Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Fox News Roger Friedman - Not a Man at Peace

I was wondering why Fox News commentator and film critic Roger Friedman would slam Valkyrie with such absurd arguments as he threw in an article entitled "Is Horrible 'Valkyrie' Tom Cruise's Nazi Apologia?", at odd and against the overall positive reception of the film.

Things are a bit clearer now.

Indeed, I have seen titles in the past about a journalist being "banned" from Valkyrie's premiere (actually just not invited), but I did not pay attention to who it was. Now I learn that it was none other than ... Roger Friedman himself!

Check out this review, in which he complains about being banned but goes ahead assessing the film nevertheless.

Things indeed make a bit more sense now...

Roger has in the past delighted at slamming Cruise and Scientology, and that may have been the reason he was not considered objective enough to be invited at the premiere.

Now I don't support banning anybody from anything, but is taking a petty revenge slamming the film with absurd arguments something a dignified reporter should engage into?

Friedman should heed Cruise's example, who, in spite of ugly discrimination Germany has been throwing at Scientology, has nevertheless made a film putting them (and no, NOT Nazis) in a good light.

1 comment:

pignotti said...

Having actually seen Valkyrie, I am baffled by some of the statements made by Friedman, such as "Not once in “Valkyrie” do any of there “heroes” mention what’s happening around them." On the contrary, in the opening scene of the movie, von Stauffenberg is shown writing in a journal about the atrocities that are happening with the mass genocides and this being the reason he feels he must take action against Hitler. I really don't know how Friedman got the idea that von Stauffenberg was "either totally unaware of this, or that they felt their mission superceded it" since that scene in the beginning makes it crystal clear that the atrocities were the impetus for what followed.
Based on the comments in the previous article Friedman wrote before he even saw the movie, it looks like he was biased against it from the start. Apparently, he takes issue with anyone who believes that not all Germans were Nazis when in fact there were plenty of innocent German citizens, some who even risked their lives and hid Jewish people. As for von Stauffenberg, he was complicit at first but when he became aware of what was going on, he courageously admitted his mistake and did something about it, as did the people who were working with him and many other Germans who died in the attempt.
The comment about Cruise not speaking in a German accent was downright ignorant. These days, many of the better acting teachers and directors are of the opinion that it is silly to have Americans who play foreigners who were originally speaking in another language to speak English with an accent. The real person being portrayed was not speaking English with a German accent -- he was speaking German. There are many high quality movies that do not have the characters speak in the accents of the native language of the person being portrayed.
I thought it was a terrific movie. However, one cautionary comment I have is that this is not the movie for someone with an attention deficit problem because in the beginning it is slow-moving and important details are presented. If these are missed, then the rest of the movie will be difficult to follow. Unlike some of the mindless entertainment many people today are used to, this movie actually requires people to concentrate and pay attention. Doing so is well worth it and the movie picks up after the first half hour and is far from boring, as it has been misportrayed by some. I also thought that Cruise did a very competent job as an actor. Because his personality is so well-known and so strong, some people may have had difficulty seeing anything other than Tom Cruise in the movie, but if people can put that aside, he really did lose himself in the character more than I had expected he would.