#5. To: christine, Orignal_Intent, wudidiz, Bill D Berger, Uncle Bill, Red Jones, lodwick, IndieTX, All (#1)(Edited)
Make sure you take a look at the trailer on the movie's website as well, as it's much clearer and includes more footage than the short YouTube trailer I posted.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
'Rendition' - Latest CIA Propaganda Film By Ted Twietmeyer
11-1-7
Such an intriguing premise for a film rendition is simply "legalized government kidnapping." It pretends to show that the main plot is about one woman's fight to get her Egyptian national husband back. There is also a CIA analyst who is suddenly thrust into field duty to witness some unpleasant sanctioned activities in a foreign land, on a truly innocent man.
Yet all this isn't the REAL premise of the movie. The justification of three CIA agents black-bagging a man in the Washington, DC airport and taking him overseas is the start of the real focus of the film. A cell phone call traced by Uncle starts all the misery.
I viewed the film on a Wednesday night. What a big crowd. Other than my wife and I, there were 5 other people in the entire theater. My main purpose to see it was to prove a theory I had about who made the film and why, based on the televised previews. And it did.
The government is portrayed to employ a ruthless CIA woman that decides when some unfortunate person will get a free plane ride overseas to one of their secret hotel-hells where the room service is as bad as it gets.
In the film, the victim is an Egyptian college graduate and hapless chemical engineer who is living legally in the USA. The poor bastard is picked up under a classic case of "mistaken identity." Meryl Streep is the ruthless CIA woman. I won't give away the entire plot. You might still want to see it (when it airs free on television.)
Did I mention that coincidentally Streep now has more film awards than Hepburn and several other top actresses? Perhaps the aging Streep promised something like "Do this terrible film about how bad Uncle can be, and we'll make sure you get another award to add to your collection." Perhaps so. She portrays the head of the "CIA Anti-terrorism unit" as a real fanatic lacking common sense. And I'll bet she gets yet another award for her somewhat minor role in the film.
And the infamous Alan Arkin is in the film too. He even uses the "F" word once. Remember the film that made him famous, "Catch 22?" Catch 22 is a very difficult film to follow the first time you see it, as it seems to fade in and out of reality. Rendition spends some time doing the same thing.
The film's full-screen trailer website [1] is packed with complex subliminal visuals, as is the movie. There were signs of subliminal audio in the film, too. Uncle is moving up in the entertainment world at the same time he reaches down to a new low. This film seems to demonstrate yet another form of damage control for the increasingly failing public belief in Uncle's version of 9-11.
Are the "We-just-happened-to-be-running-simulations-of-planes- crashing-into-buildings-on-911" employees starting to sweat a bit? And yes, there was the obligatory reference or two to 9-11 was in the film claiming how that changed everything. The film was shot in LA, Morocco and South Africa according to the credits.
With a box office take of 8.2 million dollars [2] the film is unquestionably a big loss leader. Production costs far exceeded that sum, especially for extensive on-location shooting. Production costs easily exceed 20 million dollars today, with a large part of that money often going to lead talent.
So who made this film and funded it? Clearly in-your-face front companies are shown on the film's poster and in the film's credits: [3]
Note the first line of text under the credits:
NEW LINE CINEMA presents in Association with LEVEL 1 ENTERTAINMENT An ANONYMOUS CONTENT production
Have you got the idea who flipped the tab for this box office money loser from these names? If this is Level 1 Entertainment, can we imagine what Level 2 is? Is Level 2 about the rack? Flogging? Americans in POW camps... in America?
So who is the "Anonymous Content" production company? This company name fits right with the CIA named/owned "Air America" from the Vietnam War days. Can't Uncle employ someone who can dream up a production company name which is a little less obvious?
Anonymous Content's history dates back to some ten films only one year to 2006. It has produced films with Warner, Universal and Paramount. Rendition is the first time this production company paired up with New Line Cinema. They are releasing another new film in 2008. [4]
There is also the possibility that Uncle wants to see if someone detects this mind game being played, too. Uncle employs batteries of psychologists who do nothing but cook up new ways to manipulate the public mind and play mind games.
Imagine who also funded, owned and operated the WW2 propaganda machine known as "Movie Tone News." This sort of thing has been going on since movies first came out. The US, England, Hitler and many countries have all done this.
Rendition is all about making the public accustomed to nasty, Uncle- authorized interrogation tricks such as being strung up, water- boarded, electrical shock and being shoved into a cramped, filthy dark cell called "the hole." (They did leave out relentless beatings, chemical burns and drug injections for some strange reason. Probably some of that will be in another film like it.) And no, Zell wasn't there holding a dental tool asking "Is it safe?" But he could have been.
This certainly won't be the last film produced by Uncle's propaganda department. Think about what WAS censored in the past, like a simple kiss on film. Censorship today is almost non- existent, which is the perfect environment for propaganda.
I tend to disagree with Mr. Twietmeyer's assessment that this is a propaganda film. You have to ask the question, who benefits? This can't possibly make people feel good about renditions and the Patriot Act along with all of the illegal wire taps.
I'd be curious as to who financed the movie, but perhaps they are not the bad guys as theorized by Mr. Twietmeyer, whoever they are.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006