You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Hollywood About to Launch Major Anti-US, Anti-War Films
2005-09-25
Brace yourselves - the agitprop is hitting movie theaters everywhere this month and next.
A fine crop of politicised films reflecting the post-9/11 world will reach our screens this autumn. We haven't seen their like since the Seventies

After a summer of superheroes, spin-offs and sequels that failed to connect with audiences on both sides of the Atlantic, this autumn will usher in a host of more serious movies. Hollywood's inability to portray the real world has been alienating audiences, which partly explains why the US box office has been so disappointing this year. Escapism is one thing, but faced with daily news about war, floods, corruption and terrorism, cinemagoers want more intelligent movies.

There's a parallel to be drawn here with the early Seventies, when America, rocked by Watergate, entrenched in a controversial war waged by an increasingly unpopular right-wing President, produced a number of provocative movies by leading film-makers. They included a number of conspiracy thrillers and anti-Vietnam dramas that had a sense of unease about contemporary society. Now, Bush and Iraq have replaced Nixon and Vietnam to provide the kind of issues that Hollywood can no longer ignore. 'The reticence to take on America, post-11 September, seems to be fading,' wrote New York Times's film critic Manohla Dargis earlier this month.

The surprise box-office success of Crash, the brilliant, Los Angeles-set film that highlights racism and social problems in urban America, proves that there is an audience for serious films. Hollywood appears to be following in the footsteps of international art-house directors.
But strangely, they're not making films to appeal to middle America.
There was a global unease among films in the selection at Cannes in May. Austrian film-maker Michael Haneke's superb Hidden, starring Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche, dealt in some part with France's festering colonial guilt. Canadian David Cronenberg's A History of Violence concerned a legacy of brutality resurfacing in a small American town. Rather less subtly, Dane Lars von Trier's Manderlay attacked America's history of slavery which ended over a century ago.

The trend of disquiet continued at the Venice Film Festival earlier this month. The Constant Gardener, by Fernando Meirelles, gripped a few of us with a pharmaceutical scandal that seeped through African soil all the way to Whitehall. George Clooney's drama about Fifties television journalists, Good Night and Good Luck, recreated the political bullying and paranoia of the McCarthy era. Although its critique is veiled in black and white, it doesn't take much to read into it parallels with current concerns about the corporate ownership of US media (Hollywood studios included).

Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain, the winner of the Golden Lion, perverted subverted the great American genre of the western to make a gay cowboy love story at a time when Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is fighting to restrict gay rights.

New films dealing with the Middle East include Jarhead by Sam Mendes, which is about an American soldier's experiences during Desert Storm; Steven Spielberg is re-examining terrorism from the Arab point of view with Munich, about the kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics; American politics, after the satirical drubbing it took from Jonathan Demme's remake of The Manchurian Candidate which few people saw last year, is put under the microscope again in the All the King's Men, about a corrupt Louisiana politician for which George Bush will be blamed .

Critics and audiences alike are eager to find meaning in the most unlikely places. Horror director George A Romero's return to film last week, with Land of the Dead, has brought allegorical readings as his zombies wade through flood waters to haunt the living who would rather block out their existence. The most ferocious bidding war at the recent Toronto Film Festival was for distribution rights to an indie drama about the tobacco industry, Thank You for Smoking.

Fingers are being pointed and brains, it seems, are back on the big screen, quite literally in the case of Lord of War, a new film about international arms dealing by Andrew Niccol, which opens with a startling sequence tracing the journey of a bullet from its manufacture in a Russian factory to its ultimate discharge via the barrel of an AK-47 into the head of an African child.
Hollywood recognizing third world brutality with Russian arms? That twitched the surprise meter.
Starring Nicolas Cage as a monstrous arms trader, the film is a ferocious and funny satire on a diabolical subject. Unusually for a big budget film with an A-list Hollywood star, it blatantly attacks American foreign policy, concluding that 'the President of the USA is the biggest arms dealer in the world'.
Oh. Back to form.
These films are concerned with the actions of individuals when faced with global-scale issues, calling into question collective responsibilities and forcing audiences to deal with their complicity in the chaotic political and social situations wrought by Western governments. Not your usual blockbuster material, then, but healthy early box-office receipts in America suggest audiences are ready to think again.

It's significant, however, that while both films aren't exactly pure Hollywood products, they can certainly be labelled 'leftist' 'mainstream'. So incongruously thoughtful are they that it strikes me that perhaps they slipped under the studios' safety radars. Some critics in America seemed disappointed that Lord of War, contrary to the image conveyed by its trailer, wasn't a typical Nic Cage action movie. The Constant Gardener, on the outside, might have looked like another English Patient, a handsome love story, starring Ralph Fiennes, a nice English girl (Rachel Weisz) and gorgeous scenery.

Speaking from his home in Los Angeles, Niccol said: 'No conventional Hollywood studio would touch the script, especially as I sent it in a week before the war on Iraq began. But somehow, they seem to have come around a bit and, although the financing had to come from various sources around the world, the film is being distributed on studio-owned screens.

'Hollywood's only allegiance these days is to money. If they think there's cash to be made by making films with a conscience, then you might see a revival of that kind of film-making. Otherwise, forget it.' In the film, Niccol, who wrote The Truman Show, satirises the profiteering to be had out of provoking war, subtly raising questions about firms such as Halliburton who actually do something for a living.

He added: 'America is certainly starting to look outward at last. The impact of its actions and the world's attitude towards them is being thrown in its face. My film is only based on what I've torn from the newspaper headlines. It's just that maybe I read more closely or widely than most.'

He pointed to the situation whereby it was cheaper for him to buy 3,000 real guns for his film than to get a props department to make them. A line of tanks stretching to the horizon is also real, belonging to a Czech arms dealer. 'We had to warn Nato when we shot the scene,' he said, 'otherwise their satellite photos would make it look like someone was mobilising an army to start a war.'

Lord of War and The Constant Gardener both feature the United Nations in the sidelines, picturing the organisation as involved, yet powerless to pick a way through the insanity of globalisation.
They got the powerless part right at least.
As the poignant footnote at the end of Lord of War says: 'The world's biggest arms suppliers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China. They are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.'

It's interesting that when the UN finally allowed a film to be made in its hallowed building earlier this year - The Interpreter, starring Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn - the director was Sydney Pollack who made one of those key Seventies conspiracy movies, Three Days of the Condor. Our Your paranoia has shifted over the last 30 years. Conspiracy movies used to be mainly American concerns, focusing on giant, shadowy bodies (corporations, commissions etc) joining forces against the wrong man.

Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 North by Northwest, which again featured the UN, lead to Alan Pakula's 1974 The Parallax View. But now such films have a global reach. In The Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles, the Brazilian who made City of God, brings a scathingly satirical eye to the layers of society in Nairobi, from the shanty town of Kibera to the ex-pat mansions and golf courses. One brilliant scene zooms in on the kitchens at the British ambassador's pile, where black hands work furiously preparing food. The camera hovers over the action like a fly, then follows a waiter carrying a tray of drinks through swing doors to where white politicians laugh and strike deals with big business.

The enemy in movies was often the classic Cold War battle between capitalism and communism. Corporate greed is now the enemy, with the 'good guy' being a form of social humanism. And the new generation of film-makers even act on their conscience. Lord of War has struck up an alliance with Amnesty International. 'See the film, sign our petition,' claims its website.

It's clearly no longer a lonely planet and this is reflected in the new breed of global cynicism in the cinema. Cynicism is the dramatic meat of films now, with socially conscious messages offering food for thought and providing rays of hope. Directors such as Meirelles and Niccol, a New Zealander, can bring an outsider's view to Hollywood films, a view borne of their experience of travelling from continent to continent. Audiences are more geographically sophisticated, too, and readily accept films that encompass a downbeat global view. This new generation of films can mine a cynical seam because there's no need to be preachy; that's the domain of documentarists such as Michael Moore and anti-corporate writers like Naomi Klein.

It's interesting to note that George Clooney's film closes the forthcoming London Film Festival; two weeks earlier, The Constant Gardener opens proceedings. Hollywood may not quite be prepared to bite the corporate hand that feeds it, but more film-makers are thinking beyond the next merchandising opportunity. It has been many years since two such overtly political films were available to bookend a major festival; it's some sort of miracle that they're also coming to a multiplex near you soon.
Posted by:lotp

#25  I feel the problem with hollywood is that its too 'professional' and its no longer about making movies people can enjoy - but making money and/or advancing a political cause.

Same sort of shait what brings is bubblegum music which is cranked out by a factory somewhere.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-09-25 23:50  

#24  Wait, how's anime NOT afflicted by the same??? (If anything, I hate it for much the same.)
Posted by: Edward Yee   2005-09-25 21:57  

#23  The whole US media scene is pretty bad. From what's called music to movies. I have been watching Japanese animation, there is nothing much worth watching made here. Screw Hollyweird and their lawyers.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2005-09-25 16:59  

#22  Who would have ever thought that Hollywood would become less cool and less capable of raising cash than those used-salesmen turned preachers that ask for money every 30 seconds on Sunday morning TV.

If you just believe, and send us your last dollar, God will pay for your health insurance!! {adjusts toupee, cries, and bursts into tounges} Cast away thee George Bush
Satan
Posted by: 2b   2005-09-25 15:53  

#21  The movies are crap these days, but there are still a couple interesting "guilty pleasures" available on TV, in spite of my local cable company's incompetent channel shuffling: the two "Stargate" series and the remake of Battlestar Galactica.

The sad thing is I missed a fair bit of the new episodes this year because I thought from the stunt casting in the former series that a lot of it was going downhill. But it's been fun watching Rainbow Sun Frederick's character lose his mind and the original series go back to its roots of fighting technologically advanced aliens pretending to be gods...

(And regarding BSG, I ran across this interesting bit at Ron Moore's infrequently-updated blog:

It's up to you to decide who you like and who you don't. Personally, I like all of them. I like their flaws and I like their virtues, and for me, it's not a matter of finding redemption for anyone as much as it is a matter of allowing each character to be true to who and what they are and finding the most emotionally truthful storyline for them each week.

Sure, Tigh's made bad decisions and he'll likely make more, but isn't it interesting how all the good he did last season, all the good decisions he made, are suddenly overshadowed by the few bad choices he made this season? Tigh saved the entire ship during the miniseries, held the crew together through the nightmare of "33", located the lost fleet in "Scattered" and knew how to defeat the Centurion boarding party in "Valley of Darkness," but now that he's made a few bad calls (and some were really bad) he's called a worthless loser. What does that say about the nature of heroism? Does it mean that bestowing the title of Hero is less about discerning the intrinsic nature of a man than it is simply another example of the old game of "Yeah, but what have you done for me lately?" We love you today, but if you screw up tomorrow, you're history. Maybe that's only fair. Maybe that's the way it's supposed to work. Maybe. Again, it's up to you to decide, you're the audience. Me, I love Tigh and Starbuck and all of'em. Warts and all.


Interesting food for thought, at least for me... whether that's applicable to any recent events is something I'm still trying to figure out.)
Posted by: Phil Fraering   2005-09-25 15:51  

#20  Yeah, Frank, and there was that three-part "Ring" thingy. Oh, wait - Hollywood couldn't make that one, it hadda come from New Zealand.
Posted by: Bobby   2005-09-25 14:24  

#19  "Tears of the Sun" is one of the best war movies I have ever seen. I rate it right up there with "The Blue Max" and "Pork Chop Hill" in its portryal of war.
Posted by: badanov   2005-09-25 14:22  

#18  Hollywood isn't all bad. Nobody saw "Tears of the Sun"? "We Were Soldiers"? Honorable warriors doing their best portrayed honestly...

of course one was Mel Gibson and the other was Bruce Willis, neither of whom marches to the left
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-25 14:12  

#17  Grom! Whadda you ? Some kinda history nut? Don't be confusing the lefties and simpletons! Or am I redundant? Kennedy = good; Nixon = bad. Johnson = good; Reagan = Bad.
Posted by: Bobby   2005-09-25 14:08  

#16  Prediction - same time next year: Hollywood movie viewership down for the year, studio executives blame piracy and the Internet.
Posted by: DMFD   2005-09-25 13:58  

#15  There's a parallel to be drawn here with the early Seventies, when America, rocked by Watergate, entrenched in a controversial war waged by an increasingly unpopular right-wing President,

I thought Kennedy started the Vietnam war, and Nixon ended it?
Posted by: gromgoru   2005-09-25 13:16  

#14  Yawn, hollywood attacks US foreign policy
zzzzz

EASY TARGET you won't get shot or disappear or get a fatwa placed on your head.

I'll pay my $10.50 when hollywood makes a movie about Islamist terrorists and their evil cult of death that supports US foreign policy for a change.

Y'know, something CHALLENGING and INTELLIGENT to popular culture.
Posted by: anon1   2005-09-25 12:45  

#13  "Crash" was actually a good film. I hadn't heard of it either until my daughter rented the DVD, but I really don't pay much attention to movies anymore.

I suspect that "brains" in movies will become even more popular as revenues drop. Movies with lesser known talent and fewer special effects will be much cheaper to make. A cheaper movie can make money off of a smaller audience, and Hollywood, like the MSM and the Democratic party are increasingly targeting a core base that shares their values.
Posted by: DoDo   2005-09-25 12:39  

#12  Re: Halliburton, the firm started as a shipbuilding company, then expanded into ship terminal construction - esp. in the oil industry areas of TX and LA.

They developed expertise in emergency response services, beginning with oil well fires and then expanding into other major emergencies such as chemical factory fires.

As a result of their experience in those areas, they developed the corporate world's premier skills for security management in hostile regions. The State Dept. contracted them, under Clinton, to upgrade security at embassies around the world, for instance.

Also under Clinton the military began issuing a 5 year contract for logistical support services throughout the services. They won the first one, lost the second and won the 3rd award, which is currently in progress.

The logistical support contract is Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity - i.e. it is legally structured to have the govt ask for this or that task and negotiate the number of hours and other costs per task, with the financial basics fixed (how much per hour for, say, a petroleum engineer with 15 yrs experience, how much overhead and the maximum profit % allowable). Congress set up the IDIQ contract
structure back in the 80s to make contracting more cost efficient and take less time to get critical tasks done.

Put these all together: oil, security, emergency reponse capabilities (including a bunch of people holding security clearances from the State Dept. work) plus an existing contracting vehicle and you can see why DOD awarded the "non competed" initial contract to Halliburton for oil field / pipeline-related work on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: lotp   2005-09-25 12:30  

#11  Waddaya mean "about to"? They've been doing this shit for years - they're just not bothering to hide/deny it anymore.

RC asks: "Are these people this incredibly stupid? Or is this intentional?"

That would be a "yes," RC. But you knew that.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-09-25 12:26  

#10  I'm still laughing over the fact that art imitates art. That is, Cartman was right for saying that film festival movies are about "gay cowboys eating pudding".
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-09-25 12:20  

#9   Lord of War has struck up an alliance with Amnesty International. 'See the film, sign our petition,' claims its website.

I'm confused, is that too support the arms dealer's defense or to support the stop of arms dealing?
Posted by: Charles   2005-09-25 12:18  

#8  "Are these people this incredibly stupid? Or is this intentional?"

Yes.
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-09-25 12:16  

#7  Isn't Halliburton in the oil services business?

Well, the Hollywood People think it's evil for anyone in the US to get oil in any other way than buying it from the Arabs, and that it's wrong for anyone in the US to be selling the Arabs oilfield services in return (it's something we should leave to the French).

Of course, another branch Halliburton also provides logistical support, which is needed now because of the cuts in support units over the last decade.

Contracting out the logistical support and then turning around and complaining about all the Nasty Profiteers is an interesting way of further cutting military capability.
Posted by: Phil Fraering   2005-09-25 12:10  

#6  Blah blah, watch for the hollywood hype this winter and then the follow up story on why it didn't make any money this year. Rinse, repeat.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-09-25 12:10  

#5  Fingers are being pointed and brains, it seems, are back on the big screen, quite literally in the case of Lord of War, a new film about international arms dealing by Andrew Niccol, which opens with a startling sequence tracing the journey of a bullet from its manufacture in a Russian factory to its ultimate discharge via the barrel of an AK-47 into the head of an African child.

Starring Nicolas Cage as a monstrous arms trader, the film is a ferocious and funny satire on a diabolical subject. Unusually for a big budget film with an A-list Hollywood star, it blatantly attacks American foreign policy, concluding that 'the President of the USA is the biggest arms dealer in the world'.

Since when has the US been making and selling AKs?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-25 11:57  

#4  In the film, Niccol, who wrote The Truman Show, satirises the profiteering to be had out of provoking war, subtly raising questions about firms such as Halliburton.

Isn't Halliburton in the oil services business?

Are these people this incredibly stupid? Or is this intentional?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-25 11:55  

#3  The surprise box-office success of Crash, the brilliant, Los Angeles-set film that highlights racism and social problems in urban America

Never heard of it.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-25 11:53  

#2  Good they'll make even less money next year than this year.
Posted by: BillH   2005-09-25 11:51  

#1  Escapism is one thing, but faced with daily news about war, floods, corruption and terrorism, cinemagoers want more intelligent movies.

They want something that is not crap. They want to view it under conditions that don't involve several hours of earned income just to sit in a room with unruly children, cell phones ringing, and munching on simple popcorn and a drink that don't cost more than several gallons of gas. Not only don't we believe the MSM on the war, we don't believe their reviews on the movies. We wait till someone we know comes and tells us whether it is a waste of time, a 'catch it when its released on DVD in a couple months', or a have to see experience. And the latter experience is far and in between based upon the fecal material you promote out of Hollyweird. If all we want to hear is a bunch of overpaid, under developed minds tell us how terrible the world is without having a couple of bootlicking assistances to do our routine daily chores, then we can tune into any bubblehead talking head show on television. To steal a phrase from the 'golden age' - if you want to send a message, use Western Union.
Posted by: Hupairong Omoling4672   2005-09-25 11:39  

00:00