Michael Winterbottom ought to stick to what he’s best at, making porno movies, or if Nine Songs is anything to go by, he ought to stick to another line of work entirely. Additionally Channel 4 ought to be ashamed for funding and showing this ‘docu’-drama. This ‘auteur’ piece stretches the already deceptive term docu-drama far beyond the point of breakage, why at least not call it what it is, all drama and no documentary. This work gives a totally biased, one-sided view of the ‘plight’ of the ridiculously monikered ‘Tipton Three’ to claim it does anything else is simply a lie. Are we really supposed to believe that these poor unfortunate young ‘lads’, went to Pakistan for a wedding but took a humanitarian detour to Afghanistan and were innocently caught-up and then caught by the American forces? These men clearly had alternative motives. I fear more that the reaction amongst certain sections of the population, foolish enough to believe this tripe, could be very serious indeed. If the reaction is anything like the one that followed another piece of Guantanamo fiction posing as fact - Newsweek magazine’s phoney story about Quran flushing, another shameful piece of ‘journalism' that cost lives - then Mr Winterbotom and the people at Channel 4 will also have the blood of innocents on their hands.
By the way this post was made earlier today under the title 'Channel 4 ought to be ashamed...' But looking back just now it seems all traces of it have been removed. I'm new to Forums but thought by their nature they were pretty open as far as opinion is concerned. Can anyone advise me (regardless of whether you agree with my views, and I'll assume most here don't) why this would have happened? Is what I'm saying in my post really to inflammatory to be left up? Thanks Rob
I was greatly disappointed when your post was deleted last night. In it, you exposed your ignorance so eloquently that I assumed that you had eventually deleted it yourself.
I was sad. Now I am happy. You are back and spouting exactly the same rubbish.
It’s nice to be thought of as eloquent. I guess it IS my very ignorance that I proud of. You see I really DON’T know what happened to these guys but I’m sure not going to swallow Michael Winterbottom’s version of events. You on the other hand already KNOW don’t you, no shadow of a doubt who is at fault here so any and all who agree are your trusted friends no matter how spurious their facts. Those who don’t agree are simply stupid. In fact they wrote a book about people just like you.
Less than three months later, internal US administration memos confirmed that the treatment described by the three men corresponded exactly to official Pentagon policy.
How about the Pentagon's version of events? Are you willing to swallow that?
Sorry why CLEARLY. Prove it. Wheres your evidence? that they went to Afganistan. How is it they are free now??? You seem so convniced that these three are quilty. Does the fact that they were freed because the authorities found nothing against them, not hold any weight with you at all? Just because you don't understand why they went to Afganistan isn't really stong enough evidence.
You call the film: a 'totally biased, one-sided view of the ‘plight’ of the ridiculously monikered ‘Tipton Three’ to claim it does anything else is simply a lie.' No one claimed it anything other than an oppotunity for them to tell their side of events. The film was not out to prove or disprove their innocents, only to give them a voice. To tell their version of events. No one asked you to believe it, but you still can't deny that they are free now so something they are saying must be true. Can I ask what it is that offends you so much about them telling their story? After all we live in a free society, one that you hold very dearly. Don't they have the right too, or is that only a special priviage if you're white and blue eyed, (in which case I'm ok). But it seems to upset you greatly if others, who also hold the freedoms of our society dear, continue to question the reality of our freedoms. Our society can only be free if we allow a place for self critism. And we hold dear certain values, like, innocent till proven guilty. There would have been NO film if the Americans and the British had bothered to get their stories right from the beginning. I understand that they couldn't have known when they took charge of the three British lads from the Northern Alliance, if they were innocent or not. But it didn't have to take them nearly three years of torture to find out. It was rather simple in the end.
In this case the locking up of these three individuals were completely innocent, (I know you don't believe they were completely innocent, but I don't understand what your grounds you have for this). Do they not deserve some kind of apology? After all its been proven that they're not the 'BAD' people that Bush talks about. If their are two camps, us and them, they belong to us, after all they didn't kill anyone.
As much as you believe that their story is a cock-and-bull story, you cannot denie that they have been freed, without charge. And the government deems them safe to live within the society.
Your determination in this forum has astounded me. You have added a fair number of entries, most of which I have had the pleasure of reading. I'd like to suggest that what offended you so much about the film was the courage of the three young boys. A courage that you'll never know. But more than that when they told their story there was no overt anger, they were in no ways aggressive, that and the fact that there is a happy ending, unsettles you to the core.
all i gotta say is robert if it was documentaries cumin from the soldiers or that side u wunt b ritin all this wud ya...u got no idea of the culture or anythin like that yeh so ow can u question that they went pakistan for other motives but marriage
Robert1234: You are right to be skeptical of the news you read, but not at the expense of ignoring credible evidence. Just take a look at the reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. There's very little doubt that the camp at Guantanamo is a horror chamber - probably one of the worst in the world.
Even if you want to ignore the overwhelming amounts of credible evidence, does it not strike you as slightly strange that prisoners are sent to Guantanamo in the first place? They are in US custody, why are they sending them to Cuba and not New York or somewhere else in the US? Think about it. It's so elementary even a child can understand it. It's because Guantanamo, it is claimed, is not under US judicial jurisdiction, so they can do whatever they want without habeas corpus, etc.
robert1234, you seem intent on levelling just about every criticism you can at this very-well made, and factually accurate film.
There are explainations for why these 3 men ended up in Afghanistan. I get the impression you would preffered to have seen a savage pro-war anti-Islam film that is in favour of prison camps such as Guantanamo.
It is clear to anyone who questions, analyses, and researches independently the events surrounding the build up to Guantanamo, that this is an accurate depiction of events.
Why is it so hard to comprehend that people can enter Afghanistan and not be terrorists?
I have to admit that I have to agree with part of what Robert says, I simply dont beleive that they were simply in afganistan fo a holiday, (why would you walk into a war zone when you went to get married and visit family, Im sorry but I dont buy that).
On the issue of weather Guantanamo is leagal or not, Id have to say NOT, but I think that if terrorists receive a trail and are convicted, we SHOULD be alloud to use whatever means neccessary to obtain iformation from them WHATEVER it takes, I know people wouldnt agree with that but if you told a family member of someonethat was killed in 9/11 or 7/7 that it could have been provented if we were inhumane to someone who was probably going to kill and maim others themselves anyway, do you think they would disagree with how we treated such an individual??? I think NOT.
Sidewinder your post is small minded and ignorant, on the whole muslims are good people it just so happens a small minority of them are seriously ill or have had their minds corrupted, just like some non-muslims.
Id like to end this post by saying that although the 3 young men WERE innocent and they probably shouldnt have been tortured, I feel that they brought the whole situation on themselves when they entered afgainstan to AID the Taliban, which i beleive there was no other reason for them going there, ok they may not have gone to fight but what the hell were they thinking the Taliban wanted them to do, Paperwork, come on , these were 3 silly young boys who got themselves into a situatuion, this was THEIR OWN FAULT no one else, THEY HAVE THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPEND TO THEM!!!
I'd be interested to know what religion adolf sidewinder is. because Catholics are responsible for more terrorist attacks in Britain than Muslims. Should we have put all catholics in a concentration camp because of the actions of the IRA?
Nice to see some passionate debate going on...I'll offer my pennyworth to the discourse...(apologies for any repetition that may occur with multiple threads on the same thing)
Robert 1234, I like the implication that you think Michael Winterbottom only makes 'porno movies' - you must have missed his Bafta-award winning documentary 'In This World' (2002)on a related theme to the Guantanamo or his 1996- film 'Welcome to Sarajevo' - adapted from the book by Michael Nicholson. 'Nine Songs' isn't the exctent of Winterbottom's eclectic career that has saw 'The Mayor of Casterbridge' relocated to a Western setting (the excellent 'The Claim'), the recent post-modern work 'Cock & Bull Story', the playful biopic '24 Hour Party People', 'Nine Songs' and the two Middle Eastern themed documentaries. Winterbottom seems similar to Werner Herzog in that he makes interesting documentaries between the features. 'Nine Songs' was an experiment, I don't think it was porn - it was an adult film with an 18 certificate showing what adults do when they have sexual relations. Like sex scenes in other books and films, it could be boring - I quite liked the way Winterbottom attempted to make a 'Last Tango in Paris' for the 21st Century, and tell the story of the lovers through the concerts they went to (the reason to see the film) and their bed transactions. Similar material has appeared in other films - In the Realm of the Senses, Crash, Sex & Lucia, Baise-Moi, Anatomy of Hell, Romance, Last Tango in Paris, Irrerversible, Requiem for a Dream, Intimacy, The Piano Teacher, A Hole In My Heart, The Idiots, Breaking the Waves, A Ma Soeur, Salo, Emanuelle, My Beautiful Laundrette, Bad Lieutenant, A History of Violence, Ma Mer, Belle de Jour, Open Hearts, Weekend, The Pillow Book etc etc. Not a new subject for movies really and part of a wave of contemporary European cinema. Get over it - I feel you're using the porn-angle to debase Mr Winterbottom's works. 'Nine Songs' is worth seeing once, though I had the feeling I'd rather be doing what the central actors were doing rather than watching them at it...but it was an experiment - something you don't get much in either British cinema or Hollywood product these days. What is porno/porn or not is quite open to debate - I didn't find 'nine songs' pornographic. The bombing of Iraq for fictional reasons I did...
Channel 4 can do what it likes, I'd rather they were funding important work like this that attempts to reference what is happening in the world today than reality shows, US imports, programmes with Jimmy Carr, list programmes (usually with Jimmy Carr), The IT Crowd, more reality shows and the like. This ties in with the excellent documentary on Iraq a few years ago that was shown far too late at night - a repeat to celebrate the third anniversary of Bush & Blair's murderous miscalculation?
The 'docu-drama' mode like any other genre is not a distinct, clearly defined form - it's not a deceptive term, more one that has developed over the last few decades in film and media studies. Sure, the lines have become more apparent and at times I'd like the makers to decide which side they're on (drama or docu) - but the approach Winterbottom made here was consistent with the narrative techniques of his last two features ('24 Hour' & 'Cock & Bull') which suggest a problem with the principal narratives account and a style of reconstruction influenced by Kevin Macdonald's work on 'Touching the Void' (were you as offended by that?).
Drama has often featured elements of documentary or reality and itself been constructed on footage that was ostensibly documentary - think of the real imagery used in such films as 'JFK' (real archive footage used, notably the Zapudra-shot footage of the assassination), 'Good Night & Good Luck' (splices the real McCarthy in there), 'Forrest Gump' (the post modern blend...) , 'Nixon'(the post-modern blend of actual images), 'Zelig', 'Citizen Kane' (the scenes of Hitler et al), 'Jaws' (the footage of sharks shot in Australia), 'Munich' (the newscaster sequence from the 72 Olympics)and no doubt multiple other examples. If it's OK for drama to introduce documentary elements, why not the other way round?
& why does a film have to obey the generic tag you think it belongs to ? - should films only be shown if they fall within an acceptable category of generic marking? I'm not sure where this utopic 'balanced' notion of documentary has come from - I suggest you watch Peter Watkins' introduction to his pseudo-documentary 'Punishment Park' (1971) where he explains clearly that all imagery is ostensibly fictional or dramatic.
The documentary was not about the war on terror, everyone on both sides of it, everyone who was in Gitmo - it was about the central characters story. This depends on their account of things, which is no different to multiple written biographies, masses of interviews, or many documentaries (e.g. 'The Fog of War', 'The Cold War', David Frost's interviews with Nixon, the interview elements in documentaries on Leni Riefenstahl, Oliver Stone's documentary on Castro, elements of 'Shoah', Marlon Brando's interviews with Truman Capote etc etc) - the account is limited to those who are the subject and their perspective. It is not biased, it is from a perspective - whose presence/opinion would balance the work anyway? A US soldier who ended up in Gitmo? It's not like the US have not had any coverage of their side of things - you can't move for stomach churning Orwellian denial from Whitehouse employee and former Republican Abroad Colleen Graffy. The US have presented their interpretation of things since the inception of the war on terror and in the US have not been held to account by the mass media, who strangely did not question the information coming from the White House. Have a look at the indie-documentary 'Outfoxed' to see how biased Fox-TV is on the war on terror - add to that the masses of military audience speeches Dubya has given...I think the opposing side has been heard verbatim. Have a look ay the reviews of Winterbottom's documentary in this country and you'll find that many people have questions about the three here, so it's not like the wool has been pulled over the eyes in a Powell-Ricin presentation, fictional Old Trafford attack or 45 minutes from apocalypse 2003 manner, is it?
I don't think they were caught by the 'American forces' - they were caught by the Northern Alliance, who were American-backed (like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in the 1980s...). The Northern Alliance were getting paid good money by the Americans to hand people over - as pieces on programmes like 'Newsnight' have demonstrated, these have included innocent people (one case was a taxi driver). Both elderly men and minors were handed over and transferred to the concentration camp in Cuba.
A lot of information concerning Abu Graib, Bagram and Gitmo has been true - the Koran flushing incident was largely true (note how the administration in the US played with that). Sadly, as the Americans are playing Stalinist games with their rebranded gulag leased from Castro we don't know the truth. Seymour Hersh's book on Abu Graib and related practices were on the money - you sound like the kind of person who would have dismissed My Lai as lefty invention. Who would deny the Americans put Asian-Americans in concentration camps during World War II. Who dubiously executed the Rosenbergs. Who have the "School of Americas" school of CIA torture in Georgia- supplying techniques and training (& a manual just like they say Al Q has!)to many countries around the world. Have a look at William Blum's books detailing the practices of torture the US has employed - is it all made up by Newsweek and/or Michael Moore?????
You state journalism costs lives..true. The poor journalism that failed to question the Neo-Con plan in Iraq cost 37,000 to 100,000 Iraqi lives (the figures sadly are not definite - 58,000 American lives were lost in over a decade in Vietnam, square that against the Iraqi losses), peace-workers (I couldn't care less for the rebranded mercenaries working as 'security contractors' - they take the $$$, they take the risk) and the hundreds of coalition forces to have died. Journalism that failed to question what the Bush administration and compliant Blair were doing cost lives. The plan from the Project for the New American Century, presented to Bill Clinton in the late 1990s included the signatures of several members of the Bush administration (Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rummy) - 9/11 essentially gave them their Pearl Harbor and an excuse to depose spent force/former ally Saddam and get their hands on Iraq's resources (as well as providing geophysical support to Israel). The neo-con democracy domino was another fiction - that has cost lives and lead to countries like Iran and Palestine electing people the opposite of those preferred/funded by America. Mr Bush, Mr Blair and cheerleaders like you have blood on your hands - think of Margaret Thatcher in 1986 praising the Mujadeeen - she had one visit her at 10 Downing Street. Francis Wheen's book on common sense quotes her praise of a man who funded by the US and UK blew up a plan of Afghani children bound for Russia - if you want to see blood on hands, look a bit closer or consider a wider history.
Obviously what you said was found offensive by the moderators - you can get away with quite a bit here. Depends how malignant your initial posting was...
Have a look at Winterbottom's docu again, or his other work (24 Hour, Cock & Bull) and you'll find he is not presenting a definite version of events. There is a questioning of the validity of the accounts suggested in the style of these films - sorry if that's too complex for you. The Tipton Three's accounts have been pointed out to be dubious and/or vague at certain points - but that was their story and they're sticking to it like Blair and Bush stick to theirs! Infer what you like from part of their story - the central account is true and Gitmo has been censured by multiple human rights groups, lawyers, doctors, and governments the world over.
We'll note that the US failed to charge these people with anything,despite years of incarceration. & that upon their return to the UK they were questioned (more face saving for Blair so they didn't rub Bush et al's face in it at press conferences upon their return) and set free without a charge. I know the notion of the law is complex...but they have not been charged with anything and not found guilty of anything. There you go...
sidewinder's contribution is hilarious - how many milliom muslims in the world and they're all terrorists? Wipe them out Mein Fuhrer...it's like the lame notion that those in the Middle East are always starting wars. Yes, like America in Vietnam and Iraq, like Hitler in Poland, like Milosevic in four Balkan countries, like the Japanese in China, like the British in most of the world...sidewinder's ignorance is amusing, would be better with the tired Daily Mail mantra "It's like political correctness gone mad!!"
"See you on doomsday!"- Sadegh Hedayat's suicide note
Robert, how do you know this? And even if they did (let's say for argument sake). Is this kind of treatment by the American's justified? What would you say about a Brit or an American who would be treated in this way by say Iraqis? Would you say serves him right for being there???? Your argument is just, well SILLY!
On the issue of weather Guantanamo is leagal or not, Id have to say NOT, but I think that if terrorists receive a trail and are convicted, we SHOULD be alloud to use whatever means neccessary to obtain iformation from them WHATEVER it takes, I know people wouldnt agree with that but if you told a family member of someonethat was killed in 9/11 or 7/7 that it could have been provented if we were inhumane to someone who was probably going to kill and maim others themselves anyway, do you think they would disagree with how we treated such an individual??? I think NOT.
tripleripple: Are you suggesting that once a person is found guilty then they are no longer entitled to basic Human Rights? That's a profoundly totalitarian ideal. Besides, torture is a notoriously unreliable way of gathering intelligence. As a form of interrogation it exists somewhere between coercion and brainwashing and the protracted experience of pain and terror seldom leave an individual’s rational capacities intact.
Looking at the rise of some of the most horrific regimes in history we find that torture is usually implemented as an emergency measure, but frequently becomes a permanent feature of a regime of terrorization for its actual and potential victims and an education in brutality for its perpetrators.
Interesting isn't it, that an issue that so many of us had prevously swept aside becomes congruent to the public eye only when sensationalised again by the mass media.
Following this documentary, both my parter and I were moved. Perhaps because of it's dramatised depiction of torture and injustice, perhaps because like many people we are fed up with being told the 'rules' by peole who don't abide by them.
What it did prompt me to do was look further into the issues of humnan right and human wrongs, as for me this seemed to be the bigger picture.
Did you know there are different human rights and rules for prisoners who are civilian and military? and that these rules have been formall agreed upon by all member states of the UN, including the states?
"With the exception of the non-derogable human rights (the four most important are the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws), the UN recognises that human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency."
Clearly there are different human rights for military prisoners, although, they come under the umberela of International Human Law (IHL).
These are generally as follows.
"Persons who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities shall be respected, protected and treated humanely. They shall be given appropriate care, without any discrimination.
Captured combatants and other persons whose freedom has been restricted shall be treated humanely. They shall be protected against all acts of violence, in particular against torture. If put on trial they shall enjoy the fundamental guarantees of a regular judicial procedure.
The right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. No superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering shall be inflicted.
In order to spare the civilian population, armed forces shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. Neither the civilian population as such nor individual civilians or civilian objects shall be the target of military attacks."
The US seems to be highly active in promoting human rights affairs abroad, but why then does it not practice this legislation itself?
One assumes that 'national emargency' includes perpetuating a myth of inferior thrid world nations mustering together a sub-plot to overthrow the west, when it is the civilised west that have clearly acted as agressor in the east for much of the past thirty years.
Or is it just the case that suspected terrorists don't even have the luxuary of being treated as human beings.
Weirdly a criminal case akin to a Mafia-trial was bought against Al Queda pre 9/11 - this was shown in the BBC documentary 'The Power of Nightmares.' This hinged on an Al-Q- 'member' becominga whistle-blower and the US putting the name into criminal law. Al-Q was and remains more of an ideology/philosophy than manegerial/ranked organisation...The point here being that Al Q is recognised by criminal law - something that someone like Colleen Graffey denies (she says the occupants of Gitmo are not POWs either). Strange...the rebranded gulag/spin on the concentration camp hasn't worked out very well, has it? I think people should look back to the denoument of World War II and see how precious International Human Rights were...also, I wonder if the SAS guys who were dressed in non-uniform as Arabs with bombs and guns who kickstarted the riot in the South of Iraq (the tank on fire...) would be considered enemy combatents as they aren't in a uniform?
"See you on doomsday!"- Sadegh Hedayat's suicide note
