?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Marilee J. Layman

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
08:09 pm: Sahara
This movie involves a retired admiral, an evil African dictator, WHO doctors, and an industrialist who believes in money first. The dictator is selling the industrialist toxic waste, which then goes into a buried river, causing a plague in Africa. The WHO doctors are trying to find out where it comes from and stop it, and get help from the admiral and his crew. Mostly his crew. There's also a very old car and a Civil War battleship.

While there was a lot of running and fighting, this movie is a really good example of how we will never be able to help the starving Africans as long as their governments are corrupt. I liked it; I had to back up a couple times to see something I missed while beading.

Tags:
11 comments | Leave a comment

Comments

[User Picture]
From:guppiecat
Date:July 19th, 2009 02:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
How do WHO doctors compare to Doctor Who?
[User Picture]
From:mjlayman
Date:July 19th, 2009 06:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
WHO doctors can't heal everybody!
[User Picture]
From:autopope
Date:July 19th, 2009 08:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
his movie is a really good example of how we will never be able to help the starving Africans as long as their governments are corrupt

Now, for ten marks: what is the ideological sub-text of this plot? What policy approach does it seek to justify? And who might benefit from the implementation of such an approach once widespread public support has been marshalled through popular media propaganda channels?
[User Picture]
From:mjlayman
Date:July 19th, 2009 06:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The ideological subtext is to make money, of course! The bad guys are just bad guys.
[User Picture]
From:autopope
Date:July 21st, 2009 10:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
If his movie is a really good example of how we will never be able to help the starving Africans as long as their governments are corrupt, then the ideological subtext is: we need to ensure that their governments are not corrupt. Which in turn sets up the viewer's world-view to accept State Department/CIA intervention to depose governments in Africa that are represented to the public as being "corrupt".

Cf. Jud Suss: political propaganda is at its most insidious when it's entertaining and what you just described is a classic propaganda piece.

I'd be very interested to learn who bankrolled (or facilitated) this movie ... (and if you think the US government never dabbles in movie-making, you haven't seen "Top Gun" or "Transformers").

Edited at 2009-07-21 10:15 am (UTC)
[User Picture]
From:mjlayman
Date:July 21st, 2009 06:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, sorry, I assumed you were primarily thinking of it as just entertainment. The story was written in 1992 by Clive Cussler; Wikipedia has an interesting section on the movie.

I did see Top Gun, but don't plan to see Transformers.

Are you arguing that the African governments aren't corrupt, or just that we shouldn't get involved?
[User Picture]
From:autopope
Date:July 21st, 2009 09:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Neither. However, it serves certain interests to (a) portray them as corrupt (whether or not they are) in order to (b) justify getting involved (with the side-effect of (c) lining certain pockets).

Foreign policy initiatives are frequently carried out for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the public justification. Who'd have imagined it?
[User Picture]
From:mjlayman
Date:July 21st, 2009 09:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You don't think that rerouting food & water and ignoring disease is corrupt?
[User Picture]
From:serge_lj
Date:July 19th, 2009 08:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It sounds like I should stick with Humphrey Bogart's Sahara.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:July 20th, 2009 04:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Isn't this based on a Clive Cussler book?
Doris
[User Picture]
From:mjlayman
Date:July 20th, 2009 08:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yep, and there's an older version with Bogart, I hear.
Powered by LiveJournal.com