MortSahlFan

I have Ben Bradlee's book, yet there's no mention of him initially turning down the CIA, calling it a horrible institution, and then later joining it. Of course, he downplayed his involvement, but you simply can't leave that out-it's a crucial part of the story. This omission tells me there's an intentional effort to hide or minimize his actual role. Operation Mockingbird wasn't just about Bradlee; it involved many more players working behind the scenes, shaping media narratives and influencing public perception far beyond what's openly admitted. I recommend it, but you must read legitimate articles before watching it.

They're putting a friendly mask disguised as humanism but nothing but an advertisement for the military-industrial complex. But in typical US tradition, commenters see the movie or characters reduced to meaningless terms like "liberal" or "conservative" and judge a movie this way. Or words like "freedom". Ask someone in China what that means to them. Talking is great, but this is misleading. "Go fight in wars because democracy" as if the people had self-rule.

But I do think Ben Gazzarra and Sterling Hayden are fine actors. The relationship between the uncle and nephew was good, but they should have humanized it more, instead of sounding like a debate squad. It was full of "the audience will be so keen thinking they're the only ones tickling at the thought of knowing the references".

I hate censorship, but good taste would be nice. I just don't like being talked down to. I don't believe that they believe what they're (author) saying.

Even the title isn't accurate.. I would have liked to have seen more comedy, and his contemporaries like Mort Sahl, who was performing at Corey's age. He mentions SF, but the director is supposed to bring things out of a man who has lived so long, about the legendary hungry i, and its impressario, Enrico Banducci, who was instrumental in Irwin Corey's success, as was San Francisco, but that only took up a few seconds.

Again, a man who lived to be 100 shouldn't have his documentary spent on meaningless chatter between he and his wife kvetching and moaning. They had Dick Gregory there, but hardly use him instead to tell us the stories we already know. There's a lot of things I could tell you that are much more interesting simply from reading NYT archives.