Tim Robbin's "Embedded" play causes controversy

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Link from Fox News

Fox did a story on this. All I could find elsewhere were reviews, but noone else addressing the acuracy of his "satire." So, please, if you are going to argue on this thread, at least read it and argue it's merits/inaccuracies, and not the source.

In the play, Hardchannel calls reporters "his bitches" and says that if he doesn't like what they write, he'll write it himself and simply use their names. He also censors all reports coming out of Iraq. Fox News journalists embedded with the troops, as well as other journalists interviewed for this story, said they never experienced any kind of censorship. Reporters were only told that they could not reveal operation details that might threaten the safety of U.S. troops -- a condition the Pentagon put on the embedded journalist program.

In reality, no one from the military or the government looked at copy produced by Fox News, touched the videotape, or edited scenes, and no one told reporters what to say.

"Not everything is factual, and maybe that is our fault through satire," added another "Embedded" actor, Kirk Pynchon, who plays a journalist. "Sometimes we make those errors, but it's the same kind of laughter that one gets watching an episode of MASH."

But most people, particularly journalists who actually were embedded with the troops overseas, will argue that Operation Iraqi Freedom was nothing like MASH.

"That demeans the Marines that were killed in my battalion, (to say they) died because five guys in a room thought it was fun to go create a war," Doherty said. "That is bad, bad theater, bad taste."

Robbins had declined to discuss "Embedded" with Fox News until after someone from the channel saw the play. But even after the viewing, Robbins declined interviews.

As in any work of fiction, playwright Robbins was free to invent his own reality of what led to the war in Iraq and what happened there. But for the men and women who served and for those reporters who actually covered them, "Embedded" -- while entertaining -- is far from the truth.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
If we can put up with the president's distortion of reality, we can handle anything TR can throw at us. :)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jjsole
If we can put up with the president's distortion of reality, we can handle anything TR can throw at us. :)

He is welcome to make the movie. ANd we have the choice of watching it or not.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Yes, Robbins is an American and he is in America, so he can do whatever he wants. Personally, I find it sad that someone would write a play like that based on nothing but his own paranoia.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: miguel
Yes, Robbins is an American and he is in America, so he can do whatever he wants. Personally, I find it sad that someone would write a play like that based on nothing but his own paranoia.

As opposed to going to war based on one's paranoia?
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: miguel
Yes, Robbins is an American and he is in America, so he can do whatever he wants. Personally, I find it sad that someone would write a play like that based on nothing but his own paranoia.

As opposed to going to war based on one's paranoia?

That's hilarious - is that original or did you make that up?
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Please don't hijack the thread. Open a new topic for your discussion. This is about Robbin's play.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Tim Robbin's play is based as much on reality as FoxNew's "news" is based on reality-- slanted and exagerated version of reality. Except news is not to supposed to be slanted or exagerated.

 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Tim Robbin's play is based as much on reality as FoxNew's "news" is based on reality-- slanted and exagerated version of reality. Except news is not to supposed to be slanted or exagerated.

I'm afraid I must make assumptions about what you think about FoxNews, but it sounds like you think Tim RObbin's play is bunk as well?
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Ah, another fine piece of 'journalism' from Fox News.

But most people, particularly journalists who actually were embedded with the troops overseas, will argue that Operation Iraqi Freedom was nothing like MASH.
Is he serious here? He can't be that stupid can he? Let's see this play was a satirical portrayal of the War in Iraq, Mash is a satirical portrayal of the Korean War.

I'm amazed that someone was actually paid to write this. Next time they should just save themselves the trouble and just say, "We think Tim Robbins is a dootyhead because he's liberal, vote republican" and be done with it.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Ah, another fine piece of 'journalism' from Fox News.

But most people, particularly journalists who actually were embedded with the troops overseas, will argue that Operation Iraqi Freedom was nothing like MASH.
Is he serious here? He can't be that stupid can he? Let's see this play was a satirical portrayal of the War in Iraq, Mash is a satirical portrayal of the Korean War.

I'm amazed that someone was actually paid to write this. Next time they should just save themselves the trouble and just say, "We think Tim Robbins is a dootyhead because he's liberal, vote republican" and be done with it.

Well, I don't think the article had anything to do with liberal or republican. It was an article written by a formerly-embedded reported who felt that it was unfair for Robbins to say that the journalists embedded were puppets when they clearly weren't.

I agree that the line you quoted was some kind of stretch on the author's part.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts, but not necessarily events. Many Journalists have stated since the event, that though they had relative freedom and were not censored, they still felt effected and influenced. Instead of neutrality, they became part of the event and at times they were unable to contain their emotions towards the enemy or the military. Many won't see a problem with that, but a Press that can't remain Neutral becomes just a Propoganda tool for those the Press admires.

So, as a Satire or other artistic look at an event, the Artist/Author/Songwriter or whomever can take both the events as they occured and the Retrospective viewpoint of those involved, mix them up, and portray them altogether. This is a very common occurence in Historicaly related dramatization, Vietnam, WW2, US Civil War, and other events are always influenced beyond just the facts. The Authors, Actors, Directors, etc always add in their own perceptions to the event.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts, but not necessarily events. Many Journalists have stated since the event, that though they had relative freedom and were not censored, they still felt effected and influenced. Instead of neutrality, they became part of the event and at times they were unable to contain their emotions towards the enemy or the military. Many won't see a problem with that, but a Press that can't remain Neutral becomes just a Propoganda tool for those the Press admires.

So, as a Satire or other artistic look at an event, the Artist/Author/Songwriter or whomever can take both the events as they occured and the Retrospective viewpoint of those involved, mix them up, and portray them altogether. This is a very common occurence in Historicaly related dramatization, Vietnam, WW2, US Civil War, and other events are always influenced beyond just the facts. The Authors, Actors, Directors, etc always add in their own perceptions to the event.

I have some problems with what you posted:

1. "Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts, but not necessarily events." I don't think I understand what you meant with this line. How can Satire not require accuracy and be a statement of facts at the same time?
2. I agree that people take events different ways, but have you read the reviews of this play? It has a a high ranking military person telling the embedded reporters what to do and portrays the reporters as puppets. And noone involved in making the play was either a journalist, embedded or otherwise. Nor were they there.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Ah, another fine piece of 'journalism' from Fox News.

But most people, particularly journalists who actually were embedded with the troops overseas, will argue that Operation Iraqi Freedom was nothing like MASH.
Is he serious here? He can't be that stupid can he? Let's see this play was a satirical portrayal of the War in Iraq, Mash is a satirical portrayal of the Korean War.

I'm amazed that someone was actually paid to write this. Next time they should just save themselves the trouble and just say, "We think Tim Robbins is a dootyhead because he's liberal, vote republican" and be done with it.

Well, I don't think the article had anything to do with liberal or republican. It was an article written by a formerly-embedded reported who felt that it was unfair for Robbins to say that the journalists embedded were puppets when they clearly weren't.

I agree that the line you quoted was some kind of stretch on the author's part.

William LaJeunesse wasn't an imbed, the imbeds for Fox were Greg Kelly and Rick Leventhal. And if his point was to say that imbeds weren't puppets, then this should have been labeled an editorial rather than be presented as an actual news item. He's going in with a point to prove, not trying to just trying to report and letting us decide.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: sandorski
Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts, but not necessarily events. Many Journalists have stated since the event, that though they had relative freedom and were not censored, they still felt effected and influenced. Instead of neutrality, they became part of the event and at times they were unable to contain their emotions towards the enemy or the military. Many won't see a problem with that, but a Press that can't remain Neutral becomes just a Propoganda tool for those the Press admires.

So, as a Satire or other artistic look at an event, the Artist/Author/Songwriter or whomever can take both the events as they occured and the Retrospective viewpoint of those involved, mix them up, and portray them altogether. This is a very common occurence in Historicaly related dramatization, Vietnam, WW2, US Civil War, and other events are always influenced beyond just the facts. The Authors, Actors, Directors, etc always add in their own perceptions to the event.

I have some problems with what you posted:

1. "Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts, but not necessarily events." I don't think I understand what you meant with this line. How can Satire not require accuracy and be a statement of facts at the same time?
2. I agree that people take events different ways, but have you read the reviews of this play? It has a a high ranking military person telling the embedded reporters what to do and portrays the reporters as puppets. And noone involved in making the play was either a journalist, embedded or otherwise. Nor were they there.

1) Events are not facts. Essentially my point is that when artistically looking at an event, one can mix the retrospective perception in with the events, so for eg, what a reporter did when the event occurred is intermixed with what the reporter felt was occuring unconsciously after having some time to retrospectively reflect on the situation. So, let's say an imbed is involved in a battle, at the time the reporter reacted in a particular way, after the event he looks back on what happened and realizes that in the heat of the moment he lost all objectivity. Most reporters value objectivity, seeing as how he lost it the reporter retrospectively views the events differently than when the events were occuring, in an artistic way there was someone else influencing him.

2) Nope, haven't read reviews. Many imbedded reporters do feel like they were puppets, many have reservations over doing it again for that reason. The problem is that they became too attached to those around them. They also became too involved with the events often feeling the same things as the soldiers around them, not that that perspective is bad, for it certainly shows the reality of war from the soldiers perspective, but in the grander scheme of things it provides a skewed view of events. So, though the events didn't have a high ranking officer literally telling reporters what to do, in essence the reporters did what the soldiers did, felt what they felt, and perceived as the soldiers perceived, they no longer maintained objectivity, they became part of the military, puppets.

It doesn't matter if those who made the play were involved or not. Many plays, movies, etc are made by those who were not involved in the hsitorical event they attempt to portray. You have a perspective on what happened, I have a perspective on what happened, anyone who has heard about it has a perspective. One doesn't need first hand experience in order to have perspective, they just need knowledge of it.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
sandorski,

OK, I agree with #2, with the addition that Robbins exagerrated and tried to make a silly play. However, I probably quoted too much of #1 to show the problem I had with it:

"Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts"

When you state a fact, do you not have to be accurate? Or can you state inaccurate facts?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: miguel
sandorski,

OK, I agree with #2, with the addition that Robbins exagerrated and tried to make a silly play. However, I probably quoted too much of #1 to show the problem I had with it:

"Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts"

When you state a fact, do you not have to be accurate? Or can you state inaccurate facts?

Facts, as I stated, are not events. An event, 9/11 for eg, can occur and is a fact, but it is not the only "fact". It is also a "fact" that 9/11 gave birth to the War on Terror and the Iraq War. In retrospect, we all were shocked with the "event" of 9/11 and it was a "fact", but it also is a "fact" that a lot more occured on 9/11 then just 3 planes colliding with 3 buildings, every and all future Movies, Plays, etc of it will intermix the "events" with the other "facts".
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: miguel
sandorski,

OK, I agree with #2, with the addition that Robbins exagerrated and tried to make a silly play. However, I probably quoted too much of #1 to show the problem I had with it:

"Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts"

When you state a fact, do you not have to be accurate? Or can you state inaccurate facts?

Facts, as I stated, are not events. An event, 9/11 for eg, can occur and is a fact, but it is not the only "fact". It is also a "fact" that 9/11 gave birth to the War on Terror and the Iraq War. In retrospect, we all were shocked with the "event" of 9/11 and it was a "fact", but it also is a "fact" that a lot more occured on 9/11 then just 3 planes colliding with 3 buildings, every and all future Movies, Plays, etc of it will intermix the "events" with the other "facts".

I'm sorry. Either a) I had too much turkey last night or b) you are talking way over my head or c) we are just not communicating. I say this because I have no idea what you are talking about. How can "satire not requre accuracy" and "it [satire] be a statement of facts" AT THE SAME TIME?

EDIT: Can I make a satire that says on 9/11 1,900 planes crashed into 1 building? Is that accurate?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: miguel
sandorski,

OK, I agree with #2, with the addition that Robbins exagerrated and tried to make a silly play. However, I probably quoted too much of #1 to show the problem I had with it:

"Satire doesn't require accuracy, it is a statement of facts"

When you state a fact, do you not have to be accurate? Or can you state inaccurate facts?

Facts, as I stated, are not events. An event, 9/11 for eg, can occur and is a fact, but it is not the only "fact". It is also a "fact" that 9/11 gave birth to the War on Terror and the Iraq War. In retrospect, we all were shocked with the "event" of 9/11 and it was a "fact", but it also is a "fact" that a lot more occured on 9/11 then just 3 planes colliding with 3 buildings, every and all future Movies, Plays, etc of it will intermix the "events" with the other "facts".

I'm sorry. Either a) I had too much turkey last night or b) you are talking way over my head or c) we are just not communicating. I say this because I have no idea what you are talking about. How can "satire not requre accuracy" and "it [satire] be a statement of facts" AT THE SAME TIME?

EDIT: Can I make a satire that says on 9/11 1,900 planes crashed into 1 building? Is that accurate?

Sure. I think most of us were so shocked( I watched the 2nd plane hit as it occured on the news) at the event that it didn't really matter if it was 1 or 1,000 planes, such a number of planes could be used to express effect.

Here is the definition of "satire" from Dictionary.com: 1.
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.


A satire is not a Documentary of events as they happened, it is a more indepth look at events.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
OK, I see your point. I guess for me, the play seems to be in poor taste because the embedded reporters, from what I've read, were not told what to report and their reports were not reviewed by the military. To make that claim, in addition to US soldiers being thieves and murderers, seems to be in poor taste and I don't see what the point of a play like that could possibly be.

Thanks for indulging me. :)