Erik at No Pasaran points to a front page interview in Le Monde about the movie, The Good Shepherd (which is called Raisons d'Etat in France). The interview's with lefty Larry Johnson (whose creds are that he worked for State and CIA for a while, runs the "No Quarter" blog, and would probably agree with the statement, "George W Bush is the worst president ever," although to my knowledge he's never actually said that).
Here's a quote from Mr Johnson (which I'm translating from French into English):
The film avoids answering the crucial question which is who really directs the CIA.... [it's not] a sort of savage animal alone and without a master.I don't get this criticism. The movie does repeatedly suggest that Kennedy was directing the Bay of Pigs deal, and the CIA guys were responsible, not for the the decision to invade, but merely the actual execution of it. The movie also makes clear that while the CIA guys feel some sort of moral and professional guilt over the failure, it is Kennedy who is actually responsible for it.
Larr (as his friends might call him) is quite critical of the movie, praising it only on technical grounds. He says the CIA "history" presented on film isn't accurate; who honestly expected it would be?
From what I remember of the movie, it paints a pretty sympathetic portrait of the agency; every time Matt Damon and company take some morally questionable action it is only in response to some Soviet aggression. According to the movie, the Soviets are clearly the bad guys, and the Americans are just trying to keep up. I can't figure out why Le Monde is highlighting the movie on its front page, since it doesn't seem to reflect much on current world events -- it's certainly less critical of American FoPo than, for example, various George Clooney efforts have been. The US has intelligence agencies. Big deal. So does everyone else. What am I missing?
Links:
[No Pasaran]
[Le Monde]
[No Quarter]
|