Hollywood Villains: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal
by John NolteYesterday, our own Chris Yogerst weighed in on Greg Gutfeld’s criticism of Hollywood — specifically Greg’s criticism of “G.I. Joe,” Stallone’s new Rambo film and “Inglourious Basterds” — for choosing politically correct villains over the real ones we face today. Chris is correct that turning Nazis into Jihadists is not something a filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino would do. If he has any, Tarantino’s politics have remained hidden in his work. Up on that screen the only thing he advocates for is overlooked 70’s B-movies and audacious entertainment. However, that doesn’t make the director’s decision to use Nazis any less politically correct or Hollywood’s moral cowardice in this area any more defensible.
Where my colleague Chris and I most disagree is with the assertion that Hollywood chooses “politically correct” or “safe” villains because Hollywood is all about the money and therefore wants to appeal to audiences who care what the villain looks like:
The film industry, like any other business, generally wants to appeal to the largest audience possible. Picking “safe” enemies is one way to do that.
Two of the most profitable films released this past year were “Gran Torino,” where our hero confronts black and Asian street gangs, and “Taken,” where the henchmen are Muslims and the arch-villain Middle Eastern.
With a $33 million production budget, “Torino” made nearly $270 million worldwide. On a budget of just $25 million, “Taken” made an astonishing $145 million domestically and another $79 million overseas. And before you give Hollywood credit for producing two films with politically-incorrect villains, keep in mind that both are notable exceptions; that only a Clint Eastwood could’ve made “Torino,” and “Taken” was produced in France, of all places.
To be clear, my point isn’t that international moviegoers flock to see politically-incorrect villains. My point is that is that audiences don’t care what the villain looks like and that Hollywood’s being dishonest when they say different.
Like the mainstream media, Hollywood’s cry of being money-driven is a lie to cover an increasingly obvious Leftist political agenda. If Hollywood really is all about making money by “appealing to the largest audience,” why no follow up to one of the most profitable films of all time, “The Passion of the Christ?” Why the three-year run of A-listers starring in box-office embarrassments with the most politically correct villain of them all: Americans in the Middle East? Define these films any way you want, I define them as loss-leaders to put Democrats in office.
Money-driven industries don’t keep making Edsels and ignore the Mustang.
Filmmakers and producers with access to Box Office Mojo know that whether politically “correct” or “incorrect,” who the villain is has nothing to do with box office. “Torino” and “Taken” were monster hits because they’re both extremely satisfying films. If there’s a single quality that made them successful that bucks the current Leftist Hollywood agenda, it’s their lack of moral equivalence. Both are straightforward good versus evil stories with a protagonist willing to sacrifice everything for something bigger than himself.
Because the human condition knows no boundaries, it’s old-fashioned heroism international audiences crave, not “safe, politically correct” villains.
“Basterds” only proves this point. “Politically correct, safe” Nazis are not what’s drawing audiences but rather the vicarious pleasure of watching something Hollywood doesn’t give us enough of: the delicious spectacle of evil receiving a reckoning at the hands of American good guys.
Both “G.I. Joe” and “Superman Returns” are all-kinds of politically correct. Neither, however, is likely to break even for years to come. “Spider-Man,” “Iron Man,” “The Dark Knight” and “300″ are a diverse mix of villains but pretty straight-forward in the good versus evil department … and all are monster hits.
Here are two other major areas of disagreement:
With the current economy, filmmakers don’t want to risk losing any potential audience. Even when ticket sales are up, filmmakers may not want to pick sides on an issue.
The decisions surrounding “G.I. Joe” and “Basterds” and so many politically correct others had nothing to do with the economy. They were in the works long before the recession hit. But this idea that directors keep their politics ambiguous and “not pick sides on an issue” disregards a never-ending avalanche of anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, pro-Leftist films that never stop flopping.
Hollywood doesn’t always like a clear line between good and evil, so in order to lock a distributor, a director might keep his or her politics ambiguous (especially if those politics are right of center).
On the left, I would say this is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Over the past ten years directors have become less and less politically ambiguous, and I would argue, increasingly strident with their on-screen agendas. This is why the adult drama is all but dead today. The agenda turns off a mainstream audience tired of paying ten bucks to be insulted and in turn no longer trusts Hollywood with anything other than tentpoles. Liberal audiences stay away because political stridency makes for bad filmmaking.
On the right, sympathies hidden and made ambiguous in fantasy films like “300″ and “The Dark Knight” have nothing to do with anything other than an intolerant film and media industry poised to pounce. The personal attacks leveled against a pre-drunk driving Mel Gibson before anyone had seen “The Passion,” and David Zucker and Jon Voight make clear that there’s a heavy price to pay for political apostates.
It comes down to this Gutfeld quote from the Yogerst piece:
“It is distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil if it’s happening now, because then you have to choose sides.”
For my money, mainstream Hollywood has chosen sides, and not ours. And that choice has nothing to do wanting to “appeal to the broadest audience possible.”
It’s not the economy stupid, it’s the agenda.







Subscribe via RSS
144 Comments
To be clear, my point isn’t that international moviegoers flock to see politically-incorrect villains. My point is that is that audiences don’t care what the villain looks like and that Hollywood’s being dishonest when they say different.
I absolutely agree. As a Russian immigrant I’m tired of seeing “the other Nazis”, eastern Europeans, portrayed as the villains. Last I checked but it wasn’t eastern Europeans that flew two airliners into the Twin Towers, flew an airliner into the Pentagon, assassinated Bobby Kennedy, assassinated the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, shot down Pan Am 103, blew up the train station in Madrid, blew up US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, etc. All of these crimes were committed by muslims. Liberal idiots [redundancy] in Hollywood can lie to themselves about who the enemy is but those abroad already know the enemy and it’s not whites in Europe, it’s the ones holding a Koran in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other.
Excellent observations. Just curious, though: what would the follow-up to "Passion of the Christ" be?
The Acts of the Apostles. Just as powerful.
Good and evil seem to be concepts either missing in hollywood or completely alien to them now.
This is true. A bio-pic on Paul would be pretty thrilling.
I also agree that, for the most part, audiences don't care about who the "bad guy" is as long as the bad guy gets his comeuppance. Even when right-leaning or American characters are "bad guys," like for example in the "Bourne" movies, they aren't really "bad" (other than the token old, white guy). The moral ambiguity is what turns people off more than what costume an actor is wearing.
I think the 2nd Bourne film made a mistake by making Brain Cox's character evil.
Oh definitely. That was so left-field. I don't even like watching the sequels anymore.
That's what moral equivalency does for you.
Damn the torpedos then, let's go broke for Obama ???
Yeah, for about ten minutes. Then what ?
[...] pulpit and Cone of Shame Award: MSNB-see-only-what-we-want-you-to-see John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Hollywood: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal Examiner.com: Anti-ObamaCare ad that ABC and NBC refused to Air Traction Control: Letter to the [...]
[...] CBS Posts Soldier Party Pictures– Wants You to Feel Outraged John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Hollywood: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal At War, Notes from the Front Lines, NY Times: Cemetery Games Tim Slagle, Big Hollywood: Cindy [...]
A bio-pic on Paul would be pretty thrilling? Acts of the Apostles? I'm not sure how to respond to that. Maybe you two are being funny. Those events may have been historically significant, but it does not mean they become the next set of Bourne films, or even slightly interesting to the average person, or even a Christian like me.
Sorry, Passion was unique in part, rightly or wrongly, due to the very singular imporant and unjust event of the cruxifiction of Christ. I don't think a follow-up movie to Passion is necessary or even slightly interesting. They can make plenty of good conservative or Christian themed movies, if even by stealth/accident like Shawshank Redemption.
[...] Ten Top Reasons I’m Happy About The Glenn Beck Boycott John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Hollywood: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal The Elephant’s Trumpet: The Fire-Fight for Freedom of Speech Watcher of Weasels: Democrat [...]
Have you ever read the life of Paul? He was shipwrecked, imprisoned, tortured, had to be sneaked in and out of cities because he had a price on his head, and that was just after his conversion. Before he made a living out of busting Christian groups and throwing kids in prison. In the hands of a good storyteller, yes, it would be an excellent film.
They are like spoiled children, they want what they want, and no rules will ever be allowed to get in the way. Good & evil, right & wrong, etc. are concepts that would make them grow up. That is why they have banished these concepts.
“It is distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil if it’s happening now, because then you have to choose sides.”
Maybe.
Or most probably it seems that way and that might be the real reason. But other sorts of fiction don't generally have that problem. It's only lazy fiction that risks a moral statement transforming into a prejudicial one.
We've a habit, it seems, of mistaking understanding for excuse. If anytime a character is explored at enough depth that understanding happens it turns into excuse… of course you can't write about evil. In order to write about evil, then, you've got to back off. Characters become stereotypes and, ta da, if your "bad guys" belong to some particular identifiable group, you've now got something prejudicial.
For a couple of years Hollyweird in its quest to find uncontroversial bad guys settled on the Serbs, for example in The Peacemaker, Behind Enemy Lines, 24.
I know there was the civil war in Bosnia and Kosovo and atrocities happened – but there never was an act of Serbian terrorism against the USA (despite our bombing campaign) or any other foreign country. Truth is, they used Serbs because it was convenient – they already got a bad press, they were white, Christian, spoke with menacing slavic accents, there weren´t many of them – and they were not going to cut your head off for offending them. Those movies might have been more memorable but for the lazy choice of villain.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the villians in Basterds are Nazis because it's set in WWII era France…
Oh that would be an excellent sequel!! Take it from Jesus exit from the tomb with that look on Jim C's face that said (at least my interpretation of the look) "Okay boys and girls. It's time to kick some spiritual booty." That would be great!
"Truth is, they used Serbs because it was convenient – they already got a bad press, they were white, Christian, spoke with menacing slavic accents, there weren´t many of them"
I don't know if I'd necessarily agree since eastern Europeans were the villains in many movies long before Kosovo happened, but your point is well taken. Ironically the Serbs were our WWII allies and the rodent we had in the White House, Bill Clinton, bombed our allies and destroyed every bridge over the Danube river. It's no surprise liberals bombed the wrong side.
I think the reason that "contemporary" villains aren't often used is because it dates the movie so badly. A film too fixated on immediate conflicts will either quickly become irrelevant or be dismissed as blatant propaganda. The best films–even ones that draw clear lines between good and evil–benefit from a historical perspective.
I agree. I don't think it's fair to criticize Basterds because it's set during the era when Nazis were the bad guys. If it was set during the present day then, sure, criticize all you want. It's not like Sum of all Fears where Nazis are made the bad guys in the present day.
I wonder what Mr. Nolte and others will say about the Captain America movie that is due out summer 2011. It will be an origin movie and his origin is during WWII fighting Nazis. Will it be considered a "safe" movie?
In the hands of a good storyteller, my breakfast this morning could also be an excellent film. Yes, I am aware of Paul's life after his conversion. But there is a reason why Veggietales, as amusing and well done to me as they are, have a life mostly relegated to the discount DVD bin.
If a flick about Paul had mass appeal, a movie would have been made about him by now. Acts is not a big secret.
MovieBob—I don’t think it’s very likely that Tarantino started out with the idea of simply making a movie set in World War II-era France, only to settle on an antagonist after the choice of time period and location had been made. The movie is set in World War II-era France only because he wanted to make a movie about fighting Nazis.
Exactly. And hell, why not broaden the audience to include the Jewish crowd? I would love to see a competently done, dramatic depiction of the life of King David. Y’know, one without talking vegetables.
My sentiments exactly. Even if a contemporary action thriller uses a real enemy, it would come off like a cheap, ripped-from-the-headlines attempt to be "relevant." The only way anyone can do the current conflict justice is to base any such films on true stories — not "realistic" fictional stories, but true stories.
Even then, such stories can definitely benefit from historical perspective.
Okay, but so what? Tarantino wanted to make a movie about fighting Nazis, so he that's what he made. I don't see the ideological problem here. I really want Tarantino to make a science fiction movie, but that doesn't mean he's under any obligation to do so.
Taylor Caldwell novelized the lives of both Paul and Luke in the books "Great Lion of God" and "Dear and Glorious Physician", respectively. They are no longer in print but can be picked up at a local library. Both are excellent reads and I think she dramatized the men of the early church in a compelling and appealing way (and shocker, is not offensive to Christians!). Excellent source material for an "Acts of the Apostles" movie, besides the New Testament, of course.
Where's True Lies 2, dagummit!
Allright, to clear the air here, the Bad Guys in Rambo who get shot to smithereens are ACTUAL REAL World Communists who have Killed hundreds of Thousands of People. In fact, several critics of the Film complained that it goes too far to Demonize the Burmese. His movie literally inspired the Burmese Resistance. The Man who plays the Camp Commandant is a real Life Burmese resistance leader . Live for nothing or Die for something is a common saying among them now. And lets not forget that this is the latest rendition in a series of Unapologetic Commie Bashing.
Now, for the most part I agree with the sentiment of this article, but saying Rambo (A movie directed by Slyvester Stallone, a Registered Republican) is playing it safe as part of the Liberal Media establishment is unfair bullshit.
Gutfeld just dropped 30 points in my estimation, we need more Movies like Taken, and Torino, AND Rambo.
Allright, to clear the air here, the Bad Guys in Rambo who get shot to smithereens are ACTUAL REAL World Communists who have Killed hundreds of Thousands of People. In fact, several critics of the Film complained that it goes too far to Demonize the Burmese.Stallones movie literally inspired the Burmese Resistance. The Man who plays the Camp Commandant is a real Life Burmese resistance leader . Live for nothing or Die for something is a common saying among them now. And lets not forget that this is the latest rendition in a series of Unapologetic Commie Bashing.
Now, for the most part I agree with the sentiment of this article, but saying Rambo (A movie directed by Slyvester Stallone, a Registered Republican) is playing it safe as part of the Liberal Media establishment is unfair bullshit.
Gutfeld just dropped 30 points in my estimation, we need more Movies like Taken, and Torino, AND Rambo.
Excellent point, Rex. Television is a better medium for today's villain. It is revealing that early Hollywood considered its product disposable. Our current generations grew up watching old movies on late night TV and discovered their transcendent qualities. Now we don't need a film society to view rare movies. We have the video store and NetFlix.
I think the current movies that aim to be popular don't care if they are disposable. Hopefully, they will be enjoyed by future generations. Who wouldn't put Indiana Jones and Back to the Future in that category? But I also think there is a need for filmmakers that explore a deeper subtext, and for artists who have a vision of the future. All this left / right, liberal / conservative stuff sounds too much like the Soviet Political Bureau weighing in.
I don't disagree with you at all. See my reply to Lon above–I think it addresses your point, as well.
I could be wrong but I get the feeling it's a big secret to you as you don't seem to have read it.
How do you explain that 10+ run of anti war movie flops? They just keep churning them out even though they have to know they will lose money on an epic level.
Love the "Edsels" vs "Mustangs" analogy. The crux of John's essay is that the calling card of the left is subversion.
Off topic, but being a business wonk, I just have to be all agog at the news that Taken was made for the same amount normally spent on a single "A-List" actor.
Which shows that it was more than political incorrectness that sets that film apart from Hollywood.
There were a LOT of things about Kosovo and the Bosnian/Serbian war that we were told that were outright lies (e.g., 10,000 Muslims killed in Kosovo when less than 3,000, civilians AND military, on all sides – including Croats – were actually killed). But, as you pointed out, the Serbs were a convenient "bad guy." As Serg Trifkovic points out in "The Sword of the Prophet," the Clinton admin all but admitted, outright, that we fought for the Bosnians in order to assuage Muslim anger over Iraq. No one, today, talks about the continuing attacks on Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries that sometimes find themselves confronted by mobs of Muslims that are actually *bused* to the remote sites to destroy them. (Took a Canadian team, working with the UN, to bring that to light).
Of course, then there is the "Sum of All Fears" debacle. And, to Great Satan: what can you say when the Nazis, of all groups, used to complain to their superiors about the brutality of the Bosnian troops fighting for the Germans? Yikes . . .
the sinner,
Patrick
Really? Funny, I find that most Christians don't even know all that goes on in Acts. There's some pretty harrowing stuff in there. Usually, I find the West knows about Acts only insofar as popular stories or movies go.
the sinner,
Patrick
Can we just get over ourselves here, John, et al. and realize that people go to GOOD movies whatever the villains look like. We are talking here about MOVIES, kids, not the Holy Grail, etc.
'Its not about money! It's about sending a message…'
It's a great time to get involved in watching much older movies since the current crop is such a disgrace to movie making. However it's unbelievably adorable that even liberals can't watch their own fecal material on screen.
"Money-driven industries don’t keep making Edsels and ignore the Mustang."
Thankfully, Ford managed to dodge the gov'mint takeover and Mustangs are still in production.
Unfortunately in today's Hollywood it would most likely be "The Passion 2: This Time It's Personal".
Indeed, if anything, it was East Europeans (and those brave Brits) who sided with us, backed us up and stood with us in the war on terror when the rest of Europe stood by and criticized us for defending our right to live and to live free.
It's so sad to be so politically partisan it has to poison everything, even the movies.
Movies get made for a million different reasons. And not every movie is representative of a political stance, or even the viewpoint of a particular studio. And I don't know what movie houses you go to, but the ones around me are full of movies with guns and good vs evil stories. Even kids movies have cgi-gerbils toting automatic rifles–yeah, real liberal propaganda. And isn't the "National Treasure" series a gushing love story to America?
Like your political stance, you seem not angry that your views and preferences aren't represented, but that the other side is represented at all.
And by the way, those handful of failed leftist war movies you guys trot out for every argument–they still made more money than the even-bigger-failed Ben Stein movie and that "An American Carol."
I would get into that.
Sheldon, I believe that's the message we are trying to send to Hollywood, not the other way round. They are the ones that have a list of villains which are forbidden, not us.
and pair him off with either Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker
Arnold has gotten distracted from his true calling for the moment
So I don't get to comment on this site?
Will all of you hurry up and make an indie action hero of the Pro American Conservative Patriotic Crusader ass kicken variant!!!??? COME ON!!!
I had not heard of those, but I will check them out. Thanks!
"Ten Commandments" and "Samson and Delilah" were both big box office hits, not to mention "Ben Hur" and "The Robe".
I could see smaller, more personal movies about Paul or Acts. The intensity of "The Passion" made it such a big film.
The BIG problem in today's Hollywood is: which studio would have the kishkas to produce a movie with a Christian or religious theme?
First Blood villain- small time sheriff hostile to veterans.
Part II villains- Viet Cong and Russians.
Part III villains- Russians.
Part IV villains- Myanmar communists.
Part V villains- Mexican drug and human traffickers.
Yep definitely playing it safe in liberal lala land…
Gutfeld is clueless.
Yeah, but they're still making them. These things can't have all gone into preproduction before Hollywood found out the hard way that they would bomb. Surely they would have stopped greenlighting those movies at some point.
Spending like sensible f__king people actually works once in a while, apparently.
Hollywood Villains: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-nolte/2009/09/0...
Of course, then there is the "Sum of All Fears" debacle. And, to Great Satan: what can you say when the Nazis, of all groups, used to complain to their superiors about the brutality of the Bosnian troops fighting for the Germans? Yikes . . .
The Germans depravity was reserved for the Jews; on the battlefield they were probably no more barbaric than others in the fight, except of course for the Japanese. The Bosnians that wore the SS uniform were muslims; the fascists recruited them. And these muslim subhumans brought their bloodlust that they would deliver upon Jews in pogroms onto the battlefield and civilian populace. And the author you mentioned, Serg Trifkovic, is right about Clinton; he did admit that the deaths were greatly exaggerated. Of course with Clinton it's a minor oversight, especially since it was Christians that they bombed. With Bush it's "he lied! people died!"
"Mexican drug and human traffickers."
Actually, it sounds allot like Taken, so yeah, Gutfeld should stop bitching about Rambo already.
The big surge of anti-Iraq war films we saw a few years back now has played out, and we certainly won’t be seeing anything like it in the foreseeable future. But, of course, we will continue to see a steady stream of all kinds of movies with left-wing political bias in the years to come, whether that bias is explicit or implicit. I’m not disagreeing with what Mr. Nolte wrote. I was simply pointing out that, in addition to the overt, deliberate politicking being done by filmmakers today, there were also more subtle factors at work which also promote left-wing bias.
"the Clinton admin all but admitted, outright, that we fought for the Bosnians in order to assuage Muslim anger over Iraq."
That and to cover his ass from the Lewinski Scandal.
I really have nothing to say other than Taken Kicks Ass.
An indie film could be made and if directed, written and acted well, could have quite a draw.
Chris Tucker, oh no!
"Jesus, why you got that prickly-ass thing on your head, man? Can't you put some Bactine an' a Band-Aid on yourself? An why all these people up in here speakin' all crazy? I don't understand the words comin' out ANYBODY'S mouth! Jesus? Jesus? Where ya goin'?"
I absolutely agree Mr Nolte. The Hollywood leftists plough the profits made from commercial films into those made strictly for propaganda. To them, it does not matter if these films make a profit, although they would prefer if they did, all that really counts is that the ideas in them are embedded in the culture. In that, they have been highly successful.
However, even some of the films you mention as good are riddled with PC. For example, Iron Man's greatest foe, by universal consent, is the Mandarin, a Chinese villain who believes himself to be China's true emperor. Instead of this interesting character we are given a dreary 1980s creation, the boardroom takeover villain, whose codename The Iron Monger is so embarrassing that it is never mentioned in the film. Why is this, except American film makers now have anti-big business as their default position.
Almost all of these superhero films have difficulty with foreign enemies preferring instead the comfort of homegrown corporate American villains, or (since I'm English and tend to notice) by British actors. The Hulk's foe, the Abomination, who should be Russian was oddly played by Tim Roth. Why are a disproportionate amount of villains played by English actors? I daresay the actors relish the work, but it would be inconceivable if any other nation were so depicted. Can you imagine if ever other film's bad guy was played by Jamaicans?
Perhaps this is a throwback to the war of Independence, but it is a bit tiresome that the British are portrayed as wicked at every opportunity. Oh well, perhaps the latest double dealing by the Scottish socialist state over Al Megrahi might persuade the American right that the historical travesty Braveheart is NOT a conservative film.
I dunno, but "Casa Blanca", released in 1943 makes no bones about making the Nazis bad guys, and still manages to be about the BEST DAM' MOVIE EVER MADE.
The Hollywood of the 40's and early 50's backed our war effort, and make the Japanese and Germans totally evil. The revisionism came later; Col. Saito in "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1956) shows some vulnerability beneath his bushido facade.
Your reasoning buys into the politically correct template that discourages one from making distinctions about right and wrong—except when to do so condemns the US military, Big Corporations or President Bush. Nobody's waiting for "historical perspective" in those cases.
"He's back, and he's mad as Hell."
"Gran Torino" and "Taken" — two great & surprising stories to behold.
Welcome to this country, sir, but aren't you forgetting the facts that show – 1. There were 66 million murdered under the Russian rule from 1917- 1953? 2. The only really major league anti-Soviet (Russian)movie from 1970-1993 was 'Red Dawn?'
This is what I have been told. The British accent comes across to Americans as patrician, rich, cold, and snobbish. It invokes inherited privilege. On a more positive note, it may also connote erudition, classical scholarship, and elderly wisdom. Many professorial roles are played by Brits, as are sage roles like Obi Wan Kenobi. Americans—quite foolishly, of course—-will in their imagination add a nice chunk of IQ points to anyone with a British accent.
Uncouth, low class types, OTOH, will most often have a Southern accent, even if the drama is set in Oregon. This is especially true of rural villains and clowns. Non-Southerners will deduct IQ points from anyone with a Southern accent. This, they say, is why Yankees have traditionally been sitting ducks for Southern salesmen with an easy-going drawl. They are caught unawares.
As a Latina immigrant——(legal! and a citizen now for over 25 years!!!!)— I was not tuned in to these subtleties for a long, long time and they still are not automatic for me. But I can assure you there are similar accent-stereotypes in the Spanish-speaking world.)
I think it's kinda funny that people ignore the fact that "Basterds" is a remake (of an Italian film, at that!). I believe that Tarantino wanted to preserve the B-movie premise in the movie, but tweak it to his creative tastes.
G.I. Joe is a joke. Moving on…
I really don't want to talk about Rambo, since the original's message was almost entirely lost (right up until the last moments of the film) and I haven't seen any of the others films.
Either way, my opinion is this: Having politically correct villains isn't going to keep me from watching a film, but if it's plot goes out of it's way to show that the "villains" motive isn't evil I'm gonna groan and stop watchin'. Films should be about entertainment, first and foremost!
An interesting point. However, the rule of British actors playing the baddie obtains even when they are required to play other nationalities, even Americans. Albert Finney as a CIA chief, Anthony Hopkins in Nixon, Gary Oldman as Lee Harvie Oswald. The list goes on and on.
Their 'American' accents are usually weird and unconvincing.
To add to this bizarreness, English characters, if Hollywood considers them virtuous, are usually played by American actors, with likewise peculiar accents like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie.
Very strange actually.
The Acts of the Apostles. Could be just as powerful.No-brainer is Hollywood really was money driven.
I agree that there is a decidedly left-wing political agenda at work in Hollywood, and you’ve made a very persuasive case for that proposition here, Mr. Nolte. At the same time, however, Mr. Gutfeld isn’t entirely wrong either. I’m sure that if given the choice, Hollywood filmmakers would choose to make money rather than not make money.
So why are Hollywood films today the way they are? A conscious wish to make explicit political statements is part of the reason, certainly. But there’s more to it than that. I also think that, to some extent, Hollywood’s all-pervasive leftism probably colors their expectations of what will make money and what will not, whether consciously or not. And that leads me to a related point—the bias is, I think, often unconscious. That is to say, this all-pervasive left-wing worldview has become so internalized that I suspect it colors creative and financial decision-making at every level, even in cases where an explicit political statement is not really what the filmmaker had in mind.
One of the other things that make "The Dark Knight" a success, and which was commented on often after the fact, was it's one of the few successful allegories Hollywood has done in recent years (even if the allegory here of George W. Bush-as-Batman wasn't one the left in Hollywood wanted to even admit was in the movie).
These days, it's not just that the left wants to get their message into their movies, it's that there is absolutely nothing subtle about the message, compared to, say, some 50s movies like "High Noon" or even "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" that liberals celebrate for their hidden meanings. You can't watch any of today's liberal message movies without being hammered over the head again and again that the message trumphs everything — narrative, characterization, plot logic, etc.
I suppose for conservatives it's actually a good thing now that liberals in Hollywood either don't have the talen or the inclination to clothe their message in a more interesting manner, becasue they'd rather make themselves feel good than do the same for their audience. Who wants to pay $11 to be harangued for 120 minutes by a group of people who've decided that 'educating' the viewing audience is more important than entertaining them?
Hollywood is generally scared pee-less to disparage Arabs lest it bring retaliation down on their heads…they're cowed just like the Scottish government…they release a convicted terrorist on "humanitarian grounds" while apparently having Mulim Jihadist camps operating in their country…morally weak and dishonest…
You’re right—there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with “Inglorious Basterds” being about Nazis. But the criticism being made isn’t really about Tarantino’s movie specifically. The point is that this movie is emblematic of a larger problem with Hollywood and the body of work it produces, i.e. the predominance of bad guys that are politically “safe,” which is to say, bad guys that those on the political left will not find offensive. That larger problem is the real target of the criticism, not “Inglorious Basterds” so much.
Duh, were talking Hollywood here…"Passion of the Christ 2" I mean what else could you name it?
I don't think the other *working title* "Roll That Stone Away" did that well in audience pre-screens…
"Three Days Later" was getting ~whitenoised~ by "The Day After Tomorrow"…is this another eco-flick, ugh..
Damn sorry, Sterg…I stole your "Passion 2" take, sorry didn't see it, it's late…should be home not in uni-library…
Because ceaselessly making villains out of Muslims will encourage bigotry…duh.
It's the same reason why characters who are Jewish (and look like it) aren't presented as money lords in movies. It encourages bigotry…nevermind the existence of a Bernie Madoff.
I can't see how it would be possible to criticize Inglorious Basterds for having PC Nazi villains, since QT's entire motivation for the film was to pay his respects to genera films about WW II like The Dirty Dozen. Nazis were the only choice. BTW, I saw it last week and thought it was good, but not great (While District 9, OTOH, was so bad I walked out on it: I almost never do that). Additionally, having the heros being Jewish is sorta/kinda non-PC these days, isn't it? And, even obliquely referring to the holocaust is also dicey ground in certain circles now, correct?
My point is, Inglorious Basterds really doesn't belong in this discussion at all, IMO, because it has too many PC-contradictory aspects to it.
I think the explanations I’ve offered suffice—a combination of explicit politicking and a subtle left-wing political bias that shapes creative and financial decision-making on both a conscious and unconscious level. You have to realize that almost certainly none of the people involved in those magnificent flops started off with the idea that they would lose money on an epic level. That’s not something they “knew” at all. Rather, that is something that only became apparent in retrospect. In fact, at the time they probably thought they were going to cash in on a tide of anti-Bush animus. Oops! You have to bear in mind, too, that the lead time for a film project is often years long. By the time the first of those 10 movies came out and flopped, the remainder were all in the process of production already. And the rest, as they say, is history.
As I stole it from Weird Al's "Ghandi 2", I've got no complaint.
Clearly Hollywood has an agenda. Just try and count the number of times white male corporate executives are portrayed as corrupt, criminal and violent with the actual crime statistics, which tell a very different tale. Do you know how rare it is for an upper middle class white male to commit a violent crime? But this narrative fits the world-view and prejudices of the left. There are many other examples, such as how many TV shows portray fathers as dunces and mothers as superwomen, or the portrayal of deadbeat Dads. I mean, when is the last time you saw a portrayal of a divorced father who does more than his legal obligation for his children – it happens all the time in the real world, but is a rarity on TV.
White males often end up as villains because white males are often the heroes.
This isn't really a NEW phenomenon. Ian Fleming's villians were the KGB and the USSR but Hollyweird chose to make them S.P.E.C.T.R.E. when making the 007 movies. This was most starkly true in the second of the series, "From Russia With Love." Afraid of offending the Russians? Who would have POSSIBLY cared…except the Russians, of course, and when "Dr. No" came out they'd just threatened to "bury" us.
Cheesehoven,
British Actors play most villains because the best actors are mostly British! (1) The Brit accent lends credibility and intelligence (that's also why a disproportional number of our ads are voiced over by people with Brit accents). (2) A compelling villain is much more difficult to portray than a hero. Plenty of talentless pretty faces do just fine as the good guy, but a light-weight baddie ruins the movie.
This has nothing to do with American feelings toward the UK. We don't fear you and we're not really jealous. Nor are we hateful, vengeful, or distrustful. We don't think you're a nation of villains. You're simply superior thespians.
We steal your actors, your best shows, and if anything is "too british" we just steal the idea and recast it with our hacks. And if you ask the average viewer, they don't even know that it was all done first in the UK.
John – I have to say I completely agree with you on this. Hollywood big guns have so much money they can actually afford to let ideology trump box office. I think actors today actually have to show their liberal bona fides in order to get plum roles. That is pretty much an opinion without any facts to back it up, but it's what I believe.
As a director, I always wanted to make a film about the Acts. There is so much intensity in the Acts. It can be an amazing movie.
By the way, Axl, did you really say "Those events may have been historically significant, but it does not mean they become the next set of Bourne films, or even slightly interesting to the average person, or even a Christian like me." May've been?
They changed the course of human history, those events. Even if you are not a Christian, it's pretty obvious. Of course, converting the entirs Roman Empire is not as ecxiting as watching metrosexual Matt Damon running away from CIA, but there can be some great visuals, like the fire of Rome, gladiators, lions, catacombs.
Let's face it – it wasn't his ass that needed covering…
"Hey, baldy!"
"Give me a steak – medium rare." (Sad truth: I had to explain that line to someone.)
A friend told me that he believes all this started during the Vietnam War. The kids who were protesting government authority (and all other authority, really) decided that they weren't going to treat their kids like that…which in turn begat the parents-as-buddies attitude, the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grade curve, feelings being more important than right and wrong, and so on.
I think he may be on to something.
A friend told me that he believes all that "spoiled children" stuff started during the Vietnam War. The kids who were protesting government authority (and all other authority, really) decided that they weren't going to treat their kids like that…which in turn begat the parents-as-buddies attitude, the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grade curve, feelings being more important than right and wrong, and so on.
I think he may be on to something.
The _Great_Satan,
If you don't mind me asking, how long have you lived in the US? You have such a strong command of the English language and US culture. You have always impressed me as someone very intelligent, that may have helped facilitate matters, but I am a little shocked to read you aren't native born.
Movie Bob is being obtuse. It wasn't that the movie was wrong to feature Nazis because of its time period, the point is that we don't see movies with bad guys that are our current bad guys. Understand?
Funny, worrying about a movie being "dated" didn't stop H'wood from making Redacted, Stop-Loss, etc., etc. That's a flase arguement. If the movie is worth a damn it the time prd won't matter. People still love Gone With the Wind, don't they? Is the the War between the States a fresh item?
The Resurrection of the Messiah, The Siege of Jerusalem (70AD), The Conversion and Life of the Apostle Paul, or start with Luke 24 which segues into Acts 1….just a few ideas.
My two cents…
This came up in another thread several months ago and I expressed my opinion that the iconography of World War II, whether we're talking about music or uniforms or even the architecture lent itself to movies. Take Where Eagles Dare for example. COuld you really do that movie today in the Middle East? Eastwood and Burton couldn't exactly pass themselves off as Arab terrorists and the hot blonde SOE agent would have to be covered from head to toe to avoid suspicion. And, IMHO, when you're dealing with an enemy that would simply blow you (or himself) up, it sort of limits your options.
Now I'm not excusing anyone. A creative writer who does his homework could make it happen. It's just that many of the conventions we normally associate with war movies would have to be thrown out the window.
My two cents…
This came up in another thread several months ago and I expressed my opinion that the iconography of World War II, whether we're talking about music or uniforms or even the architecture lends itself to movies. Take Where Eagles Dare for example. COuld you really do that movie today in the Middle East? Eastwood and Burton couldn't exactly pass themselves off as Arab terrorists and the hot blonde SOE agent would have to be covered from head to toe to avoid suspicion. And, IMHO, when you're dealing with an enemy that would simply blow you (or himself) up, it sort of limits your options.
Now I'm not excusing anyone. A creative writer who does his homework could make it happen. It's just that many of the conventions we normally associate with war movies would have to be thrown out the window.
1. Hollywood has been "red" since the thirties. An excellent book about this is "Red Star Over Hollywood". I believe Lenin would call them "useful idiots" because the majority are too stupid to realize they're advocating the destruction of their luxurious world. Accepted artistes in the USSR lived better than the rest of the Russians, but that would be about as well as a blue collar worker lives today. Only the supreme rulers lived well.
2. The media (propagandists) are generally Lefties and unlike the Ho'wooders, educated (at least in journalism so they SOUND educated) and they're mostly Bolsheviks. Ho'wooders have to please them to get their names in the paper. See John Voight and Mel Gibson to see what happens when you DON'T please them. You're trashed. Bols used bullets; our Bols use words.
3. For a lot of years, we lumpens didn't "get it". We sat there mesmerized by the flickering images on the screen and the beautiful people and didn't realize we were being indoctrinated into Leftist cant. Unfortunately for Ho'wood, we've now caught on. We (or at least I) use places like Big Hollywood to find out whether I'm going to be insulted or indoctrinated before I plunk down my ten bucks. Mostly I am so mostly I don't go.
4. TV is better than film these days, not as political, better writing, more interesting actors with excellent ensembles who play off each other well. Few let politics into the script – when they do, we turn them off and deprogram them from the TIVO. "House" used to be a favorite. It's gone from our TIVO now. Is it still on?
"The Closer" is a lefty piece of work but only occasionally slips into politics. So far we keep them on the TIVO but when they go into the tired and trite "white supremists are loose again" mode, I turn the channel. (Advertisers take note. I'm probably not alone in any of this).
5. And most importantly. Ho'wood has never been known for courage. Nazis (even tho' they find them under ever tree in America) haven't committed the list of atrocities Great Satan lists. Muslims, however, will burn down your studio of you piss THEM off. So Hollywood conjures up Nazis and Rednecks and White Supremists.
Then off to Hong Kong they go, lookin' for some mushu!
(stealing from Robin Williams)
and this time he's not looking like Ted Nugent. This time he's looking like Charles Bronson!
"I'm not a carpenter. Now I'm a sheet metal worker and don't piss me off!"
Actually, he was released for oil.
I´m not saying that any side, including the Serbs, was blameless. But in a world where no one is willing to go up against Sudan or Iran, why single out the Serbs? We should have kept our distance. Our involvement was not necessary.
I´m not saying that the Serbs were blameless. But it is true that many stories about "concentration camps" and mass murder were made up, not just in the US but in Europe, too. Even the Germans were taking part in the bombing during the Kosovo war. It took a lot of propaganda to get the Germans to agree to that. The very same Social-Democrat-Green coalition government that went to war in defiance of the UNSC later accused Bush of waging illegal war.
No, the Serbs were not entirely innocent. But in a world where no one is willing to go up against Sudan or Iran, why single out the Serbs? We should have kept our distance.
As for German depravity, it did not extend to large parts of the army, true. But note that the Germans treated POWs from the Soviet Union differently from Americans or Brits. Millions of Soviet prisoners died of hunger and disease, or were worked to death. And many of those who returned after years of unspeakable suffering were accused of desertion and shot! The cruelty of those times is unimaginable to us.
@Cheesehoven
[However, even some of the films you mention as good are riddled with PC. For example, Iron Man's greatest foe, by universal consent, is the Mandarin, a Chinese villain who believes himself to be China's true emperor. Instead of this interesting character we are given a dreary 1980s creation, the boardroom takeover villain, whose codename The Iron Monger is so embarrassing that it is never mentioned in the film. Why is this, except American film makers now have anti-big business as their default position.]
Actually, I always viewed Obadiah Stane (a.k.a., Iron Monger) as an evil reflection of Iron Man himself. Each is successful, brilliant business tycoon who wears a suit of high-tech armor. This cliche is common in comics as shown by the evil versions of Superman (Bizarro) and Spider-Man (Venom).
So, the first Iron Man movie is simply following the cliche started by the Iron Man comics.
By the way, in the movie sequel, Iron Man's foe Whiplash is being re-imagined as a RUSSIAN supervillain. This is a nod to Iron Man's commie busting side.
"Over the past ten years directors have become less and less politically ambiguous, and I would argue, increasingly strident with their on-screen agendas."
Just wait till AVATAR hits the screens! Then the above quote will become a mathematical law.
"Humans (especially White Males) BAD. Aliens (of Color!) GOOD."
You must be referring to CASABLANCA.
Excellent artical John. Well done. Taken has to be one of the most memorable films I have seen in years and Torino was well, classic Clint Eastwood. Classic. Why those films worked was because they were merely classic good against evil, which much of western cultural mythology is all about. The hero beginning a journey and ending it successfully. Perseaus and the Gorgon to a Dad on a frantic search for his kidnapped Daughter.
I'd LOVE to go see more movies based on the scriptures. I'd love movies about Acts, or a Paul biopic, or perhaps one showing both Peter and Paul together, and the way they worked oppositely to achieve the same goal. They occasionally had minor disagreements, but they had much in common, and together, they brought the Gospel to the world. Coincedentally, they were both put to death within months of each other.
Why not make it a prequel about the Savior's birth? There was a lot of drama going on right there, with Herod going after all the babies and the escape to Egypt and everything.
I completely agree with your point. And not only GWTW, but what about Casablanca? Hollywood churned out hundreds, if not thousands, of movies about WWII before, during, and after the US involvement, and many of them are considered classics today.
Thebutlerdidit, thank you for the kind words. I’ve been here a little over 20 years and came here when I was 5. I didn’t speak English that well as a child but I forced myself to speak properly and not use phrases such as “you know”, repeating “like” too often, etc, which I had a bad habit of doing. I was extremely fortunate to grow up in a neighborhood with approx 30 kids so I got to practice my English often and I was immersed in American culture through them. And although I may not have been born here I love this country more than liberals who were born here. Thanks again for the very nice words.
There were *definitely* atrocities committed, but on BOTH sides. In fact, even the UN had to admit that some of the "mass graves" were actually a particular Bosnian unit (Mountain Rangers, or something like that) killing their own people and trying to blame the Serbs. In fact, on more than one occasion, the Bosnian troops set up artillery positions next to UN positions so that the Serbs couldn't fire back without risking hitting UN people. Brilliant military move, but neither condemned nor pointed out by the UN.
The whole thing was a farce to give the world someone evil to hate collectively all over again.
the sinner,
Patrick
To be fair, the Russians treated everyone like that. But, that was also because you had Stalin in charge. If you want to read an actually uplifting book about the Gulags (where so many of those poor soldiers were sent) I'd recommend either of the two books on Father Arseny.
the sinner,
Patrick
Ha!
the sinner,
Patrick
In "Eastern Promises," the hero was Russian, too. And you're right about the islamists. In fact, they view ALL non-Muslims as evil (or, to be more precise, as people born Muslim who were brainwashed by decadent Western cultures to pick up infidel religions or no religion at all).
the sinner,
Patrick
A few disagreements, nothing the Apostles' Council in Acts 16 didn't clear up.
the sinner,
Patrick
I enjoyed your comments, El Gordo. I would just add that the animosity between the Soviets and Germans was personal, which is why they were extremely brutal to one another. Both my grandfathers were Captains in the Red Army and the stories they have to tell are breathtaking. I remember reading an article about the Stalingrad Streetfighters that ultimately succeeded in pushing the nazi rats out of Russia and chasing them back to Berlin where the Soviets laid ruin to the nazi infrastructure [there are famous images of the Soviets blowing up nazi symbols; similar to what the Americans did with the other Hussein's [Saddam] icons]. The article had a speech from Hitler addressing his men before the push for Stalingrad. In that speech Hitler referred to the Soviets as unhuman beasts that had to be destroyed. There was deep seeded hatred between the two sides.
My two cents…
This came up in another thread several months ago and I expressed my opinion that the iconography of World War II, whether we're talking about music or uniforms or even the architecture, simply lends itself to movies. Take Where Eagles Dare for example. Could you really do that movie today in the Middle East? Eastwood and Burton couldn't exactly pass themselves off as Arab terrorists and the hot blonde SOE agent would have to be covered from head to toe to avoid suspicion. And, IMHO, when you're dealing with an enemy that would simply blow you (or himself) up, it sort of limits your options.
Now I'm not excusing anyone. A creative writer who does his homework could make it happen. It's just that many of the conventions we normally associate with war movies would have to be thrown out the window.
There is a great story in the 1565 Great Siege of Malta. It involved an 80 year old Dragut the Corsair (from what is now Libya); a 70 year old Knight of St John, de Vallette; and Sulieman the Magnificent back in Istanbul. The action involved all of Christian Europe versus Ottoman Empire. Talk about a close call. And the heroic Maltese!!! And the pounding on the walls of the fort St Elmo. Really. You want to read a great story? Ernle Bradford is the author (he spent the post war years wandering around the Mediterranean), the title is "The Great Siege, Malta 1565." What a waste that it has not been done as yet.
OK Abe and having a German speaking Villian with long blonde locks in Die Hard doesn't encourage bigotry against Germans? The lack of logic you are using is rather humerous.
Heh.
"Bad Guys:" The Hollywood elite–Ministry of Propaganda style.
Heroes: A couple redneck indie film makers from flyover with shotguns and an a**-kicking attitude.
Throw in a Tarantino-style Crazzy88 massacre and now you have an action film I can get on board with.
It doesn´t have the bombastic, completely over-the -top kind of action Hollywood requires. It´s mosty mano a mano fighting and some car chases, though very well done. Even so, Hollywood would have spent at least twice as much.
It works because it´s perfect wish fulfillment. Who wouldn´t want to use "special skills" to save his daughter from a fate worse than death, brutally punish the kidnappers and become a hero in the eyes of his family? It works because they didn´t overthink it. And you don´t need exploding skyscrapers to get that across.
Interesting, too, that a movie made by Frenchmen would depict the French authorities as utterly corrupt. Maybe they were having fun with American prejudices, but more likely they love their government bureaucrats as much as we do.
Some years ago I heard a British interview of an Islamic cleric. The cleric was asked [para] "If Islam is the one true religion and muslims are the most enlightened how do you explain Americas speedy ascent to superpower while the islamic lands are downtrodden?" The cleric replies [para] "America will be a footnote in history. Yes America enjoys sole superpower status but this will end. Muslims are patient. In time we will bring Islamic rule to America and the European continent and Islam will rule the world."
Caldwell was herself a Christian. Roman Catholic, to be specific.
Ya, true…no blood for oil huh?
How about a real Good versus Evil, that will show the liberals to be the villains. In a shameless plug, it is a film I have been working on for the past year. We make no bones about taking the pro-life side in a documentary that is sure to fire up the left. http://www.bloodmoneyfilm.com
"Characters become stereotypes and, ta da, if your 'bad guys' belong to some particular identifiable group, you've now got something prejudicial."
A great example of art that manages to be moral, and unmistakably so, without drifting into "prejudice," as you put it, is Dostoevsky's. Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamozov are perfectly sympathetic. Their motivations are identifiable. Every step of their thought processes are known to us, all of them make sense, and in Ivan's case, we almost go so far as to agree with them.
Nevertheless, they are wrong. We are made to know they are wrong. And they are lumped into an identifiable group, that is, Westernized atheistic (in Ivan's case, anti-God actually would be more accurate) intellectuals. But we don't mind, because we understand them.
"But we don't mind, because we understand them."
I don't mean to say we don't mind that they're wrong. I mean to say we don't mind that Dostoevsky has an ideological axe to grind.
"I'm pretty sure that the villians in Basterds are Nazis because it's set in WWII era France"
I think the point is that Tarantino didn't have to make a WWII movie. There have been thousands of them and it was 70 years ago. Especially after last year's "Defiance," "Valkyrie," "The Reader," "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," etc., we'd have said enough for a while.
But no, Tarantino liked "The Dirty Dozen," so he had to make one too. I'm not saying no one should touch the subject again. It is a great subgenre. All I'm saying is why can't there be villains with a definite relevance to contemporary culture, as there was in "The Dark Night"?
People still love Gone With the Wind, don't they? Is the the War between the States a fresh item?
I agree with your main point, but to be accurate, Gone With the Wind was made a long, long time after the Civil War, and as such the filmmakers had the "perspective" Rex demands.
"The revisionism came later; Col. Saito in 'Bridge on the River Kwai' (1956) shows some vulnerability beneath his bushido facade"
I wouldn't go so far as to call that revisionism. They made him out to be a pretty bad guy. And if he was vulnerable, it was because he feared for his life from the high command and his culture's larger sense of honor.
Of course, "Bridge" is full of moral equivalency. but a good kind of moral equivalency. With fully realized characters who transcended standing for their side in the war, and a "long view" of humanity that managed to see the absurdity in all our efforts.
I think we need more movies where the Liberals are villians and get their azzes kicked by conservative heroes. As long as we are pushing fantasy, it might as well be something that would be popular with a majority of Americans. Note: the majority is Conservative. Maybe we can turn the fantasy into reality. Other themes would be the great unsung American heroes that are saving our azzes every day in the War on Terror right now. I read a great story about Chiuck Yaeger's nephew in a key battle for Falluga that would make a great episode of reality based war stories. He earned 3 Bronze Stars saving his entire squad by killing a bunch of Insurgents single handedly while wounded. But the lefties won't ever produce such a movie even if it made a Billion dollars. It doesn't fit with the lefty America hating agenda.
Like all of those horribly dated WWII movies made in 40s? Please.
The Battle of Fallujah could make one HELL of a movie.
As would Thieves of Baghdad by Col. Matthew Bogdanos.
From the description: "In April 2003, Matthew Bogdanos was a long way from the courtrooms of New York City where, as an assistant D.A., he prosecuted hundreds of cases. After September 11, 2001, this Marine Corps Reserve colonel, lawyer and student of ancient civilizations, returned to uniform full-time to head counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, where Bogdanos gave himself the mission of finding antiquities that had been stolen from the Iraq National Museum during the American invasion. Beginning with an Indiana Jones-like opening that finds him in the museum's bowels, Bogdanos chronicles a journey fueled by his passion for history and frustrated by erratic record-keeping and factionalism among Iraqis, not to mention the hazards of warfare. The son of Greek immigrants who went on to achieve advanced degrees in law and classical studies, Bogdanos weaves together a detective story, adventure yarn and history lesson, committing himself to the investigation of stolen artifacts and reflecting what he deems rumor and exaggeration among the media coverage and academics who claimed irrevocable archeological tragedy. Indeed, some pieces, he discovers, were moved and protected prior to the U.S. invasion, while others were housed by Iraqis for safekeeping until after the war. Bogdanos is a remarkable blend of warrior, academic and communicator, and he cuts through politics and hyperbole to tell an engrossing story abundant with history, colored by stories of brave Iraqis and Americans, and shaded with hope for the future."
Good stuff. And enjoyable replies.
I thought Neeson's gun toting, parentally responsible, plan of action, take no prisoners character WAS the politically correct one! Then again, I was raised correctly.
Never will forget when they made "Sum of all Fears" into a flick and for some reason felt the need to make the REAL villains some "right wing fascist" white power group instead of the Middle Eastern guys from the book.
[...] As if NewsReal hasn’t stumbled into enough debates already, now we have John Nolte, Editor-In-Chief of the essential conservative pop culture blog Big Hollywood challenging us. [...]
[...] CBS Posts Soldier Party Pictures– Wants You to Feel Outraged John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Hollywood: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal At War, Notes from the Front Lines, NY Times: Cemetery Games Tim Slagle, Big Hollywood: Cindy [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.