'Standard Operating Procedure' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Kenneth's review of 'Standard Operating Procedure' has been posted. He found this documentary quite fascinating. This Blu-ray is even better, with a striking video transfer, excellent TrueHD audio, and plenty of extras. An easy recommendation.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1709...procedure.html

[whothehelldoyouthinkiam]

I'll be checking this one out for sure.

[DeathShrike]

I made the mistake of reading the review of the film itself again. Terrible. Even though I like that movie at least as much as Kenneth does, his opinions and political babblings are totally fatuous.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by DeathShrike

I made the mistake of reading the review of the film itself again. Terrible. Even though I like that movie at least as much as Kenneth does, his opinions and political babblings are totally fatuous.

"Fatuous" means a person is incapable or unwilling to consider relevant information surrounding an issue. You can disagree with my viewpoints or even my politics (which, believe me, were not present in this review), but to suggest I discussed anything that isn't relevant to the Abu Ghraib controversy or 'Standard Operating Procedure' as a piece of documentary filmmaking is... ironically, fatuous.

Documentary reviews require a discussion of the topic at hand as well as the political ramifications and issues central to their subject. It would be irresponsible to review a documentary like SOP without addressing my opinions of the matter itself.

Thanks for posting. Just keep in mind that I'm tasked and obligated to provide opinions on HDD, not avoid them.

[mosman22]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

"Fatuous" means a person is incapable or unwilling to consider relevant information surrounding an issue. You can disagree with my viewpoints or even my politics (which, believe me, were not present in this review), but to suggest I discussed anything that isn't relevant to the Abu Ghraib controversy or 'Standard Operating Procedure' as a piece of documentary filmmaking is... ironically, fatuous.

Documentary reviews require a discussion of the topic at hand as well as the political ramifications and issues central to their subject. It would be irresponsible to review a documentary like SOP without addressing my opinions of the matter itself.

Thanks for posting. Just keep in mind that I'm tasked and obligated to provide opinions on HDD, not avoid them.

Well said Ken. Keep up the good work, the questioning of the status quo and the right to dissent is what makes this country great.

[raunchy]

give Ken a break, he strives to deliver quality reviews

[BullRay]

Sound familiar? The horrifying atrocities committed by the guards stationed at the Abu Ghraib prison facility in Iraq have been well documented over the last four years.

interestingly just months before the setup for the war there was a film released about the experiment, (well, or something a bit thereto) fittingly titled "Das experiment"

and I wouldn't be all that surprised if this documentary actually leads to a remake of it...

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by BullRay

interestingly just months before the setup for the war there was a film released about the experiment, (well, or something a bit thereto) fittingly titled "Das experiment"

and I wouldn't be all that surprised if this documentary actually leads to a remake of it...

'Das Experiment' is actually a really good film too -- I had the pleasure of watching it a few years ago. For anyone who's interested, you should check it out.

[lownslowav8r]

Ken, I know you wanted to keep this politically neutral, which means in today's world "he-said, she-said" language, but to think that only left-wing loonies think that this mess did not go to the highest levels of this government is, shall we say, surprising.

I'd suggest you get out the Google and do some research on the meetings in the White House where members of the highest levels of this government discussed "interrogation" techniques and often directed the "interrogation" of individual suspects.

Also, go over to Amazon where one of the reviewers of this film (who says he was one of the people interviewed in this film) gave the movie a one-star review because the film did not address who was responsible. And assuming he for real, he is was a member of the military and probably not a left-wing crazy. His review is titled "SOP Obscures The Truth"

[DeathShrike]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

"Fatuous" means a person is incapable or unwilling to consider relevant information surrounding an issue. You can disagree with my viewpoints or even my politics (which, believe me, were not present in this review), but to suggest I discussed anything that isn't relevant to the Abu Ghraib controversy or 'Standard Operating Procedure' as a piece of documentary filmmaking is... ironically, fatuous.

Documentary reviews require a discussion of the topic at hand as well as the political ramifications and issues central to their subject. It would be irresponsible to review a documentary like SOP without addressing my opinions of the matter itself.

Thanks for posting. Just keep in mind that I'm tasked and obligated to provide opinions on HDD, not avoid them.

I'm glad you responded.

I'm also glad you supplied your definition of "fatuous", as it is incorrect. Fatuous does NOT mean "incapable or unwilling to consider relevant information surrounding an issue". It means (according to Merriam-Webster) "complacently or inanely foolish" or (according to Wiktionary) "Obnoxiously stupid, vacantly silly, content in one's foolishness". Based on my actual words, and their actual meaning, I did not "suggest [you] discussed anything that isn't relevant to the Abu Ghraib controversy or 'Standard Operating Procedure' as a piece of documentary filmmaking."

My complaints about your review are not based on any notions I have about your political beliefs. My problem is not that you had an agenda, but rather that the points you make that are political in nature (meaning ABOUT politics), are silly. Stupid. Fatuous. Not because they espouse a certain perspective (political or otherwise), but because they are obvious, pedantic, and irrelevant.

Here's my favorite: "Who will be disappointed with the film? Those on the far left will be upset that Morris doesn’t push further up the chain of command and those on the far right will be infuriated that he allows his subjects to seemingly make excuses for their behavior. Thankfully, neither is the case." This lousy armchair analysis of the current political climate and the denizens of either wing is not only simple-minded and extremely speculative (and, I suspect, erroneous), it also has nothing to do with the the quality of the film, despite how the statement is phrased.

As for your last statement: "Just keep in mind that I'm tasked and obligated to provide opinions on HDD, not avoid them." Yes. But, I do find that often (on most home video sites, not just HDD, to be fair) far too much time is devoted to criticism of the film, and not criticism of the disc itself, considering the HDD staff seem much more knowledgeable and insightful regarding the latter. While many do probably value your film criticism, I am simply saying that I do not.

[DeathShrike]

Originally Posted by lownslowav8r

Ken, I know you wanted to keep this politically neutral, which means in today's world "he-said, she-said" language...

Actually, I think this is a much better (and mercifully shorter) way than mine, of putting my problem with Ken's review. It is CHOCK-FULL of this stuff, and adds nothing.

[jurples]

used my sony rewards points to get this. errol morris is awesome. here's hoping there's more morris on the way!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by lownslowav8r

Ken, I know you wanted to keep this politically neutral, which means in today's world "he-said, she-said" language, but to think that only left-wing loonies think that this mess did not go to the highest levels of this government is, shall we say, surprising.

I'd suggest you get out the Google and do some research on the meetings in the White House where members of the highest levels of this government discussed "interrogation" techniques and often directed the "interrogation" of individual suspects.

Also, go over to Amazon where one of the reviewers of this film (who says he was one of the people interviewed in this film) gave the movie a one-star review because the film did not address who was responsible. And assuming he for real, he is was a member of the military and probably not a left-wing crazy. His review is titled "SOP Obscures The Truth"

I definitely agree with your point and had no intention of suggesting only those on the left believe the scandal stretches up the ladder so to speak.

My political-neutralism wasn't meant to undermine the politics at the heart of the issue, but rather to encourage those who would avoid the film based on preconceived political agendas and ideas to give it a legitimate shot (whether they're on the far right or left).

I don't think 'Standard Operating Procedure' avoids addressing those who are responsible, it just doesn't deal with that aspect of the scandal as extensively. It was meant to study the human face of the controversy and the reactions of those who have been found guilty of wrong doing. However, the documentary makes it abundantly clear that top-level officials and agencies knew of, condoned, and encouraged everything that was happening.

Anyway, hope that helps clear up why I was so neutral in the review. My comments were only meant to assuage people's fears that the documentary had an overt agenda, not to create one of my own. Thanks as always for posting!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by DeathShrike

Actually, I think this is a much better (and mercifully shorter) way than mine, of putting my problem with Ken's review. It is CHOCK-FULL of this stuff, and adds nothing.

The specific comments were written for those who would skip an otherwise interesting documentary because of preconceived notions and political beliefs. I've received several e-mails thanking me for all the "stuff" I added because it let people know they weren't about to watch a preachy documentary.

Hope that helps clarify things. Thanks as always for posting!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by DeathShrike

I'm glad you responded.

I'm also glad you supplied your definition of "fatuous", as it is incorrect. Fatuous does NOT mean "incapable or unwilling to consider relevant information surrounding an issue". It means (according to Merriam-Webster) "complacently or inanely foolish" or (according to Wiktionary) "Obnoxiously stupid, vacantly silly, content in one's foolishness".

Sorry to draw out this portion of the argument, but if a person is complacent or inanely foolish, obnoxiously stupid, vacantly silly, or content in one's foolishness, how do they behave? They show themselves to be incapable or unwilling to consider the relevant information surrounding an issue.

I think we're saying the same thing and shooting past each other in the process.