Escaped house by going to see "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot".
Escaped house by going to see "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot". Most importantly, I thought it was a good movie. It is not a typical Tina Fey movie. This is not a comedy. It is a war movie with humor. Which was fine with me, because that's what I was expecting. It is not a documentary, although the reporter who wrote the book upon which it is based seems to have said that she feels it got the gist of the experience correct. I think it does a better job than I'd expect, frankly, to touch on a lot of not for the dinner table subjects, as well as a woman out there doing a job in an environment that is hostile to women.
There's some criticism of not casting non-europeans in a couple major Afghan characters. I have to wonder, though, since this is a fictionalized account based on a book that is about real people, whether that also might not have been criticized as people playing caricatures. You'd have to see it for me to say more about why I suspect there'd have been criticism no matter who was cast.
It's a movie. It's cramming years of occurrences into maybe 2 hours. In a sense, every character on screen is a caricature or stereotype in some way. However, it's oddly in service of the story, here, so I think getting too hung up on that is a distraction. That said, I was pretty sure a certain subplot at the end was kind of Hollywood making it up, and from what I gather, that is so. Otoh, all that does is make me want to read the book and find out what the real thing was that made her make the decision she made.
Obviously this isn't what everyone who saw it thought, but I think the takeaway is Ernest Hemingway without the attempts at glorification. Hollywood gave it an optimistic ending, but I don't think that's what the real story was.
There's some criticism of not casting non-europeans in a couple major Afghan characters. I have to wonder, though, since this is a fictionalized account based on a book that is about real people, whether that also might not have been criticized as people playing caricatures. You'd have to see it for me to say more about why I suspect there'd have been criticism no matter who was cast.
It's a movie. It's cramming years of occurrences into maybe 2 hours. In a sense, every character on screen is a caricature or stereotype in some way. However, it's oddly in service of the story, here, so I think getting too hung up on that is a distraction. That said, I was pretty sure a certain subplot at the end was kind of Hollywood making it up, and from what I gather, that is so. Otoh, all that does is make me want to read the book and find out what the real thing was that made her make the decision she made.
Obviously this isn't what everyone who saw it thought, but I think the takeaway is Ernest Hemingway without the attempts at glorification. Hollywood gave it an optimistic ending, but I don't think that's what the real story was.
Comments
Post a Comment