The 2023 20:20 Frame Game

Young Andrew, let’s go The Social Network

The Social Nope!


Lions for Lambs I think?

Ding, ding, ding! Robert Redford’s 2007 movie about America’s then 6-year war in Afghanistan. I saw it in the theater when it released. It’s a very talky movie, loosely connecting three concurrent stories. One is in California, where Redford’s college professor is trying to get one of his promising-but-dialing-it-in students to care about the world. Another shows two of his former students fighting and dying in Afghanistan. And a third is a GOP senator (Senator Cruise, not Cruz) talking to a NY Times-like reporter about the brilliant new strategy to win the war.

It’s got an impressive cast. Redford. Streep. Peter Berg in full on hoo-ah mode. Derek Luke and Michael Pena as the guys in Afghanistan. And a largely unknown Andrew Garfield, who is a full three years away from The Social Network. Oh, and the world’s greatest professional stuntman in the role of a US senator. Although it’s really interesting because this seems to be the most political role that Cruise has tackled, and this is one of the last movies he seems to tackle that is about ideas and not about hanging off the side of an airplane in flight.


80:80 Meryl in an Oscar-worthy moment as a NY Times writer. Really captures the Times.

And we need a bonus for Michael Pena

I had forgotten Garfield was in it.

Pena, on the other hand, is one of my favorite unsung actors. He seems always a bridesmaid, but never the bride.

New 20:20 this evening.

I don’t think I even knew this film existed. The cast is great. Is the movie actually good?

It’s largely forgotten for a reason. It’s very talky. And it came at a time when it was still difficult to question the war on terror. But it is an interesting relic of its time. And, as noted, the cast is loaded.

Been awhile since I saw it, but I remember it being talky and didactic and largely pretty boring. The top-notch cast doesn’t save it, sadly, since nobody would be particularly good at delivering these speeches.

I feel like the writer would’ve been better served just writing a book instead.

I was wrong, I haven’t seen it! I guess Andrew Garfield just always looks like that.

If this is too big a mess, say so, and I can try again after work, The only copy I could find has a frelling watermark across it, and had the title permanently in the upper left.

Anyway, in what film would you see this at the 20:20 mark?

Try this:

I will give that a try this evening for 40:40.

The last couple of films I did were easy. I may have shifted too far in the other direction this time!


Pretty sure this is a fail, but here is the 60:60

Seems kinda like a Hollywood version of what an old European town is supposed to look like. Looks nice whatever it is.

Well, it is a French film, so maybe the French version of what they think the Hollywood version of an old French town would look like?

That’s what I get for trying to be clever!

@BennyProfane when you strike out, you’ve got to try again, them’s the rules.

Yeah, pondering. There are 80:80 and 100:100 still, but I think it is better to throw in the towel.

The film is

Le Rouge et le Noir, 1954. Based on a very fine novel by Stendhal.

I will find another this evening.