Hurrah Tim Robbins, for having the guts to do this play!! I can hardly wait to see it!! Lynn Mikami

The criticism that media outlets place upon artists is something that I believe is justified, yet the tactics and logic that you use to attack established artists who articulate opposing political views are somewhat unfounded. To say that theatre artists have no expertise in regards to social issues is absolutely absurd and completely uneducated. Drama in it's most basic form examines and expresses the human condition. This would of course include politics, war, and various types of relationships. For actors, directors and the like there is a plethora of research that is processed to create these works. For example Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar, was obviously not written during Ceasar's assasination yet it is widely considered accurate by most notable scholars. It is quite comical to me that you would attack a play which satirically criticizes major media conglomerates who are already among the most powerful and influential institutions in the world. In comedy there is always an element of truth. This is what is so threatening about this production to you. It's dangerously comedic grip around the throat of media misinformation. The responsibility of an Actor within the theatre is not only to entertain but to express the human condition. This would include humans who have an opposing view on reality, or see a deep contrast between the reality of the mainstream media's idea of what is mainstream and the reality of informed humans.

D. Snow,

To say that theatre artists have no expertise in regards to social issues is absolutely absurd and completely uneducated.

My position is not that it is impossible for anyone in the theatre to be an "expert" on some issue. Just that Tim Robbins clearly isn't, on this point in particular.

(Of course, it's always easier to attack a straw man, isn't it?)

And I'm not alleging Robbins is wrong merely because he wasn't there (as you seem to imply by your reference to Julius Caesar); I'm saying this because everyone I can find who was there testifies his charges are completely unfounded.

Once we decide his charges are unfounded, then we can ask how he could be so wrong. Not being there, nor asking anyone involved strikes me as a likely explanation.

(One could further speculate what motivates such a lack of interest in fact...)

In comedy there is always an element of truth.

All lies contain an element of truth -- including those used in "comedy". Because something contains an element of truth doesn't mean (a) that it doesn't also contain a larger element of untruth, and (b) that overall, it is beneficial or helpful to people, and (c) that it should be free from criticism.

For example, say I told a joke about you being a Nazi. How true would you feel that was? How beneficial? You see my point, I hope.

It is quite comical to me that you would attack a play which satirically criticizes major media conglomerates who are already among the most powerful and influential institutions in the world.

It is quite sad, not comical, to me that you would feel because something is influential or powerful that any question of veracity, fact or fiction, fair or unfair, should then be below your consideration.

Microsoft is huge too (and even more of a monopoly) and I dislike it intensely, but if someone depicted Bill Gates as a pedophile who ate children for breakfast, I would protest similarly.

You, apparently, would say there is a grain of truth to it, if done humorously enough, and find it "comical" that I would raise any question of whether it was fair or beneficial to smear a man in this manner.

This is what is so threatening about this production to you. It's dangerously comedic grip around the throat of media misinformation.

[Ah, now we have the standard liberal mind-reading and psychological analysis: D. Snows knows exactly how I feel and what motivates me. I am threatened; my views are based in fear. Undoubtedly his motives are noble while mine are primitive. Below, he'll imply I'm not an "informed human". Above, he mentions I am "uneducated". In contrast, I will simply call him a "hypocrite", based on his words here, not his inner motivations. You, reader, can then decide if the charge fits.]

Ummm.... I have no information whatsoever that Robbin's play is "dangerously comedic", or even funny in the slightest. It's clear to me it is beloved by liberals, but that may possibly be more from the comfortable feeling its assertions give them than the number of clever jokes it contains.

Regarding "media misinformation": Robbins, a guy who is a powerful part of "the media", writes a play which may become a movie (again, part of "the media") which charges our soldiers are wanton killers and thieves, and that all reporters involved, even those hostile to the Bush administration, are liars who function as part of a giant conspiracy.

Reporters, including administration critics, soldiers, impartial observers, and Iraqis themselves indicate Robbins' charges are untrue.

Clearly, someone is lying in picture. It is either Robbins or everyone else. How are we to decide?

Me, I listen to those who were there. I don't care whether they agree with my preconcived views, but instead consider what they have to say. Given that, it seems the "media misinformation" of which you speak seems to originate with people like Robbins.

You, who knows? You haven't presented you evidence for this "media misinformation" about what happened during the Iraq conflict. You simply state it as fait accompli.

For actors, directors and the like there is a plethora of research that is processed to create these works.

You generalize where I do not.

I'm sure some writers process a variety of sources and do a "pletehora of research." But to believe that all do such, in all cases, is absurd. I expect it's quite likely some writers just make crap up, from nothing more substantial than their own feelings. This appears to be one such case.

(Err, plays are written by writers. Even if they happen to have been actors once.)

The responsibility of an Actor within the theatre is not only to entertain but to express the human condition.

Of course. And it is the job of the blogger to question to the artist; to call them into account for their social responsibility. If the artist, in "expressing the human condition", blatantly and willfully misrepresents the condition of many humans, the blogger is free to point that out.

You are free to point out any evidence to the contrary, in case you believe in that sort of thing.

This would include humans who have an opposing view on reality, or see a deep contrast between the reality of the mainstream media's idea of what is mainstream and the reality of informed humans.

So the responsibility of the artist is to represent the feelings of all humans who have an opposing view on reality? It seems to me my view of reality is opposed to Tim Robbins. Is he going to be doing a version of his play to represent my view?

No, an "opposing view" is only valuable, or needs representing when it is a leftist one.

Your "informed humans" quip is telling. I, disagreeing with Robbins version of reality (and oh, able to cite evidence for such), must not hold the view of an "informed human," meaning I'm either not "informed", or "human".

Of course, being "informed" about the "real truth" of media censorship (or not) seems important to you. You imply Robbins idea that "censorship happened all the time" view was "informed", and anyone questioning that idea is clearly not informed. You also confidently assert this play opposes the "reality" of "media misinformation" about the Iraq war.

Great! If we're all so un-informed about this "reality" of "media misinformation", feel free then, as a responsible human being, to share your evidence of censorship during the Iraq war. This is a big problem affecting society, right? You are in the right, the "mainstream" is in the wrong, correct? You'd like to win more people over, correct? And we're all blinded, right?

Then just share the evidence for your position. I'm open minded. Give it a go. What have you got to lose?

Okay, pardon me, I'm going to cut loose now:

You hypocrite!

Tim Robbins alleges that our soldiers are thieves who gleefully killed innocent civilians, and that reporters such as Chritiane Amanpour, Jennifer Eccleston, Michael Kelly (who gave his life for his work) etc, etc. deliberately lied about what they saw, and are now still lying about whether they lied then and/or were censored?

And Robbins levels these libeleous charges against "little" individuals (soldiers, reporters in the trenches, aid workers) who have much less power than he does, while producing no supporting evidence for his view?

And you have the termity to call this his social reponsibility? And to accuse me of defending the "powerful and influential", when Robbins is much more famous, powerful, influential, and rich than all the in-the-field reporters and soldiers he is slandering?

You seem to forget there are real people involved here. You can't say "the media lied" without saying each reporter was a deliberate party to deception. You can't simply say the soldiers were theives and wanton, deliberate killers of innocent civilians without accusing actual specific soldiers of such. (Like the one who posted above.)

But "social responsibility" doesn't include such responsibilities, does it?

Hypocrite.

But that evidence of censorship and bad behavior by our troops would still be helpful, you know. Produce it, and I'll apologize completely.

>>"The criticism that media outlets place upon artists is something that I believe is justified, yet the tactics and logic that you use to attack established artists who articulate opposing political views are somewhat unfounded."

Actually your tactics and logic are unfounded. First off, opposing political view is not the subject. It’s the depiction of what actually happened. It’s not about party affiliation, but facts! Someone can write a play about antiwar in Iraq but please use accurate facts and not ‘what they think happened.’

>>“To say that theatre artists have no expertise in regards to social issues is absolutely absurd and completely uneducated.”

Firstly, it was never said that ‘theatre artists have no expertise,’ congratulations on the presumptuous judge award! YOU said it, and to assume that was the point is completely absurd and uneducated. It was implied however that this particular artist has little expertise and no data to support his views on what happened. Simply put: he wasn’t there, and evidence and testimonies from those that were, contradict what “he thinks happened in Iraq.” Get it? He decided to write what he thinks happened and not only that, but what he thinks happened is directly contrary to ‘a plethora’ of people who were there first hand. Obviously he didn’t do a ‘plethora of research’ or simply ignored the research he did do! And thus dreamed it his own version! (ps - do you need someone to define for you what propaganda is???)

>>“Drama in it's most basic form examines and expresses the human condition. This would of course include politics, war, and various types of relationships. For actors, directors and the like there is a plethora of research that is processed to create these works.”

Like I said before, the so-called ‘research’ was either never done, or simply ignored because even if it is a satire, it’s a wrong factual depiction of the events & environment. It is fiction! Sad, sad argument on your part, period.

>>“For example Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar, was obviously not written during Ceasar's assasination yet it is widely considered accurate by most notable scholars.”

Quite the generalization on your part of ‘most notable scholars.’ Prove it. Furthermore, does that mean it should be noted as accurate then? Does this mean that the play should be noted as accurate? You disagree with yourself.

>>“It is quite comical to me that you would attack a play, which satirically criticizes major media conglomerates who are already among the most powerful and influential institutions in the world. In comedy there is always an element of truth.”

No there isn’t always an element of truth. I could tell you a joke about the banana that walked into a bar. There’s nothing true in that, other than maybe that bananas exist and bars exist. All other social interaction is completely fictional. And apparently even in this satire, the truth element was ditched. If there were accurate depictions on what really went on and what the relationships really were like then there would be truth. Apparently there wasn’t. you lose 10 points.

>>“This is what is so threatening about this production to you. It's dangerously comedic grip around the throat of media misinformation.”

What is exactly threatening is that the ‘dangerous grip’ here is the satiric and fictional play that IS media misinformation in and of itself, and THAT is being hailed as truth. Good job on turning a lie into fact.

>>“The responsibility of an Actor within the theatre is not only to entertain but to express the human condition. “

This is drivel. The ‘human condition?’ pfft. What is being discussed here is a play that portrays human condition in fictional setting.

>>“This would include humans who have an opposing view on reality,”

Opposing view on reality, huh? Welcome the nut cases. “I have an opposing view to the train about to run me over.” You’re talking about perceiving something differently than what it really is. Good job! Actors and writers must portray to us what people think in their heads apart from what is real! Welcome to my dreamland which is totally contradictory with reality. I must portray this so people can be informed (of what?).

>>“…or see a deep contrast between the reality of the mainstream media's idea of what is mainstream and the reality of informed humans.”

Nice quasi spirituality there: ‘the reality of mainstream media’s idea of what is mainstream’ vs ‘reality of informed humans.’ Are you some kind of trans-dimensional portal hopping principality? First, this statement is like comparing apples to oranges. Whatever conglomerate news media thinks is mainstream is basically what topics they cover. Informed humans? Again, all evidence points against what the satire portrays and being hailed as truth. Informed? Completely laughable!

I’m sorry, but you lose (unless you can come up with sources, data, evidence that support the play’s views).

Wow, apparently I'm not the only one annoyed by D. Snow's hifalutin' defense of the indefensible!

Actually, there was a bit of media disinformation in the Iraq conflict...

D. Snow, you have been schooled. Thanks for playing, though.

Please post to this blog frequently. Watching your arguments being taken apart is some of the best entertainment I've had all week, Janet Jackson notwithstanding...

I actually saw the play in question, and I can honestly say (keep in mind I am a card carrying Republican, voted for Bush last time and intend to again), that the play was balance, did NOT make our soldiers look like killers and thieves, but did give a satirical look at both sides of the argument. It also happened to be quite entertaining, and provoked a great discussion between some of my more liberal friends and I. Isn't that what this country is supposed to be about?

David,

If it is as you say -- that the play does not currently make the assertion the media was censored by the military -- then that's certainly good news.

(Or, it could be good news, if someone produced evidence to match such assertions... that would be fine too. It's just the "reality disconnect" that troubles me here.)

That wasn't the impression I've got from initial reports, so (a) initial reports could have been wrong, (b) different people might see it differently, or (c) Robbins might have toned it down a bit, as Eve Ensler and others often have with controversial material.

Glad it provided material to have a discussion; more discussion is what we need, less dictation. That's what's great about the blogosphere: feedback.

I'll be looking to hear what others who have seen it have to say about it as well.

WOW IM A PROUD MEMBER OF THE USAF AND SERVED IN THE SANDBOX LOST MORE FRIENDS THEN I CAN LIST AND I COME HOME AND HERE ABOUT THIS PLAY AND WOW...I GUESS I FAUGHT AND MY FRIENDS DIED SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE SOME FUN...REALLY GLAD THAT AN ACTOR WHO PLAYS IN FRONT OF A CAMERA FOR A LIVING KNOWS HOW IT IS TO BE OUT IN THE BOX...WHAT AN IDIOT...IT WONDERFUL TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS NOW ISN't it. GLAD I WENT OVER AND FAUGHT AND WATCHED MY FRIENDS DIE SO THAT I COULD COME HOME AND BE MOCKED THATS JUSS WONDERFUL

Grindle,

You've asked for reviews only based on artistic merit, devoid of "political sniping". Would a review which fawned over the play, for political reasons, before more acceptable?

As I read various reviews, I got a mixed impression about the artistic value. Some said it was fast-paced and funny. Other said it seemed kind of lame.

It's hard to tell when a reviewer is injuecting their politics into their assessment of artistic merit, so I try to be utterly frank and honest about my own.

And I think Tim Robbins, from what I have seen of him so far, is, quite frankly, a very talented actor.

But, as a playwright covering a contemporary subject, he hasn't allowed us to just consider his artistic skills. By tackling a topic of contemporary discussion, Robbins invites us to consider the legitimacy of his views.

Remember, Robbins took this project on primarily for political reasons -- by his own admission! -- so why should we then be gagged from discussing the political ramifications of such?

Grindle,

No snipe intended in the last one, sorry for any implication you thought discussion of political aspects was inappropriate.

One reviewer above saw it. He didn't comment on "artistic" merits, either. In fact, most the reviews I read, whether fawning or critical, spent far more time focusing the politics than the mechanics.

- Tim

All this board is filled with venom. Nothing but warmonglers are on this board. Blah blah blah, I love war. Yeah and bombing and killing terrorists is somehow going to stop terrorism????? are all of you that stupid????

Bob,

I'm sorry, what board are you reading? The question being discussed here is the accuracy of Tim Robbins' allegations, not whether the war was a good idea or not. Is it a bit too "nuanced" to ask you to distinguish between the two?

There are fourteen posts above. Only two clearly express some kind of support for the war. That's a long way from "nothing but warmongers". Indeed, you might note you are posting here. Are you seeing reality through some kind of filter the rest of us are missing? Nobody here has said, "I love war." I'm sure even the two soldiers who posted above don't "love war", but will do it if they think it has to be done.

Next, concerning "venom": Only one person here has called anyone, for example, "stupid" or a "warmonger", and that was, well, you. Looking for venom? Check your own fangs, dude.

As far as your question -- will killing terrorists prevent terrorism -- it's not necessarily the policy I would recommend personally, but yes, if every terrorist in the world were dead, by definition, there would be no terrorism.

You know, if you think a particular option is "stupid", and everyone who disagrees with you is also, therefore "stupid", you might be then be constructive enough to share your own, better, non-"stupid" alternative for preventing terrorism. I mean, if we're all such idiots, then enlighten us, right? At least give us a chance.

Do tell: What solution do you favor for eliminating terrorism? We're reasonable people. As John Lennon said: "We'd all love to see the plan!"

As I personally see it, the problem is that there are unaddressable "root causes" of terrorism. Those lie in the mind and heart. In this case, for example, the root cause is a combination of envy at the success of the west (infidels), and the spread of a radical sect (Wahabbiism).

Other than having us all convert to Wabbiist Islam, I don't see any complete solution to this problem other than placing strict limits on emigration, travel, and religious freedom. Barring that, the use of a credible threat of force against governments who sponsor or harbor terrorists seems reasonable.

But hey, like I said, Bob, if you see everyone else as "stupid", feel free to share the plan. The difference between con-structive and de-structive criticism is that the former suggests a better alternative, while the latter just calls names. As Lennon also said: "We're all doing what we can."

The ball's in your court.

- Tim

I loved the play....do you know why FoxNews said they had no problem with censorship?? Because FoxNews is owned by Rupert fucking Murdoch...a KNOWN right wing republican....of course FoxNews found no problems...they're right wing media...and whoever wrote the article is spinning things so fucking much, it's unbelievable....Tim Robbins may not have been an embedded journalist, but he interviwed many journalists who were...And, in the play, the soldiers are not all shown as vicious killers, their commanders are....which is pretty fucking close to the truth....and he portrays embedded journalists as puppets because they are...their writings are screened and censored before they make it to the US....as for the Bush administration being war mongers...well, they are...hate to tell you, but our president has a huge boner for wars fought on false pretexts....also, many posts up, somebody said his play showed he has no loyalty to his country...fuck you...America is a DEMOCRACY...which means, as an American, we have the right to speak out against anything we don't agree with within any part of the government....point is, many of you are idiots...have a nice day.

Military are brain-washed in the same manner that cults use to manipulate their members. The media is clearly controlled by CIA-multinational corporations. As they say, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE!

Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. The well-reasoned voice of the left.

Did he show any kind of evidence at all for his position that the reporters had been censored? For example, did he cite some reporter who came forward and said their words were censored? (Oh, right, I forgot -- they can't do that, the government would have them killed. That's how bad it's gotten. :-))

No, allegations Robbins is wrong are false because simply because I have quoted the wrong sources. You don't have to evaluate the truth of a given statement itself -- no, it's simple enough to say if it doesn't come from our group, it isn't true.

If CNN was hypothetically owned by Ted Turner, a liberal, we'd never worry about a single thing they said. :-) But if a publication is own by an alleged conservative, not a single word is even to be considered.

(This is backwards from the way I see it: I consider both sides. It doesn't bother me that people have political affliations, either way. The question is whether they're factually correct. When I can show they aren't, then we can start asking why.)

Does he make his point clearly? If dropping F-bombs were a form of clear thought or communication, then he was absolutely crystaline.

He says that anyone can say whatever they want in this country -- well at least as long as it consists of criticising the government (and presumably only under conservative leadership).

Perhaps, but he doesn't seem to support what soldiers have to say about him and his kind and their loyalty. Funny how freedom of speech is such a one-way thing.

I'm glad he liked the play. I've never questioned whether it was likable. The question is whether the reporters' reports were censored, beyond simple tactical concerns, such as not disclosing locations.

Tim,

I am confused by your demands for proof.

You demand facts for every assertion made by D.Snow; but when David G. says that (contrary to your opening statement) the play 'embedded' did not make GIs look like thieves and killers of innocent women and children, you withdraw the claim - just like that (and then add in brackets 'if it can be proved').

You seem content broadly to rely on David G's word, however. Is it only card carrying republicans who are to be believed on these pages? If not, you can certainly withdraw all your requests for proof from D.Snow.

You've been found out Tim. Go and see the play - rather than relying on second hand reports - and you can demand the same standards from others. Until then, you have no basis for calling D.Snow an hypocrite.

Steven

Steven R. writes...

I am confused by your demands for proof.

You demand facts for every assertion made by D.Snow; but when David G. says that (contrary to your opening statement) the play 'embedded' did not make GIs look like thieves and killers of innocent women and children, you withdraw the claim - just like that...

Do I really need to explain the difference? This isn't obvious?

You allude to two contentions:

(1) The thing for which I ask evidence is the central thesis of Robbins' play: That that Iraq media reports were censored, beyond simply asking reporters not to reveal logistics and troop locations.

Note that I simply asked for supporting evidence. It appears you have placed the words "demand proof" into my mouth to make my request seem somehow unreasonable and stubborn, as though I stand before a mountain of evidence and refuse to admit it adds up to "proof". In reality, the table before me is bare, bereft of even one lonely exhibit.

[Is it not amusing that my critics here will focus on and debate (and distort!) every other nuance of what I've written rather that confront this central question -- the very foundation upon which Robbins' play rests?]

Review again: Robbins wrote a whole play, which is heralded as important, brilliant, and exposing the "reality" of his central thesis: that reporters were censored, and thus what we saw and read was a complete lie and fabrication.

I am, apparently, out of bounds for even asking if such a thing has any supporting evidence. I mean, if it's is as "true" as many reviewers and Robbins, assert it is, it seems one ought to be easily able to point to some supporting evidence, no? Otherwise, how are they able to contend so vigorously that it's "true"?

(2) In contrast, how a report or play or other presentation makes GI's (or anyone else) "look" (note the word carefully: "look") is a subjective judgement. As such, testimony of another viewer of the play is just as valid as the first one.

Try to understand the difference: Imagine, for example, someone told me a certain sweater I had not seen (and could not see, without great expense) was "hideous". I might say: "Sounds like the sweater was hideous." Then, if another person objected saying: "No, I thought it was quite beautiful" a reasonable person might then recognize there were a variety of ways that sweater could be seen.

And, trying to be a reasonable person, I'm quite willing modify any opinions of how a play makes someone "look" based on more impressions.

But the same criteria does not apply to matters of contestable objective fact, like whether Lincoln's face is or is not on Mount Rushmore, whether George Bush has a third leg, or whether reporters in Iraq had their stories routed through a central command, and saw such stories being censored or changed.

We would look to Iraq, or the press, to resolve such an issue -- not to Robbins or those reviewing his play. The best that Robbins or his viewers could do to resolve this would be to cite evidence from Iraq, or point to specific testimony from the press.

If the "evidence" for that is buried in the play, (say, for example, Robbins gives the names and dates of specific reporters who said their retellings were muzzled), there is no reason that information couldn't simply be restated here.

The very fact I have to explain the difference between these two kinds of questions -- how the play itself depicts X or Y -- or whether something did or did not happen in Iraq -- amuses me.

The former can be resolved by watching the play, or, if that's not possible, at least listening to those who have. The latter cannot be resolved in the same fashion.

Can you now see the difference between the two?

You've been found out Tim. Go and see the play - rather than relying on second hand reports - and you can demand the same standards from others.

Ah, yes, you've revealed me for the fraud that I am. A fraud who agrees we can learn more about how play depicts something by watching it, or at listening to more reviews, but who feels that questions of what happened in Iraq cannot be resolved simply by watching a play.

What an evil guy I am for thinking that.

Until then, you have no basis for calling D.Snow an hypocrite.

My charge of hypocrisy against D. Snow is regarding an entirely differnt matter: He is a hypocrite, I charge, because he claims to be deeply interested in protecting the "little guy" against the big guy, while he is, in fact, defending a very powerful guy, and showing no apparent interest in how this powerful guy could adversely effect quite a number of smaller, less powerful men and women.

I don't need to see the play to charge Tim Robbins with being powerful, nor to charge D. Snow with defending him while appearing unconcerned about questions regarding any "smaller people" who might be affected by Robbins.

The question here is not the accuracy of whatever Robbins charges. The question here is D. Snow's apparent disinterest in that, and stated reasons for dodging such questions.

And, it seems to me, there is a lot of dodging THE question going on here.

I think too many people reacted critically and with disgust to this play before they even saw it. The mere notion of a play which could be perceived as 'anti-American' seems to put many people on the defensive and stopped them from assessing it fairly. As a piece of theatre,I thought that Embedded was brilliant. As a satire, it was sharp and funny. And as an expression of a widely held and perfectly valid view (that the war in Iraq was wrong), it was a thought-provoking and completely justified piece of work. This play seems to have brought out the worst sides in many people, whose reviews have revealed them to be extremely narrow-minded individuals. I don't feel that this play in any way undermined the bravery or achievements of soldiers in Iraq; it's attack was targeted at the politicians, not the soldiers or journalists, who were portrayed with a great deal of humanity. Many of the reviews that I have seen of this brilliant piece of theatre have struck me as being hugely unfair. But then,since when has controversial theatre been a bad thing?