to Venezuelan citizens who dare question Chavez’s authority. Note: The L.A. Times may not be the place to go to collect this information.

And, while the Times would apparently seek to focus, as does Mr. Stone, on the fact that Chavez is “democratically elected,” let’s review the radicalization we’ve seen coming from his administration – violations that the L.A. Times confirms Stone left out of his leftist propaganda.

According to The New York Times, following re-election in 2006…

“[Chavez] nationalized electrical companies, asserted government control over oil projects in the Orinoco forests and withdrew from the International Monetary Fund. He also cracked down on television stations that had been critical of him, and proposed a referendum on constitutional changes that would centralize power in the presidency and remove term limits for the post.”

Ahh, a whiff of democracy!

Oh, and did I mention that Venezuelan voters democratically turned down his insane referendum? Would it have killed Johnson to merely mention of the constrictive actions that pose concern not only to conservative groups in America, but also to the leftist Human Rights Watch? Probably not. To those completely unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics, this article did little more than promote Stone’s film.

Ironically, Stone – an artist – doesn’t address Chavez’s media restrictions and state-run outlets (apparently love for a dictator of sorts trumps his love for the arts). And the Times, a supposed-democratic tool, also declines to delve into this important detail. Both would have us to believe that the heinousness Chavez inflicts on the citizens of his nation – and on the arts and media – is good old democracy at work. Insane.

–

Hopefully the finished product will explore subjects beyond the (understandable) bellyaching about Fox’s shabby treatment of the show, abysmal ratings, regrettable lack of audience, etc. 

Note to readers: This documentary is not to be confused with the Arrested Development feature film, reportedly in production.

Note to self: Perhaps a separate post featuring a full-fledged ode to this brilliant show is in order.  Stay tuned for that, and join the fan club in the interim. 

[This blog post was sponsored in part by the Law Offices of Barry Zuckercorn, and by "Caged Wisdom," now available on DVD]

All very caring stuff  – and we are introduced to Iraqi refugees, people from the Niger Delta and the Alps to witness the supposed climate problems they’re already facing. (Although in reality the problems in Iraq and Nigeria had nothing to do with climate and the character in the Alps seemed largely concerned about increasing traffic destroying his peace and quiet.)

But the characters were sympathetically drawn and one would believe the filmmakers genuinely cared about people and their lives. However, occasionally the mask slips. The filmmakers now send out regular emails about the film’s progress and any “climate news,” and the latest email shows just how much they care about ordinary people losing their jobs and probably their homes during one of the worst recessions in a hundred years. 

Under a section entitled “Good News” the email chirpily informs us: 

Good riddance to US car giant General Motors, who declared bankruptcy this week! Whilst this is sad news for the thousands of workers set to lose their jobs, it is very good news for the climate.  

The Age of Stupid opens in the US in September – presumably not in Detroit or any other city depending on car manufacturing or indeed on any type of heavy industry. 

Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer are the Producers and Directors of Not Evil Just Wrong – a documentary which reveals the true cost of Global Warming hysteria. Noteviljustwrong.com

Cpt. Isaac Rademacher — Jake Rademacher

After some initial pleasantries (actor talk, a little sports, our mutual respect for Gary Sinise, etc.), we got down to it.

By the way, if you want to get a true feeling of how the interview was for me, try to read it very quickly.

–

J.R. Head:  First, let me say “Brothers at War” looks fantastic.  You’re an actor.  What was it like to make the transition to first-time director?

Jake Rademacher: I always had a fascination with story and who people are since I was a young boy.  I did a lot of reading growing up, watched a lot of movies, and eventually won the English award in High School.  I then went on to Notre Dame after poor eyesight kept me out of West Point and studied English.  I was actually overseas studying at Trinity College Dublin during my junior year when I discovered acting.  What I learned as an actor greatly informed not only my directing, but what I decided to focus on in “Brothers at War.” Traveling around the country as a stage actor gave me an understanding of story and audience from the boards, being up there in front of them.  In preparing for those roles, I spent a long time studying behavior, I wanted to give the audience something real.  In order to do that I would research extensively.  I think that element; spending all that time and all that focus and all that energy trying to understand people, trying to learn about them, trying to figure out how they work, understanding who we are and why we are and what we do, I think, had a lot to do with my ability to have “Brothers at War” cut to the bone of who my brothers, my family, and the warriors on the edge of the battlefield are.

JRH:  What about the look of the film?  You shot some of it, yes?  Who taught you to shoot?

JR:  A friend of mine, Ben Byer, got diagnosed with ALS, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and he asked me to go out to the east coast with him and shoot some interviews and B-roll for him.  I said, “I don’t know.  I’ll do whatever I can to help you out but I’ve never shot anything before.”  He said, “Don’t worry about it.  I went to Paris Film School. I’ll teach you.”  I said, “Ohhhh-kay”.  I went over to his home in Chicago, and he gave me a crash course in shooting.  Over the course of a few hours he taught me about focus, aperture… the way he taught me shot composition was he took a book of these amazing stills, a lot of black and whites, and he just showed me how to construct a shot.  The meaning behind a shot.  Framing.  After catching the acting bug in Ireland, I toured Europe during the summer and would spend hours entranced by Monets, Renoirs, Van Goghs …across Italy and France.  Later, every year a major exhibit would be featured at the Chicago Museum of Art, and I would spend hours just looking at paintings.  Absorbed, fascinated, taking it all in.  I think all those paintings, telling a story or conveying an emotion in one frame, in a picture, left a deep impression.

JRH:  So, an appreciation for painting–

JR:  –for painting, for a beautiful still.  That was the start, but I learned a lot about shooting on the fly from my two DPs (directors of photography), Marc Miller and Conor Colwell.  Conor was at LMU film school and I could just tell from his reel that he had the eye. He really knew how to tell a story in a shot.  Marc has over 25 years of experience.  Conor is kind of young and hip.  So, it was a good mix.  I learned from both.  Stan Eng also accompanied Conor and I on the first trip and shot some good stuff as well.

JRH:  So, they were able to kind of mentor you a bit and–

JR:  Their tutelage came in handy especially during the second trip.  Marc has a wife and kids, so I had an issue with putting him in the most dangerous spots.  I’m single, you know.  No wife.  No kids.  So, I climbed the walls with the snipers, was in the lead Iraqi unit as it pushed out the gate.  Norman S. Powell, my producing partner looked at the footage and said I really grew as a photographer over the course of the embeds.  

JRH:  What did you most want to take home with you?  Was there a point where you said, “This is the shot I came here for?”

JR:  I thought the people were the most interesting thing to see in Iraq.  I wasn’t interested in getting them to say something that I had written, to fill in some kind of outline.  I was on a mission of discovery.  I hadn’t written my script ahead of time.  So, I was really interested in finding out who the guys were, why they did what they did and what they had to say about it.

–

JRH:  That gets into another question I have for you.  As we see in the trailer, you say you wanted to know why your brothers do what they do.  Couldn’t you have just asked them?  What compelled you to go and see things with your own eyes?

JR:  That’s an interesting question because the thing is you can’t ask them.  I mean, you can ask them–The problem is that they try to tell us but give up because it’s too hard to explain.  The chasm is too great.  These guys study combat, not communication.  I found it very difficult to explain to people what it was like and I communicate for a living, so I can only imagine what it’s like to be a soldier and try to communicate it to a civilian.  So, the only way for me to understand, to cross that chasm, was to go, see it and experience it for myself.  There were a couple of things that were important to me.  I didn’t want to make a film with people talking about what they did twenty years ago, when it was distant.  If I’m going to make a documentary, I want to interview them on the job, while they’re doing it and ask them how they feel about it.  How did it feel to be in Iraq, while you’re sitting on the Syrian border, eight hours away from your buddies, in 120 degree heat… How are you feeling about it?  You enjoying yourself?  I figured they might give me a more emotionally in-tune answer there.  Also, this dovetails with the look of the film.  A lot of the interviews are in close-up because I wanted to pick up what’s happening beyond what they’re saying.  I wanted to pick up how they’re feeling, where they are and let all these things inform “Brothers at War”.

JRH:  Did it take a long time for the guys to get used to having a camera in their face?

JR:  Yeah.  Hell, it took me a while to get used to the camera being in my face.  I didn’t want to perform for the film.  I didn’t even know if I was going to be in the film.  I just let myself be filmed because we thought that may be the story.  With them, I think it was a little awkward, at first, so I tended to shoot a lot.  I just kept rolling.  Part of the reason was so that they would forget about the camera.  Further, for the most part, we were “outside the wire” on a mission, it’s dangerous, they’ve got a job to do.  It also got to the point where I’m out there with you–You’re carrying a rifle, I’m carrying a camera.  You’re doing your thing, I’m doing mine.  Under stressful situations, I find you get to know people in a more intimate way.  More so than, say, standing at a bus stop or working with them at a restaurant.  Y’know, nobody is going to lose their life if someone forgets to clear table twelve. 

So, out on a mission, you get closer with people, you get to know a little bit more.  It makes you more in-tune with them.  You spend a lot of time with these guys, so they really get to know who you are.  Bottom line is that we all kind of forgot about the camera because there were more important things going on and I think there was a bit of trust.  I wasn’t like a news crew out for one day on a mission, trying to get the answers I wanted to plug into my story.  I was there as someone in for the long haul.  I was there for three months and went on 30 missions, asked a lot of questions, interviewed a lot of war fighters and had a real interest in what they were doing and why they were doing it.  I think a lot of those guys want to talk about what they’re doing, they just don’t want to have there story suffer the telephone game as it goes from the News Bureau desk to an editor back in the states who does the final edit even though the closest he’s ever been to the Sandbox is when he picks his kids up from kindergarten.  

That was one of the most exciting things for me, to just be there to the point where I just kind of disappear.  When I was with the snipers and we caught that M&M moment, I just faded into the bricks.  I think that was the second hour of footage on them.  I shot a whole other hour of footage before that moment happened.  And by the time they get into the banter: the girlfriend and all that, they’re just doing their thing.  They’re trying to pass the time and they’re not worried about the guy sitting against the wall (me) doing his thing.  They don’t even know if I’m rolling or not at that point.

JRH:  The M&M bit is in the trailer, which looks great, by the way.  It shows a pretty broad range.  It’s not just some dour, heavy-handed thing.  There’s an element of humor as well as more serious tones.  What can the audience expect from “Brothers at War”?

JR:  Well, the trailer is very evocative but, at two and a half minutes, it’s really just a teaser.  The trailer gives you a sense of the danger, of the humor, a sense of the discovery and certainly a glimpse of how we penetrate into the family dynamic.  You’ll get a chance to see these guys reflected through the viewpoints of their wives, their daughters, their fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters.  So, when you start to see somebody through how other people look at them, I think you start to paint a more complete portrait of who these guys are.  An additional element of “Brothers at War” is the opportunity to spend time with and meet a wonderful cross section of the people we have serving us overseas. These unique individuals create a vivid and dynamic portrait of our American Warrior on the edge of the battlefield. 

You get a taste of that in the trailer, you get a moment, a flash of some of the guys you meet along the way.  Each of these guys comes out of the texture of the scene and really takes the spotlight, and you get to know who they really are… who these guys are that stepped up to be Marines and Rangers and Recon Paratroopers and snipers.  Guys working with the Iraqi Army, Iraqis who stepped forward to be a translator in the most dangerous combat units.  You also get a sense of Iraq, the landscape.  You get a chance to go up to Kurdistan, into the Sunni Triangle, out to the Syrian border.  So, you get perspective on Iraq by going on the journey across the country in this story.  

Finally, you get a chance to see how this war is actually being fought.  You get a chance to sit in on an intel brief and be out at a reconnaissance site at night as the action is happening.  Then during the day, when nothing is happening.  You’re with the soldiers baking in the sun and waiting for the next moment of action the next night.  You get to go out with the National Guard snipers and see how they’re trying to ferret out the bad guys.  Trying to catch them in the act of placing I.E.D.s or walking out of mosques with automatic weapons.  You get a chance to see the Iraqi Army and make your own evaluation about why it takes more than ten minutes to set up the Iraqi Army.

————

In part two, Jake Rademacher talks about “pre-Surge” Iraq, my beloved Marine Corps and more. Stay tuned.

Semper fi,

J.R. Head

“Brothers at War” is currently playing in Los Angeles at Santa Monica’s AMC Broadway 4.  It is also currently playing in Springfield, IL, White Plains, NY and Knoxville, TN.

I was recently privileged to attend a pre-screening of a film that shows Americans exactly what we’ve been missing. “Brothers At War” dares to give viewers an honest and intimate look at a family that supports two brothers on the front lines, from the perspective of a sibling who decided not to serve in the military. Freshman filmmaker Jake Rademacher follows his brothers to Iraq to try and understand their commitment, and to see for himself what they experience when they deploy “over there” for so many months at a time. Throughout the film we witness the tensions between the brothers as they try to discover a way to communicate with each other despite the ideological divisions. There are moments of frustration, anger, and skepticism as they confront each other, and there are moments of love, tenderness, and genuine respect as they come to understand one another through these shared experiences.

Jake brings the audience into the most intimate of moments, and allows unscripted access into the hearts of his family members and the soldiers he encounters. While out on a five day surveillance/reconnaissance patrol along the Syrian border, Jake documents the close fraternity of the team members and artlessly conveys their human qualities to viewers who may never have met men like these. He interviews several of the young men, and their sincerity belies a trust that is not easy to acquire in such a short time. They trusted him simply because he was not out there to prove some archetype of the American soldier, he was there to let them speak for themselves.

Most Iraq veterans will applaud the range of scenes portrayed in the documentary, which doesn’t fall prey to the temptation to go heavy on the action and skimp on character development. He shows us life on a large forward operating base, a duration patrol in the scorching desert heat, a family reuniting at a Midwestern airport, a sniper mission in an Iraqi town, a partnered patrol with Marines and Iraqi soldiers, and more. Each time, and with each new cast of characters, he allows his subjects to paint their own portraits in brilliant detail. It is evident that Jake is learning as he is filming, and he is not ashamed to show his own development from an action-seeking yet naïve journalist to one humbled and keenly aware of the courage and dedication of our servicemen and women. As I heard him say to another journalist, “I learned who my brothers were from their brothers-in-arms.”

The film tells the story of the Rademacher family on both sides of the ocean and chronicles the experience without an agenda. “There really didn’t seem to be an overt message,” said one viewer after the screening. “It’s just the story, and one that most people don’t know and really need to see.” It is this honesty and obvious lack of spin that elevates this movie and allows the audience to relax from the hyper-vigilance required to filter today’s media offerings. There is no need to come to this movie with an understanding of the “Anbar Awakening,” or the “surge,” and there is no cause to leave feeling angry or tricked. It’s a movie about Americans and their families, about who our soldiers and Marines are, and about what it’s like for them to go to war. It’s a movie that you should see, and a story that you need to hear.

“Brothers At War” opens in limited release March 13th, and and will open in wider release on March 27th. For more information, including theaters and showtimes, go to www.brothersatwarmovie.com. The film’s trailer can be viewed here.

Editor’s Note: Below is the current release schedule. For information on how to bring ”Brothers at War” to a theatre near you, please visit the website. 

3/13/2009

• Columbus, GA (near Fort Benning), Carmike 15 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Fayetteville, NC (near Fort Bragg), Carmike 12 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Jacksonville, NC (near Camp LeJeune), Carmike 16 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Chicago, IL AMC River East – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Washington DC Landmark E Street Cinema – Landmark Theatres – http://landmarktheatres.com/
• Arlington, VA AMC Shirlington – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/

3/20/2009

• Akron (Ohio National Guard), Regal Interstate Park 18 – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/

3/27/2009

• Augusta, GA (near Fort Gordon, US Army)
• Savannah, GA (near Fort Stewart, US Army), Coming Soon
• Shreveport, LA (near Barksdale AFB, US Air Force) Cinemark Tinseltown 17 – http://www.cinemark.com/
• Clarksville, TN (near Fort Campbell, US Army) Carmike Governor’s Square 10 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Hampton, VA (near Langley AFB, US Air Force), AMC Hampton Towne Center 24 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Newport News, VA (near Fort Eustis, US Army), AMC Kiln Creek 20 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Norfolk, VA (near Norfolk Naval Station, US Navy), Coming Soon
• Killeen, TX (near Fort Hood), Hollywood Stadium 14 – Hollywood Theaters – http://gohollywood.com/
• San Antonio, TX – Bijou at the Crossroads – Santikos – http://www.santikos.com/
• Cleveland Heights (Ohio National Guard), Cedar Lee Cinema
• Dayton (near Wright-Patterson AFB, US Air Force), Regal Hollywood 20-Fairfield Commons – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Decatur, IL Carmike Hickory Pointe 12 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Tacoma, WA (near Fort Lewis), Coming Soon
• Oceanside, CA (near Camp Pendleton) Regal Oceanside 16 – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Monterey, CA (near Presidio of Monterrey, DOD), Osio Cinema

With ”Brothers at War” set for release this Friday, over the course of the coming week Big Hollywood will feature a full review of the documentary along with an interview with the film’s creator, Jake Rademacher. I attended one of the advance screenings, and worried it would be nothing more than a right-wing response to Hollywood’s punishing series of anti-war films, “Brothers at War” ended up being one the most pleasant experiences of last year. Here’s a little of what I wrote at the time:

Thankfully, all my hand-wringing ended up being pointless because Jake Rademacher’s intimate documentary about his need to bridge the growing distance between himself and his two younger brothers serving in Iraq is a beautiful and moving piece of work which transcends agenda to tell the story of three brothers at war, not in Iraq, but with the gap their different life choices created between them. That’s why the film works — it’s not about Iraq. Iraq just happens to be where one brother had to journey to recapture something lost. …

What makes the film so effective is its honesty. Unlike these anti-war documentaries and narratives where you feel manipulated by the narrow context of what the filmmaker is choosing to show you, Brothers at War feels fully fleshed out. There are plenty of horrific moments to bolster the anti-war argument and many hopeful moments to arm the other side, but what rises from all of this are those magnificent men and women who serve their country by leaving their loved ones behind to run towards danger.

Anti-troop propagandist would choose only to show our guys cussing, annoyed with slow-moving Iraqi soldiers, and strutting their machismo. Pro-troop propagandist would choose only to show the brave, heroic, and vulnerable moments.

Rademacher shows it all, and when the smoke clears, heroes emerge.

Your position on the Iraq War will have nothing to do with your opinion of the film. If you’re a fan of intelligent, moving stories, “Brothers at War” is a must-see.

Here’s the the film’s website. Below is the current release schedule, and here’s information on how to bring “Brothers at War” to a theatre near you.

OPENING DATES FOR “BROTHERS AT WAR”

3/13/2009

• Columbus, GA (near Fort Benning), Carmike 15 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Fayetteville, NC (near Fort Bragg), Carmike 12 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Jacksonville, NC (near Camp LeJeune), Carmike 16 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Chicago, IL AMC River East – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Washington DC Landmark E Street Cinema – Landmark Theatres – http://landmarktheatres.com/
• Arlington, VA AMC Shirlington – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/

3/20/2009

• Akron (Ohio National Guard), Regal Interstate Park 18 – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/

3/27/2009

• Augusta, GA (near Fort Gordon, US Army)
• Savannah, GA (near Fort Stewart, US Army), Coming Soon
• Shreveport, LA (near Barksdale AFB, US Air Force) Cinemark Tinseltown 17 – http://www.cinemark.com/
• Clarksville, TN (near Fort Campbell, US Army) Carmike Governor’s Square 10 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Hampton, VA (near Langley AFB, US Air Force), AMC Hampton Towne Center 24 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Newport News, VA (near Fort Eustis, US Army), AMC Kiln Creek 20 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Norfolk, VA (near Norfolk Naval Station, US Navy), Coming Soon
• Killeen, TX (near Fort Hood), Hollywood Stadium 14 – Hollywood Theaters – http://gohollywood.com/
• San Antonio, TX – Bijou at the Crossroads – Santikos – http://www.santikos.com/
• Cleveland Heights (Ohio National Guard), Cedar Lee Cinema
• Dayton (near Wright-Patterson AFB, US Air Force), Regal Hollywood 20-Fairfield Commons – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Decatur, IL Carmike Hickory Pointe 12 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Tacoma, WA (near Fort Lewis), Coming Soon
• Oceanside, CA (near Camp Pendleton) Regal Oceanside 16 – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Monterey, CA (near Presidio of Monterrey, DOD), Osio Cinema

It’s called Christmas in Darfur, though it could be called Lip Service.  And because that’s so, I thought it would be a perfect fit for Big Hollywood.  The introductory segment features some of the heroic exploits of actors and musicians in order to throw into relief the puny efforts of determined regular people to try to make a difference.  You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll come forcibly to the conclusion that only celebrities and high-profile policy wonks and UN diplomats are capable of focusing the world’s attention on such a problem in a way that will make any difference at all.

I should probably mention that it was recently announced, to the consternation of many good-hearted people who were appalled by the numbers, that there may have been something flawed about the Lancet report which claimed the eeeeeevil Bushitler regime had caused the deaths of some 655,000 innocent Iraqis.  It’s all technical nonsense about “methodology,” of course, which I’m sure NPR and Bill Moyers will soon clear up to the satisfaction of a citizenry well served by its traditional media, and who am I to carp over such trivialities? Coincidentally, about that number have probably perished in Darfur, but I have to admit that once again I’m disappointed by George W. Bush’s inability to live up to his press. 

At the same time, non-partisan elder statesman Lanny Davis has asked us to set aside our differences, and has undertaken the noble initiative of The Civility Project.  In keeping with this new spirit of comity, I invite any and all to join my movement, Civility NOW! which you can read about at Jeff Goldstein’s blog, Protein Wisdom. 

Because only by throwing in with the impetus of such noble-minded and altruistic humanitarians as Lanny Davis can this country become the country our Founding Fathers – had they not been narrow-minded 18th Century putzes – would have wanted us to be.  We are the Shirley MacLaine we’ve been waiting for.  And without further ado, below is a clip from the movie, and the entire documentary can be seen here.

–

You can bail these fellows out of their quixotic silliness and help pacify their wives by donating at either their film website or their blog.