[The Saucepan Man]

Some very well made and thought-provoking comments.

Having read them, I went back and re-read the two articles. There is an essential difference between them.

The first is saying that TTT (the film) is a piece of war propaganda purely because of the situation it portrays: the writer of the article sees a violent struggle between good and evil and makes a direct link to the war on terorism/potential war on Iraq. That is a clear example of the wooly-thinking I mentioned in my previous post. This film is no more meant as a piece of war propaganda than was the book.

The second article seems to recognise that neither the book nor the film were intended as war propaganda, but argues that, in the current socail/political climate, they will be taken as such. That, I think is a valid point, particularly since this is precisely what the writer of the first article seems to have done.

My concern, which I sought to express in my previous posting, is that some people who see the film and read articles such as this (the first one) will take it as some kind of validation of their thoughts on US foreign policy. Surely, that is rightly a matter for concern and an issue on which the writer of the second article validly comments (albeit clearly with only a vague knowledge of the book).