G. Gordon Liddy - Still A Badass (Jeff Batts)
Forgive me, because this may turn into a rant...
I may be one of the few here, but I'm really skeptical of the effect of the whole anti-war music protest. I saw a lot of th demonstrations in the film and thought that they looked absolutely dumb. John Lennon was certainly a musical genius, but when he and Yoko teamed up, I don't know HOW they could have been taken seriously. Yoko really seemed to be just a little devil's advocate the whole time. In the old interviews shown, none of the reporters cared at all what Yoko had to say. The microphones and cameras were all focused on John, all the questions seemed to be addressed to John, and Yoko would just pop her head up and begin to say something, only to be cut off with a question for John. Apparently all she would do is come up with the crazy schemes that John would put into action. I couldn't believe it when John had the whole 'Newtopia' rant, asking for a spot on the UN floor, recognized citizenship, etc etc...I know it's all metaphorical, but it just sounds so stupid. I spent most of the film waiting for John to top himself with these insane ideas.
I really thought that G. Gordon Liddy came out looking like the only one with a level head. He seemed to take a no-nonsense approach to all the protests, and refused to give them any credit. I definitely enjoyed that because he seemed to be the only person in the film that wasn't brown-nosing John and Yoko. Because of that, he seemed to come off as the most believable person in the film. By being the one person going against the grain, what he had to say felt the most credible, and I believed him over the 99 people that were talking about how genius John and Yoko were. I really didn't think the government needed to focus so much attention on the anti-war movement. I bet that it was really only a small portion of the voting population that were actively campaigning against the war, it just seemed larger because of all the fuss they were making. When the quote came up that Americans could either shut up or leave, it really is a good way of summing up the feelings of both sides. It certainly seems like an extreme point of view, but it shows the hypocrisy of the anti-war movement. The government thought the war was the best course of action, and anyone who disagreed with them could shut up or leave. However, I'm sure the same stood for the protesters - anyone who agreed with the war should leave America because the war was 'so wrong'.
I agree with Street when he writes 'Music may still be able to change the world...', but I feel that it depends how the music is used. Concerts like Live Aid that work to use music to help improve the overall quality of life in the world are beneficial. However, concerts like the one held in Michigan for the convict (I forget his name...) seems subversive to any common good. The guy sold illegal drugs to a police officer, WHY would you treat him as some sort of political martyr? It's not like he's innocent. the music anti-war protest seemed like they were happy with stirring up trouble, and trying to make the government look like the ones in the wrong. Yes, the Kent State incident was tragic, but like they said, you have 18 year olds with guns being confronted by hostile protesters. They didn't shoot the students for target practice, for Christ's sake. I hate it when, in instances of fault on both sides, a refusal to acknowledge any sort of responsibility, and I think that sums up the anti-war protest's clash with the government. No one was right, but they refused to be wrong.
But that's just my two cents.