Customer Reviews

Live From Baghdad [VHS]

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

From the opening frames of Michael Keaton trying to weasel his way into what he suspects will become the assignment of a lifetime, this production of CNN producer Robert Wiener's best-selling book, "Live from Baghdad" is a tightly shot, nerve-racking melodrama depicting how the CNN team bribed, cajoled and maneuvered their way into the story about the road to war in Iraq in 1990-91 and wound up being the only news network to cover the actual outbreak of the American bombing campaign. In the process they also single-handedly vaulted the reputation and stature of CNN into becoming the premier news source for the world at large. In one provocative scene, it shows the eyes of Saddam Hussein and George Bush after the first night of the war, both of them focused on the TV screen before them, tuned in to CNN.

Wiener literally sneaks the small and ill-regarded CNN team into Baghdad after the invasion of Iraqi forces into Kuwait amid threats form American President George Bush that the Iraqi invasion meant a certain American military response with an international coalition. Keaton plays the ambitious and neurotically-driven Wiener quite well, and he has an excellent leading lady by way of Helena Bonhan Carter, playing his erstwhile assistant producer, Ingrid Formanek. By far the most interesting character depicted is the Iraqi Information Minister Naji, is played to perfection by David Suchet (of Poirot fame on BBC TV). What ensues is a clever and dangerous `cat and mouse' game in which Wiener takes what victories as can be grabbed and dispersed over the secure lines he has conned the Iraqis into allowing. For example, they film Saddam's frightening interview with a young British boy, and without any voice over, catch the essence of the extreme fear of the boy in a way that both electrifies the world wide audience into understanding how horrific Saddam is and puts the lie to the idea that such hostages were merely the "guests "of the regime.

But the CNN team is manipulated and used by the Iraqis as well. In one particularly telling case, they are allowed to go to Kuwait city to interview doctors to quell the rumors of Iraqi soldiers having stolen incubators while leaving infants dying on the cold hospital ward floors. At the hospital, Wiener discovers the doctor is trembling with fear, an indication that the whole interview is a set-up, and when he attempts to alter the situation, finds himself and the crew forcibly ejected and manhandled back into the escort vehicles and quickly flown back to Baghdad. Arriving back in the city, he finds a nightmare situation; the Iraqis have meanwhile already leaked the news story they want, that being that the CNN team had found no evidence of the stolen incubators in Kuwait. Suddenly, the CNN team becomes the story of the day rather than just reporting it.

The final scenes leading to the initial American bombing attacks are accurate, well-produced, and nerve-shattering, as the team finds itself alone in the hotel and free to report the exclusive unfolding story of the invasion with an incredible job of voice-over reporting `live from Baghdad". The film is a thought-provoking production, and the "location shots" are quite realistic and very believable as being Baghdad, which obviously they were not. The panorama provided of the aftermath of the first night's bombing is horrific, and clearly portray the cruel and savage nature of modern warfare. While the movie pulls no punches, it is fairly apolitical, sticking to the basic story of how it is that CNN came to be the sole source of news for the first few days of the war, and how that happenstance launched CNN into becoming the news organization it is today. Enjoy!

Who would have thought that one of the best producers of quality films these days is a premium, cable television channel? It's one thing to have terrific shows like THE SOPRANOS & CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM, but to consistently put out films that are, in most cases, better than what gets released to local movie theatres is no small feat.
With "Live From Baghdad," HBO has outdone themselves, once again. Based on a true story and a book by Robert Wiener, this film tells the story of how the 1991 Gulf War put a fledgling news network, CNN, on the map.
Wiener (played by the always excellent and underrated Michael Keaton) and his crew set up shop in Baghdad on the eve of the war and, while all the other major networks bail as the Americans eventually strike Baghdad, they make the bold decision to stay and report.
I remember, clear as day, sitting in my living room, with my father, watching the coverage of CNN that night America first attacked. I was amazed at how daring and amazing the three reporters (John Holliman, Peter Arnett & Bernard Shaw) were at that time, as they remained in their room of the Al-Rashid hotel in downtown Baghdad with a microphone put up right by the window so that viewers could hear all the bombing. Director Mick Johnson perfectly recreates this scene and keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.
Keaton receives excellent support from the likes of Helena Bonham Carter (wonderful and sexy, as always), Lili Taylor and, especially, David Suchet, who plays Naji, an Iraqi gentleman from the Ministry of Information who assists Wiener and, eventually, befriends him.
Perhaps what's most effective with LIVE FROM BAGHDAD is that it doesn't take the easy way out and tell a one-sided view of the Gulf War. Nor does it let the viewer off the hook with a typical, triumphant, Hollywood ending.
While it's obvious that Wiener and crew are thrilled with what their bravery and courage has earned them, they are clearly conflicted and saddened that it took such utter death and destruction to get them such accolades.
I highly recommend listening to Mick Johnson's commentary. It's quite fascinating and engrossing and puts things in a much different perspective by reminding us that this thrilling and action-packed story is based almost entirely on fact!
Kudos again to HBO for producing quality material like LIVE FROM BAGHDAD. As usual, they have impeccable timing, for, as the film was about to premiere, America was on the verge of invading Iraq yet again. This is all the more reason to view LIVE FROM BAGHDAD, for it serves as a reminder of just how daring Wiener and his crew were.
With America's current occupation of Iraq, the television coverage is constant from the likes of the three major networks, BBC, FOXNEWS, etc. But, back in 1991, as one character in the film puts it, CNN "owned the war."

Yet another crisp production from HBO, a glimpse into the life and travails of reporters who covered the first Gulf War. Adapted from the memoirs of a real reporter, Bob Wiener.

How easily this could have gone down as a lame self-aggrandizing project underwritten by one member of the Time Warner family on behalf of another. But it's riveting drama instead, with dollops of integrity thrown in for good measure.

While the film is surely guilty of toting the CNN badge at times (it's just a TV channel folks) it does a remarkable job in capturing the grim realities of war time coverage, including many honest protrayals of the failings of the crew. The horror wreaked on Kuwait is brought back vividly during a sequence in which Wiener and his team travel to Kuwait to investigate allegations that Iraqi troops had ripped babies out of incubators as part of their plundering. Such news is hard to come by though, as is palpably evident in the hunt for that prize interview with Saddam Hussein.

Blood-curdling mindgames, inscrutable obstacles, ethical question marks, even a romantic subplot (which I believe could have been snipped a bit) -- the movie has oodles smooshed in, most of which have a powerful ring of truth and a striking sense of authenticity, as relevant, insane, urgent as tomorrow morning's headlines.

Heartily recommended all-round entertainer for discerning viewers.

This captured the competitiveness the networks had and still have regarding war coverage. Michael Keaton is great as the somewhat overanxious and egotistical CNN producer Robert Weiner. As a journalist myself, I enjoyed seeing how the press would jockey for the story and try to get the fresh angle, the upperhand with the news consumer. Helena Carter is excellent in the film in her role as a CNN co-producer, contrasting Weiner's brash ego with good old common sense. One of the big messages in the movie is that persistence pays and CNN was the most persistent network, it appeared as the Gulf War broke out.

As a TV journalist I may be a bit biased about this movie. I feel that Keaton's portral of a news producer was accurate, they really do try to do anything to get the story. Even though I was never in Iraq, I could see what the people went through, they knew if they survived it would be the story of their lifetime, and for many it was. Deciding if you should take the assignment to go into a war zone is a highly personal one, which you must weigh carefully. This movie shows what it was like in Iraq during the first Gulf War, with all the danger that is associated with being in a war getting the story. This is in my opinion the best example of what being a war corrospondent is really all about; and for all the history buffs out there this is how CNN got the exclusive on the Gulf War. 'Live from Baghdad' takes on more significance because of the recent war in Iraq, and since many still have loved ones over there. Buy the movie, if you like a good war pic, or are intrested in journalism.

This is probably a fairly accurate representation of how newscasters operated in Iraq during the Desert Storm War, and of how they operate in general in front-line, crisis situations. I think the movie was aiming at evoking viewers' admiration for the newscasters' courage and stamina in "getting the story." It was supposed to be a paean to CNN as it established itself as a credible, round-the-clock news source during this War. But for me, the movie had the opposite effect. It showed how rash and ultimately futile most of the media people's actions on the scene were.

Everyone is either on an adrenaline rush in this movie, or else is waiting it out in a tavern getting sloshed and sloppy. There is no happy in-between when any sane, informative reporting can take place. During their "on" periods, newscasters are seen rushing down corridors, pushing each other, jostling, jockeying to get the story before other broadcast networks can get it. And the story is usually some canned speech by Saddam Hussein or one of his cabinet members. People stoke their sense of self-importance by surrounding themselves with ringing phones. They agonize over power outages. It's all frenetic activity - signifying nothing.

Because when the War really starts, all that we get out of these many reporters' efforts are exclamations announcing another SCUD missile hit. We get "Wow! That was a big explosion! Wow, another one! The sky is lit up!" People risked their lives to tell the listening American public that a bomb just lit up the sky?

It seems there would have been opportunities for intrepid reporters to go out into Baghdad and get stories that would really have mattered - stories that would have enlightened the American public about the climate of opinion there, about conditions among Iraqi citizens, and about reasons for going to War or not going to War. But virtually nothing like that comes across. In the end, it all comes down to, "Wow, that was a big one!"

So I do think this movie is worth watching, but probably not for the reasons it was made. Instead of coming away from the film with an illustration of how good and worthy our reporters are, you, like me, may come away with an illustration of how far our news coverage needs to advance in order to be a really useful tool in the democratic decision-making process.

I teach Modern American history and this film is a attention getter and conversation starter on American policy overseas. A tight blend of history and personal adventure. Highly recommended.

Before I wrote my first review I had not read the book. Basically what that means is that I did not take into account what HBO would be willing to do to make the movie more palatable to an audience. The most obvious measure was inserting a hint of romance between the Micheal Keaton and Helena Bonham-Carter characters. If anything the movie follows the book pretty closely. Robert Wiener was in Iraq for many months as opposed to the films several week period, but it would not have been feasible for the film to depict this. If anything few "liberties" are taken and the film is all the more stronger for it.

I liked this movie because I'm a news junkie and a fledgling journalist myself, but I also liked it because of the acting by the various leads. Micheal Keaton has refined the manic energy of his more extreme roles to portray go-getting CNN producer Robert Wiener. You'd never think that Helena Bonham-Carter is British, I had no idea she was this good an actress. David Suchet as the Iraqi official who heads the Ministry of Information is superb also. The rest of the cast likewise deserves a big hand.

The question is whether or not the story is accurate or if the filmakers have taken "liberties." I tend to think that author and scriptwriter Wiener has given himself a small pat on the back in his portrayal of himself. In the movie he starts off as a hotshot relentlessly pursuing his agenda. When he inadvertantly puts the life of an oil worker in danger he finds himself questioning his journalistic ethics as well as his own morality. Ultimately his motives are noble and he is absolved of any wrongdoing. So what's the real story? Is this realism or idealization? I'd say it's some of both. In what proportions it is hard to say exactly. I'll give the movie the benefit of the doubt.

While this movie was well written and acted, it did strengthen my opinion about those in the media. I know alot of people may disagree with me on this, but in this film I saw nothing more than sick, egotistical vultures scrambling around trying to find "the next big story" with little regard to the people they hurt. For those of you who view the media of being comprised of elitist know-it-alls, watching this movie will assure you that your assessment is correct.

There are many examples throughout the course of the movie. The obvious fear of the British child being held hostage by Saddam being reduced to merely being a great story. The members of the other networks basically saying that it is their job to tell viewers what is important and why. The CNN crew agreeing to keep quiet about atrocities they saw in Iraq and Kuwait to avoid being thrown out of the country (so much for "we report, you decide"). Weiner sympathizing with the Iraqi propaganda official despite the fact that a hostage he interviewed was kidnapped, most likely under the orders of the same official. And on, and on.

Bottom line, this movie does a splendid job of showing how most of those in the media are legends in their own minds who will stop at nothing to exploit any human tragedy and suffering in the hopes of making it big, although I'm sure that this is not what the makers of the film were going for. There is nothing honorable about them. They were, and are, vultures.