| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| Hollywood's New War Effort: Terrorism Chic | |
| 2005-08-11 | |
| Via Power Line. EFL. This is despicable. (I'd say beyond belief, but unfortunately it's not.) (Jason Apuzzo is a filmmaker, Co-Director of The Liberty Film Festival, and Editor of the conservative film blog LIBERTAS.) Slow to awaken after the 9/11 attacks, Hollywood has finally come around to contributing what it can in the War on Terror: namely, glossy, star-studded movies that sympathize with the enemy. This isn't quite accurate. They sympathize with America's enemies, not the people Hollywood has decided are their enemies (i.e., the Republicans who were ELECTED by the obviously stupid American people). Hard to believe? Not really Here's the pitch: with box-office numbers trending down, studio executives are suddenly greenlighting movies they can describe to shareholders as 'controversial' or 'timely.' Whether the films are anti-American or otherwise demoralizing to the war effort is apparently immaterial. Not true - in Hollyweird's case I think it's a plus. Its appetite whetted by "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s $222 million worldwide gross, Hollywood thinks it's found a formula for both financial security and critical plaudits: noxious anti-American storylines, bathed in the warm glow of star power. Here are just a few films already in the pipeline:
That whirring sound you hear is Ludlum spinning in his grave. Along with Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, etc. The above list, ... there are more ... incidentally, should not be taken as comprehensive. For example, Paramount also has projects in the works about a 'reformed' al-Qaeda operative, and about the victim of an Iraqi suicide bomber. Little about these projects has been made public. I wonder why. (No, I don't. Even they're ashamed of what they'll do to make a buck.) One thing should be obvious from this list: left-wing agitprop filmmaking is no longer the purview of desperate, 'indie' filmmakers with shaky camcorders and maxed-out credit cards. The films listed above are being made by large, multi-national corporations - and will feature sophisticated, expensive marketing campaigns with A-list stars. Imagine Leni Riefenstahl cross-promoting "Triumph of the Will" with People Magazine covers and E! Channel specials. That's more or less what Hollywood has in mind. I'd go with the "more" and skip the "less" completely. The proper 'response' for this sort of thing is simple, if complex in execution. At some point conservatives need to raise capital, pick up cameras and start making movies of their own - much like Mel Gibson did with "The Passion." And conservatives should do this not simply to 'rebut' the other side, but to add depth and imagination to what has become a wasteland of popular entertainment. Principle is nice, but I'd suggest they do it for the money. Make good movies - not the trash described above and what Hollyweird generally puts out - and the American people will flock to see them. Unlike now. Most Hollywood insiders - even liberals - agree that Hollywood is in a creative depression. More conservative voices can only help what has become a bleak situation for the town, both artistically and financially. Movies are a powerful force in shaping the imagination of our culture, and in defining how history is remembered. And the traitors in Hollyweird know it - that's why they're doing this. It will be a great shame if all we leave behind from this vital period in American history is a shoddy trail of "Syriana"s, "V For Vendetta"s or "American Dreamz" - rather than a "Casablanca" or a "Notorious." But conservatives obviously can't wait for Hollywood to do that for them - they're going to have to do it themselves. Read the whole thing. At the rate they're going, Hollyweird will never get another dime from me. And I'll probably start sending videos back to some of these "stars" *spit*.
| |
| Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
#25 I believe that LIBERTAS is way off on this one. V for Vendetta is Alan Mooreâs visionary 1980's graphic novel about a future England that is literally fascist. You know, with jack boots, rousing Hitler-like speeches, the gestapo, and that sort of thing. Just like the liberals think we are today, or so I gather... |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-08-11 23:02 |
| #24 $ will eventually overcome bias. Mel can start a new United Artists along with Clint |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-11 19:28 |
| #23 BH - if you're still around, here's a link to a trailer of "V for Vendetta." How does it compare with the book (which I haven't read)? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-11 19:12 |
| #22 we can always hope that one morning we will wake up and they will have all turned into salt :-) But what I'm really hoping for is that with the internet and good/cheap video editing equipment readily available - we might actually get some good films produced and distributed by talented aspiring young filmmakers. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-11 19:04 |
| #21 2b - good point. It would be hard to catch, what with Hollyweird's habit of |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-11 18:56 |
| #20 Barbara - I agree with you. I was just wondering out loud if they are not getting funding from sources that are more than happy to support anti-American films. It's not easy to get funding for a film. I'm thinking more along the lines of Scott Ritter's Shiftin Sands. But that said, I think they are just true believers proselytizing their religion. Doesn't matter if it stinks - as long as the message is correct. "The Cause" is more important than anything else. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-11 18:18 |
| #19 Sadly, Barbara, I suspect you are right. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-08-11 17:25 |
| #18 "The directors There, I fixed your typo, SM. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-11 17:15 |
| #17 V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner. I believe that LIBERTAS is way off on this one. V for Vendetta is Alan Mooreâs visionary 1980's graphic novel about a future England that is literally fascist. You know, with jack boots, rousing Hitler-like speeches, the gestapo, and that sort of thing. It has already exterminated its minorities, specifically gays, lesbians, and troublesome intellectuals. The main character, who is known as âV,â is a survivor of concentration camp medical experiments who has gained what amounts to super powers from the experience. She is also quite mad in a particularly British manner, quoting Shakespear, dressing like Guy Faulks, and so forth. Natalie Portman isnât a âskinheadâ in the film. Her head gets shaved because she has been put in prison as a V collaborator. If I remember correctly V doesnât kill innocent bystanders, either. She targets specific people whom she feels are responsible for the deaths of her lover as well as the torments she has suffered while imprisoned. In the process she hopes to bring down what is, again, literally a fascist police state. Is V a terrorist? If so, are her actions justified or not? These are questions that the graphic novel asks the reader to answer for himself. It is a complex, compelling piece told partially from the perspective of the police detective who is tracking the protagonist. The graphic novel at least has nothing to do with modern Islamic terrorism. The directors may very well warp the original book into some stupid piece of Hollywood liberal garbage but, from the looks of the preview, it seems pretty true to the original. Also the movieâs catchphrase âPeople should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their peopleâ seems like a sentiment expressed mainly by modern American conservatives, myself included. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-08-11 16:37 |
| #16 As long as they don't cast Jessica Biel, I'm good to go on the boycott thingy. Did you see Stealth? Crappy movie but the scene at the waterfall, whoa, she was tight, y'know what I mean? Sorta gave me a headache and took all the air outta my lungs at the same time. All I could think about was getting all up close, personal, 'n stuff. I just wanted to rub my face in... I'm weak, I know. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-11 15:19 |
| #15 Yeah, and I thought when Peter Jackson cleaned up (and with a three-at-once gamble, with relative unkowns) I (foolishly) thought Hollywank would get on board. But it seems a Down-Under success can't be copied - or even learned from. Dodo birds. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-08-11 15:11 |
| #14 The "Lord of The Rings" Trilogy did EXTREMELY well. Think about the story... Choosing to fight for what they beleive in. Keeping hope for the future. Fellowship. Determination. Bravery. It seems hollywood just doesn't get what they're customers like. In a market economy they will NOT be around as a cultural influence for long. |
| Posted by: Ulereger Clavigum6227 2005-08-11 12:34 |
| #13 The Passion of the Christ did $370M domestic, $612M worldwide. Fahrenheit 9/11 did $119M domestic and $204M worldwide. If Hollywood was just in it for the money they would just make more Passion-like movies. However, Hollywood has an ingrained herd instinct. Sometimes it leads to everyone making movies out of old comic books. Sometimes it is a lemming-like pull to the left. Leonardo DiCaprio as an action hero? A George Clooney movie is a guaranteed stinker, so they can twist any plot they want. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2005-08-11 12:29 |
| #12 I question the timing, but I'm looking forward to V for Vendetta. I just wish someone had the stones to take on The Watchmen. |
| Posted by: BH 2005-08-11 09:56 |
| #11 I watched my third and, at least for me, my final episode of FX Channel's "OVER THERE." Sorry, but it bites! After a long, grueling battle with After a long interrogation process of a The message: American servicemen's "solemn word" are not to be believed. Great! Thanks Hollywood and TV Land. |
| Posted by: Glolusing Flereth5459 2005-08-11 09:48 |
| #10 Mike, Paul - don't know anything about the novel, but now is a lousy time to be making it into a movie. Where were they in the 1990's when it wouldn't have looked like they're making an "I love terrorists and English-speaking governments are evil" statement? 2b - the author said leftist Hollyweird is doing this crap for the money. (Which they'll mostly get from overseas audiences, a lot of whom will view all these films as documentaries, not that the leftist nutballs care.) My point is they could make good films supporting our country and the war and MAKE A BUNDLE. That they won't tells you all you need to know about the leftist Hollyweird crown. Of course, this is the same crowd that keeps making R-rated movies with lots of gratuitous violence and whining about box office receipts, even though they know G-rated movies always gross more. They're pathetic. I hope some conservatives start making good movies and get rich doing it - much as Mel did with "The Passion." What would be very interesting is if they approched "bankable" stars for good, America-loving movies and got turned down. Which I'm betting they would, even if said "star" doesn't have a project in the works at the time. Can you figure out I'm disgusted beyond measure with Hollyweird? Thank goodness for HGTV and the Food Network, or I wouldn't have any entertainment at all. RC - yes indeedy. That's why I named him first. What a man! |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-11 09:35 |
| #9 It's a toss-up which is more offensive: the fact that Hollywood is making these, or that they are clearly intended for the lucrative overseas market (their home American audience can go hang). That last is a twist on an infamous quote from Nixon's, eg. "F--- the Americans, they won't pay us money to watch these anyway." |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2005-08-11 09:26 |
| #8 Hmmm... I keep visualizing Geoffrey Rush, in "Shakespeare in Love", in the scene where Shakespeare outlines the plot of "Romeo and Juliet" for the players' company, telling them it will be a tragedy, and not a comedy with a funny bit for a dog. Half a beat, and he comments lugubriously, "Well, that'll have 'em rolling in the aisles." (or something to that effect.) If anything, this tends to prove Michael Medved's thesis, that Hollywood makes movies for Hollywood insiders(and maybe the foreign audience) and not the mainstream American audience. They seem to be willing to go to any lengths to keep from noticing that Mel Gibson, who made a movie that resonated with the mainstream American audience seriously cleaned up at the box office. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2005-08-11 09:25 |
| #7 V for Vendetta is a Graphic Novel written about 20 years ago, and is a piece that works on different levels. I doubt the Wachowski brothers could do it justice though |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-08-11 08:35 |
| #6 Kinda like CNN kicking off their last conservative (Novak) after he stormed off stage (I don't blame him a bit). That'll show us, won't it! They TRULY don't get it, and are just digging themselves a deeper and deeper pit! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-11 08:21 |
| #5 So now Hollywood is making films to appeal to that segment of the population which prides itself on only watching PBS on television, and only going to see art or foreign films at that lovely, old-fashioned little movie theatre in the city. Great marketing move, guys! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-11 08:13 |
| #4 That whirring sound you hear is Ludlum spinning in his grave. Along with Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, etc. Brigadier General James Stewart is running a pre-flight on his bomber... |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-11 07:48 |
| #3 Which is why Mel Gibson had to finance The Passion himself, but correct me if I'm wrong. Meanwhile, interactive console and personal computer games continue to claimed the much valued adult male 18-36, in which gross sales of some titles exceed movie takes. Why passively watch a story when one can participate in it? Besides the controversial GTA, war titles and first person shooters continue to represent a very strong market. Subscriptions to massive on line realtime games like WoW, have expansive participation and generate continued monthly capital flow. These are not baby ducks and puppy dog feel good themes. Wave goodbye movie land. However, Hollyweird should still be able to sustain the ever popular 'Chick Flick' market. |
| Posted by: Jaiter Graiper4098 2005-08-11 07:48 |
| #2 ...IIRC, 'V Is For Vendetta' has actually been in turnaround/development for a very long time, I think it was a graphic novel much like Frank Miller's 'Sin City'. And fiction about a screwed-up UK of the future has been popular for years - check out a very good little work called 'Show Me A Hero' (author forgotten). Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-08-11 07:24 |
| #1 Principle is nice, but I'd suggest they do it for the money. maybe they are doing it for the money. Their films suck and things are going south fast in Hollywierd. Anyone check to see whose funding these films? |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-11 05:13 |