The Silver Screen
Consider a world where you can lose your pants as long as you don't lose face. Then look around you. The War on Terror "largely does not exist" for Hollywood, argues Andrew Klavan, because the idea of good American guys hunting down foreign bad guys is just not cool -- it sounds bigoted. In the LA Times Klavan writes:
In order to honestly dramatize the simple truth about this existential struggle, you have to depict right-minded Americans — some of whom may be white and male and Christian — hunting down and killing dark-skinned villains of a false and wicked creed. That's what's happening, on a good day anyway, so that's what you'd have to show.
Moviemakers are reluctant to do that because, even though it's the truth, on screen it might appear bigoted and jingoistic. You can call that political correctness or multiculturalism gone mad — and sure, there's a lot of that going around. But despite what you might have heard, there are sensible, patriotic people in the movie business too. And even they, I suspect, falter before the prospect of presenting such a scenario. ...
Which is a shame. It's a shame for so powerful an art form to become irrelevant because we can't find a way to dramatize the central event of our time. It's a shame that we live under the tireless protection of lawmen and warriors and don't pay tribute to them. And purely in artistic terms, it's a shame that so many great stories are just waiting to be told and we're not telling them.
But thanks, anyway, to the men and women of the FBI, for the seminar and, oh yeah, for trying to keep me alive and free. You truly have my gratitude. Just don't expect to see it at the movies.
Klavan's article is brilliant, but he fails in his choice of words in one singular respect. It's not a "shame" for "for so powerful an art form to become irrelevant because we can't find a way to dramatize the central event of our time". It's a scandal. Some individuals may find it convenient to blame President Bush for all the reversals that have taken place since he started fighting the War on Terror. And doubtless many reversals are the result of the President's mistakes and his alone. But to a certain extent whatever failures have befallen are partly ours too. The desire for safety without paying the price; the hope that evil men will back down simply because we believe they will. All will have its price. And it would be well to remember, for those who rejoice in watching George Bush pay the penalty for his errors, that the Wheel may round on us too. That one day we may awake to world grown weary of our childhood. Alone in the movies. And the lawmen gone away.
posted by wretchardthecat at 1/26/2007 04:17:00 PM
16 Comments:
Another issue with Hollywood depicting reality is the "man bites dog" syndrome. A depiction of a routine event - a dog biting a man, a priest who isn't a pedophile or having an affair, a politician who is (relatively speaking) honest - doesn't seem as interesting as a depiction of a shocking or unusual event - like a soldier involved in a heist or atrocity.
Or, more appropriately, our entertainment industry is so unlacking in creativity that they can't build a compelling story out of a more realistic event. They have to fish at the bottom of the gutter, find the most shocking and out of place story, and then try to present that as "truth telling."
unlacking in creativity
Oops, self-editing error. Meant to write "lacking in creativity"
Both seasons of Sleeper Cell are very well done. But given the amount of unadulterated crap which is produced, it's really damning with faint praise.
It's particulary strange that the center of gay activism wouldn't care about a culture which generally accepts throwing gays off the nearest tall building. Makes James Dobson seem like a cute little teddy bear, but they're all over him. To their credit, Sleeper Cell adressed the issue in its second season, but graphically, if you know what I mean. It's Showtime.
Hollywood is a sore subject with me. Though I totally disagree with D'Souza's larger point (that 9/11 is Hollywood's fault) that Hollywood isn't helping is an understatement.
Various scenes from the latest James Bond movie gave the most straightforward and un-PC depiction of anti-terror warfare I had seen on the big screen for some time.
They don't seem to have dented its commercial performance.
the first episodes of 24 got a rise out of the hollywood left for showing middle eastern terrorists and a suitcase nuke going off in LA.
word is they recently arrested someone from the former USSR state of Georgia in a sting for trying to sell weapons grade uranium uraniumthe perp thought was going to mideast terrorists.
From the LATimes? You don't reckon the left is beginning to stick a toe into the war-water, do you?
I think it's worse than leftist political correctness.
Imagine Hollywood describing a situation where black Africans get massacred by lighter skinned Arab Muslims. Or where dark skinned Muslims get sneered at by wealthy arrogant Saudis. Or slavery in Mauretania. Or Niger. Or Sudan. Or documenting the endemic (anti-dark skin) racism of Pakistani society. Or documenting the brutality of Saudi masters against Filipino maids. Or documenting the horrific working conditions in Dubai of people who aren't getting paid. Or how the United Arab Emirates is the center of a generations-old international flesh trade to satisfy rich Arabs who seek to deflower adolescent girls of their virginity. And on and on and on. Islamism is the Jim Crow of the 21st century.
(What? We can't have some version of Total Recall with a bunch of decadent Gulf Arabs as the bad guys...?)
The fact is, it would not be difficult to have factual (or realistic) movie scripts with white Muslims as the bad guys and black non-Muslims (or Christians) as the good guys.
Let's not forget how the 20th century Ku Klux Klan was fostered by Hollywood's "Birth of a Nation". Let's not forget how Hollywood moguls tried to interfere with Charlie Chaplin's production of "The Great Dictator". Let's not forget Louis B. Mayer's critical role in defeating Upton Sinclair during the 1934 election for Governor of California. Far from being leftist "political correctness", I think Hollywood's unwillingness to make movies against Islamo-fascism is part and parcel of its historical legacy of bigotry and complacency.
As far as I can tell, the folks running the Hollywood studios are a bunch of racist dope fiends who masquerade their casual bigotry as political correctness. Expecting Hollywood to speak out against Islamo-fascism now would be like expecting Hollywood to speak out against Jim Crow during the silent movie era.
It would be interesting to find out how much revenue Hollywood derives from Muslims. Is it a lot or a little.
Not sure what real price Bush is paying. As someone who, comparatively at least, has shown himself to be the closest to a genuine and responsible leader in the WH in a generation or more, he has always been seemingly indifferent to polling numbers.
On the key matters of war, Bush has not governed as though it's "about him", which is as it should be. I think he's comfortable to await history's judgment, as well he should be.
All of that aside (sorry, big digression) .... what I've found very depressing is that Hollywood is no longer content with ignoring recent/current US military accomplishments and heroism - with Eastwood's Iwo duology, Hollywood is even reaching back and muddying the waters on WWII.
Leaving aside its great flaws simply as a movie (impossible to follow, didn't begin to tell the incredibly compelling and simple story that made the "Flags" book so memorable), the first Iwo movie left the average viewer with little more than the impression that cheap hucksterism was the driving force in war-time fund-raising, and that native Americans were mistreated and usually intoxicated during the war.
But the real head-shaker was the second movie ("Letters"), which managed to educate the movie-going public to the effect that the Imperial Japanese Army was plagued by a few hot-heads as opposed to an essential and pervasive brutality and barbarism, that the Japanese treated POWs with kindness, and Americans shot Japanese POWs in cold blood. A more spectacular and ridiculous inversion of historical reality is hard to imagine.
So to the scandalous refusal to tap the incredible dramatic potential of recent and current US military virtuousity, add the frustration of WWII buffs who are excited by the prospect of contemporary cinematic techniques being applied to their favorite historical topic, yet are greeted with revisionist stuff that ranges from disappointing to preposterous.
"Private Ryan" with its moral ambiguity arguably tilted towards the grim neccessity of war is the only exception in recent times, along with the superb "Band of Brothers" put together by the same Spielberg/Hanks team. But maybe I've missed something - truth is, unless there's a high-profile war flick of some sort that comes along, I very rarely venture into a movie theater any more. Been that way for years, only partly due to the issues raised in this post.
icecold: ...truth is, unless there's a high-profile war flick of some sort that comes along, I very rarely venture into a movie theater any more. Been that way for years, only partly due to the issues raised in this post.
Film is an art form that elicits a mood. That's why silent pictures worked. The best ones leave you thinking about them for days. But Hollywood has turned cinema into a format for preaching an ideology. Get the kiddies in, show them the helicopters and explosions, tell them how evil Bush's war policy is (or enviromental policy, or waterboarding policy), and get them out because they're really only interested in the ticket and popcorn money they leave behind. As soon as the filmgoers get to the parking lot again they've forgotten most of the narrative, and all that remains is a vague rotten feeling about American troops, the American President, and America herself.
But this is a self-defeating procedure, because people don't want to pay money and invest two hours of their life in a crowded theater with obnoxious patrons just to be made to feel lousy.
Occasionally a maverick director will come along to make an indie outside of the studio system that earns a billion dollars (like Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ) but the money, and the accomplished film itself, are the only rewards. No accolades, awards, and peer-adulation lie that way. But they will be made, because the very dearth of good war films will make it stand out that much more.
Hollywood is about distribution. With the internet and youtube anyone can be a Hollywood movie producer. And that means you, Cedarford. I guess we don't have to wonder what "patriotic" movies you will be making.
Unlike the electorate, the political class fully comprehends the value of a good distraction.
___The Two Year Program of Catching and Releasing Iranian Saboteurs___
What would have happened to the Bush administration and the Republican Party in the 2006 election had the public known of the two year policy of catching and releasing Iranian saboteurs - some of whom killed American troops?
Where were the military bloggers, who knew or reasonably should have known of the two year policy of catching and releasing Iranian saboteurs – some of whom killed American troops?
The administration and their friendly military bloggers will be pleased with the distraction of the slap on the wrist planned by the United States Senate next week, with Republican senators in tow.
The Religion of Peace™. A religion that will remove a living girl's head for islamic charity with nary a complaint from their moderate contingent. Also known as the religion of human sacrifice.
Don't you suppose the box office success of "United 93" made front office types sit up and take notice? It's well known that if something works in Hollywood, i.e. makes money, it will be repeated and repeated.
What does "United 93" have that's repeatedable? Americans as hero's and Arabs as villains.
Hmmmm. Having to make a choice between continuing to manufacture the "feel good" dreck that has been making audiences avoid the movies in swarms, or to come right out and show Muslims as bad guys and Americans defending themselves, which seems to be a money-making proposition. 'tis a puzzlement.
Imagine C4s' angst when he discovers Joos in his lineage while conducting geneology research.
Much of Hollywood's revenue comes now from overseas distribution, from audiences conditioned by a non-stop narrative of American wickedness, served to them by their local media mandarins.
Plots featuring an out-of-control CIA or a corrupt President not only fit foreign audience expectations, but also track closely the anti-establishment narrative which has been a Hollywood staple for more than a generation.
The idea of an arrogant, greedy, Gaia-destroying America winning anything against the world's virtuous downtrodden, those with with media-legitimized 'greivances' whom America has 'oppressed' and 'humiliated' simply doesn't fit the business model.
Post a Comment
<< Home