MovieChat Forums > American Made (2017) Discussion > A very political film

A very political film

posted 2 years ago by Misty (228)
6 replies | jump to latest

In his long career,Tom Cruise has not made many "political" films. You would have to go back to Born on the Fourth of July when he starred in Oliver Stone's anti Vietnam War film. In this one, Tom plays a completely amoral pilot who is prepared to sell his soul to the CIA, drugs cartels and the DEA. The film illustrates the hypocrisy of the US preaching against drugs, and yet using the sale of cocaine to fund the CIA's secret war in Nicaragua. If that is not corruption, then what is it?
The style of the film may be slightly tongue in cheek, with Barry Seal's voice over, but it does not hide the lack of morality behind this policy. Where was the cocaine heading? Straight to American cities.

[–] mannerism (74) 8 months ago

Barry wasn't "completely amoral." Escobar et al would have shot Barry had he refused to run drugs into the US. It's not like he had a choice. Similarly, the CIA had the goods on Barry, too, and could have destroyed his career as a TWA pilot.

Of course, you are correct about the hypocrisy of the US. Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign was idiotic and everyone knew it. And it was her husband, President Reagan, who absurdly called marijuana "probably the most dangerous drug in the United States today."

After Iran Contra became public, Reagan gave a public address saying “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.” Hard to believe anyone admires him today.

[–] Misty (228) 8 months ago

Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign was a PR exercise to change the perception of her in the media. There was a lot of coverage of her liking expensive designer dresses and her getting people fired from her husband's Administration.

The crack epidemic happened almost at the same time that Congress cut off funding for the Contra War in Nicaragua. Coincidence?

[–] Corbell (9703) 8 months ago

1. Just say No, was a fine anti-drug message. Simple slogans are good ways to make strong statements.

2. Let's recall that goal of trading arms for hostages was to rescue AMERICAN civilians. That is Reagan letting his desire to save people get him into trouble. That is hardly reason to hold him in contempt.

3. And why did Congress cut off funding to the contras? Because Reagan and America were WINNING against the communists and the DEMS in congress did not like that. They would rather have had the commies win, then having America win, if it might reflect well on Reagan's policies.

[–] mannerism (74) 8 months ago

1. A strong statement, yes, but recognizably absurd and everyone knew it.

2. Yes, rescuing Americans is a good goal but when done illegally - and stupidly - the film made the point that most of the guns went to the cartels which used them for more illegal acctivities, and that was just one of the examples where American intrusion into other countries backfired.

3. Congress cut funding off after the illegal program became public and an embarrassment.

[–] Corbell (9703) 8 months ago

1. No we didn't. It was fine. Sure some people talked shit about it, but they were mostly people that hated Reagan just for being a republican.

2. First I heard that claim. The contras seemed to get a lot of guns and did quite well with them. The cartels got MONEY. Eventually the marxist were forced to hold an election, that they LOST. How is that a backfire?

3. Nope. Congress cut off funding because the anti-communists were winning. Everyone knew about the program WAY before they cut the moeny. But the assumption was that the contras would lose. But then they started winning, and that was BAD for the dems. Good for America, bad for the dems.

[–] avortac4 (3670) 25 days ago

"Barry wasn't "completely amoral." Escobar et al would have shot Barry had he refused to run drugs into the US. It's not like he had a choice."

'Amoral'? Maybe not. But EVIL, certainly.

First of all, Escobar would not have shot him himself, he would have HAD him shot, and that's how he died anyway, so what did he really avoid by doing the evil deeds?

What you mean by 'et al', I can't decipher. Just say he would have had him shot. No need for any Al, Bundy or otherwise (let alone an E.T.!)

Of course he had a choice, everyone always has a choice - you are either an evil coward and work for some druglord (and you are basically saying his only motivation was FEAR, not greed at all.. which was not true), or brave hero and die for truth and justice.

Also, after he was in USA, he could've mentioned that he's gonna be shot, to get some protection. It was basically the judge that made him a 'clay pigeon' according to his own words, so all that could've been pretended, had he been protected and such.

The judge basically killed him because he judged him to be evil. I can't really blame the judge for that... just look at his photo and tell me that's not an evil a-hole.

Do you really think he cared about his 'career as TWA pilot' as much as his life? He could easily have betrayed the drug lords once he was in the USA, handed in himself and the drugs, told the whole story and asked for protection, but because he was a greedy and evil bstrd, he tried to profit out of ruining innocent children's lives with drugs as much as possible.

Don't make excuses for evil criminals.