I mean to say, what makes him more competent at reviewing this film than any one of us in the Fray?

Of course, it's a stretch to call this a film review, since such original and enlightening turns of phrase as "war porn" aren't the stock-and-trade of real critics. They do, however, bear the distrinct imprint of the political analyst, who is trained to see statements of politicians as weapons or fog, and takes seriously the task of parsing and calling foul on such statements. This is useful for all of us. What is not useful is applying these same techniques to a filmmaker, who is essentially making a subjective artistic statement. This not only blurs the lines of journalism, but is morally weak and misplaced.

It's not Slate's responsibility to publish something from one of its contributors just because he got pissed over the weekend at the theater and decided to don a film critic's cap. I call foul.

The reader would have no way of knowing this perhaps, but actually the first professional writing that I did, when I was a college student in the 1970s, was as a film critic. I wrote regularly for Cineaste and Jump Cut magazines. I have more recently written film reviews for The Perfect Vision and about film subjects broadly, if not quite reviews, for the New York Times' Arts & Leisure section. But the reader is right: this column was more political commentary than film criticism. But if he has trouble accepting it as such on the grounds that I lack credentials to do the latter, he can lay that concern aside.

Fred Kaplan

Actually, Fred's film critic career predates college; he did some in his high school days in our Kansas home town. Of course, he predicted 'Patton' wouldn't win an Oscar back then, so one might take some of his historical expertise with a grain of salt.

Glad to see you out here, Fred; we missed you at the 35th High School reunion.

As for 'Redacted'; I would love to see a review by people who actually spent time in the sand. Indeed, I'd like the directors, producers, and Mark Cuban to watch it in a theater with an entire military unit just back from Iraq. I think the expression of opinion would be pretty intense.

If Fred says it's schlock, I'd say its pretty serious schlock. But I'll not be giving them any money to find out; I'l watch it when I can for free. And I will not be buying any Dallas Mavericks tickets or merchandise from now on. Planning a bonfire with my old shirts.

Mike O:

As for 'Redacted'; I would love to see a review by people who actually spent time in the sand...

In 2004 I was rotated through checkpoint guard duty a few times, I checked IDs, manned the tower and escorted shuttle busses full of Iraqi national workers at a large installation outside of the 'green zone'. Not exactly the same as a vehicle checkpoint in Samarra but reasonably close enough to comment. I'd say that Fred Kaplan did very well at rating this film. To paraphrase a line from the film itself, "The only thing that I can't convey...is how bad it smells...".

So the writer here thinks it’s audacious of you to don on a critics hat…. Whaaa….

Oott

Fred Kaplan:

The reader would have no way of knowing this perhaps, but actually the first professional writing that I did, when I was a college student in the 1970s, was as a film critic. I wrote regularly for Cineaste and Jump Cut magazines. I have more recently written film reviews for The Perfect Vision and about film subjects broadly, if not quite reviews, for the New York Times' Arts & Leisure section. But the reader is right: this column was more political commentary than film criticism. But if he has trouble accepting it as such on the grounds that I lack credentials to do the latter, he can lay that concern aside. Fred Kaplan

...And apologies for my attack on your credentials. However, I still stand by the substance of my opinion, which is that a political analysis of an artistic statement is beside the point. While I am admittedly no defender of de Palma on artistic grounds, and no fan of his movies, I respect his right as a filmmaker to make us angry and jar us out of complacency.

On a daily basis for the last seven years we have had politicians constantly striving to ratchet up our level of fear and to dehumanize the "enemy," in order to sell bogus pre-packaged agendas. The propaganda from this secretive administration has been so pervasive that even many thinking people have just given into their fear, and have since become tired of thinking or feeling anything. As derided and sadly unwatched as many of the recent anti-war films have been, I believe they're all coming from a respectable place, demanding their fellow Americans' humanity and sense of personal resposibility to wake up. Are there good films among them? Is this one any good? It's too early to tell, because the statements they're making are too timely.

Fred Kaplan, in my book, has done an admirable job at taking this administration to task for their lies, but I can't see how his joining the chorus of the Bill O'Reilly's in denouncing a film does any good whatsoever. Brian de Palma has no blood on his hands, and despite the "dishonesty" that Kaplan sees in this movie -- though it's worth mentioning that one reviewer's "dishonesty" is another's "artistic license" -- it's a disrespect to artists' role in society to scrutinize their statements in the same manner as one would to politicians who hold many thousands of lives in the balance.

to sum up junggai's position . . . its a plea for censorship. no one is allowed to post a movie review unless he/she meet's junggai's criteria for cinematic chops. this will ensure that viewpoints which conflict with junggai's can be discounted as "unqualified"

and by that same bizarre stretch of the imagination, we can argue that de palma is totally unqualified to make a movie about the rape, since he's NOT a soldier in iraq, wasn't at the crime scene, didn't interview anyone at the crime scene and has no familiarity with violence against woman.

oops, strike that last point. violence against woman, in film, is what made de palma rich. geez, i wonder if the subtext here is money, and not altruism on behalf of the iraqi victim. there apparently was never any altruism involved in femme fatale, carlitos way, scarface, the untouchables . . .

Junggai:

...Brian de Palma has no blood on his hands, and despite the "dishonesty" that Kaplan sees in this movie -- though it's worth mentioning that one reviewer's "dishonesty" is another's "artistic license" -- it's a disrespect to artists' role in society to scrutinize their statements in the same manner as one would to politicians who hold many thousands of lives in the balance.

You are digging the hole you are in deeper still. When you get to China ask Sun Tzu if his writing The Art of War makes him an artist and therefore has he no blood on his hands either.

Artists work and get paid in the context of their time, culture and political climate and are just as accountable or more so due to their being able to project their message to so many others. Much more so than the person on a soap box on a street corner. Artists are also often well funded and a front for other agendas and organizations.

There are just too many examples to demonstrate this fact to not appear silly reminding you of it. I'll try anyway. This link shows Ashurnasirpal II at War, c 875 BCE <link>. Such friezes were invented by the Assyrians who depict their ruler attacking a fortified city here. They are the direct predecessors of film. But you claim that they are created by artists who have no blood on their hands and who inhabit a plane above the petty fray of human conflicts.

Assyria is the ancient land where modern Samarra exists.

Nations (including their artists) go to war, not only their soldiers. Either all are innocent or all are guilty. It just does not seem that way when you are enjoying a premium coffee and discussing art history in the safety of an American coffeehouse rather than sweating like hell at a checkpoint.

If someone wants to "make us angry and jar us out of complacency" they must assume responsibility. Rabble-rousers and their backers cause as much conflict as they cure. No ones hands are free of blood. Some just are better at concealing that fact than are others.