Comments: Nooooooooooooooooooo

Begin/Rabin, Likud/Labor - what's the difference. Same crap, a couple of letters swapped here and there.

Posted by abb1 at November 1, 2008 03:52 PM

Oh, sure.
Henry Wallace/George Wallace, what's the difference. Swap a first name, same crap.
Voting the Know Nothing Party this time?

Posted by donescobar at November 1, 2008 04:17 PM

Demme's fond of making movies about subjects he lacks basic knowledge on. Gays, for example. If I ever find out that Philadelphia is on your list of things to admire about him, John, it'll be a dealbreaker.

Posted by ethan at November 1, 2008 05:04 PM

"And Begin himself had done such a turnaround in the presence of a Carter and the presence of a Sadat, he was able to draw upon his belief in humanity and peace..."

Right ... From the Carter library --
Document 13: President Carter's notes indicate the difficulty of the last few hours of negotiations at Camp David.
Settlement in West Bank & Gaza
Late in the evening, Saturday, September , P.M. Begin, FM Dayan, Atty Gen Barak, Sec Vance and I were concluding discussions on the final wording of the section on the West Bank & Gaza.
Section 6 referred to the Israeli settlements, and as drafted in the American proposal, stated
" [...] "
Prime Minister Begin objected to this language, and began to make several alternate proposals. They included:
a) a fixed time (three months) during which no new settlements would be constructed;
b) prohibitions against civilian settlements only;
c) right to build a limited number of new settlements; etc
All of these proposals were rejected by me.

Finally, we agreed on the exact language concerning the settlements, and that the paragraph would be removed from the West Bank Gaza section and included in a letter from Begin to me. I told him it could not be a secret letter and the Prime Minister replied that the text would be make public.
The agreed text was " [...] "
It was clear and obvious that the "negotiations" applied to the West Bank and Gaza.

Early the next day I informed Pres Sadat of the agreement.
On Sunday aftenoon Mr. Barak brought to me from PM Begin, a proposed text which differed substantially from that which we had agreed. I informed him that it was unsatisfactory, and read to him the text on which we had agreed, which was still lying on my desk.
He did not disagree with the agreed text.

See also Laurence Davidson --

Posted by dz alexander at November 1, 2008 06:27 PM

Same crap, Don. One a bit more more boorish, the other a bit more slick, otherwise the same. I prefer Likud - less bullshit.

Posted by abb1 at November 1, 2008 07:02 PM

Demme's fond of making movies about subjects he lacks basic knowledge on. Gays, for example.

What makes you say that?

Posted by cemmcs at November 1, 2008 07:02 PM

I don't know what ethan specifically objected to about Philadelphia, but here's a basic critique of the movie by the lesbian AIDS activist, novelist, and playwright Sarah Schulman:

Philadelphia stands alone as an example of heterosexual conceit and disregard for truth. The film has been discussed extensively in other places, but, in brief, Philadelphia is predicated on the idea that there is no gay community. A gay lawyer (Tom Hanks) has AIDS and is fired by his homophobic law firm. He goes to a straight homophobic lawyer (Denzel Washington) because there are no gay lawyers. It is shocking that an entire film could be built on this premise, which is not only absurd but grossly ahistorical, since the abandonment of people with AIDS by heterosexual society is the most historically significant factor in the initial escalation of the crisis in the United States. Despite this, gay people built a world of services, advocacy organizations, and personal relationships in response to the epidemic that later became the foundation of support for HIV-infected heterosexuals. Gay lawyers were among the first professional sectors to respond to the epidemic. In other words, not only was the premise of Philadelphia false, it was the opposite of the actual truth. Yet this film was highly rewarded and made huge moral claims. Throughout the film, gay people are vulnerable, weak, and alone. We take a back seat while the heroic straight people protect us and defend us. In the end of the film, Hanks dies happy.

Posted by Duncan at November 1, 2008 09:04 PM

How often has the hero in a film ostensibly about black people been a white person?

The underlying message is that bigotry is wrong which is a good message but...

Thanks for responding to my comment. Call me stupid but I really did not understand that about Philadelphia.


Posted by cemmcs at November 1, 2008 10:47 PM

cemmcs, Duncan's post nailed a lot of it. There's also the fact that according to Demme, gay people are entirely asexual. The happy martyr thing is my biggest problem with the movie, though.

Posted by ethan at November 2, 2008 10:27 AM

I think the Begin/Rabin mixup was just a brain fart, most likely--even knowledgeable people sometimes make really stupid mistakes like this. Though it should have been caught before it made it on tape.

Possibly the same is true of Pollack, though I have no wish to be fair to that jerk.

Posted by Donald Johnson at November 2, 2008 12:16 PM

Well the guy did get his start, back in the '70s, helming women-in-prison pics in the Philippines for Corman. That's gotta affect a guy on some level.

Posted by AlanSmithee at November 2, 2008 03:57 PM

Well the guy did get his start, back in the '70s, helming women-in-prison pics in the Philippines for Corman

Given the quality of your directing work, Mr. Smithee, I don't think you're in any position to throw stones.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at November 3, 2008 09:53 AM