25-01-2011, 01:00 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Prouty is always interesting, even when he is wrong, as I believe he is here about the three tramps.
But his insights into how covert operations are conducted, and his knowledge about how things in the White House went down, are very valuable. Who else would talk about how the McNamara Taylor report was actually composed?
When I first saw Stone's film, I didn't really like the shift to Washington from New Orleans. But the more I see it, the more I think it is a high point of the film. Sutherland really nailed the part, and the stuff he says gives the audience insight into how power really works in America. Brando was Stone's first choice for that part.
(BTW, let me add, as good as Sutherland is in that scene, Costner is as bad. He was so bad that Sutherand made fun of him between takes when he was out of earshot.)
Those scenes are based on these letters--there was more than one. One can question the dramatic license used here since they did not occur until well after their depiction in the film. If it would have been me, I may not have used them. But the fact that they work on screen is pretty demonstrable by how many people have watched the clip on You Tube.
Jim:
Do you believe Prouty is wrong in his id of Lansdale? Or that he believed the three "were actors" and therefore not important?
I have always found his reasoning re. Lansdale very persuasive. People who argue that you cannot recognize someone from behind are wrong in my opinion. It depends on how well you know the person, what -if anything- is distinctive about the person. When you see Prouty's reasoning along with the photo of that person I find it very credible an explanation.
Dawn