Me? A Neocon? Really?
by John RidleyI find in life the compass of one’s politics are often arbitrarily set by the poles of the person you happen to be communicating with. When I write for the Huffington Post I’m often considered the resident Righty. When I write for NPR I’m the flaming Liberal.
But I was surprised to find that based on a story I wrote in Hollywood, some people believe me to be a neoconservative.
Me? A Neocon? Really?
While the perception – or misconception – is probably not widely held, it stems from the 1998 film Three Kings. In a piece in the LA Times Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Contributing Editor to The Weekly Standard, Max Boot, called the movie a “neocon masterpiece.” Largely for the plot point of US soldiers shepherding a group of Shiite refuges to safety in Iran in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War.
Says Boot: “The message is clear: The U.S. should pursue its ideals in foreign policy, not simply try to protect its strategic or economic interests.” He goes on to say: “Anybody who wonders what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq today should rent Three Kings. It makes an ironclad moral case for the invasion.”
Better you should buy it than rent it. However…
To be honest, I think Boot is putting on a bit of a rib. His piece largely hails George Clooney for all the stealthily neoconservative movies he’s made. But either way, Boot raises interesting points about what we set out to do in Hollywood and what you see on the screen.
When I wrote the story for Three Kings, it wasn’t meant to be particularly conservative or liberal. It was a black empowerment piece. The lead character of the story was a disillusioned black man who figures if the government is going to go to war over oil, then he is entitled to grab something for himself if he can. Gold. But when he sees that America is going to once again basically turn a blind eye to the plight of the oppressed, that’s when he decides he has to step in and help his “dark skinned” brothers and sisters. The ascendancy of a man of color who sees wrong, and does right despite his circumstances.
What ended up on the screen from all that was Ice Cube in the sidekick role.
And that shepherding the Shiites to safety? Hardly a statement on America’s moral obligations. It was a studio note early in development to have a more “up-beat” ending so they could sell more tickets. Trust me, decent folks that they are, when we were developing the movie the studio didn’t know a Shiite from a Sunni or an Arab from a Muslim and wasn’t particularly interested in their plight.
All that is to say, as people we are often deeper than the boxes crafted by the perspectives of others. Which is why I appreciate what Big Hollywood is trying to do: show that the ideologies of Hollywood are not as narrowly cast as they often seem. There is need for that, and I applaud anyone who tries to fill it.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go be a flaming liberal over at my other blog site.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
85 Comments
I’m sorry that your movie got pruned down so much that it’s message was lost.
If this article is any indication of your rationality, I look forward to hearing your opinions on this site.
BTW- No one will ever call me a “flaming liberal,” no matter which site.
One of my fave writer/directors is Joss “Buffy” Whedon. No doubt the guy lights the sky with his flaming liberalism and votes Democrat by rote.
Yet having watched “Serenity” again on the tube only last night, one cannot deny it is anything but a 100% conservative slash semi-libertarian tale.
Serenity’s heroes are all fighting against tyrannical quasi-communist dystopia in which the individual is crushed by the collectivist state.
There is NO ambiguity here. The crew of the Serenity embody the small capitalist, classic liberal philosophy that is the antithesis of those who believe that more government, more regulations, more taxes and more control is the progressive way.
1) Why can’t Whites have “White empowerment films”?
2) A neoconservative is simply a Zionist who claims to be conservative in order to hoodwink real conservatives while simply trying to further Israel’s goals. George Bush is a fine example – loyal to Israel over the US, he isn’t a conservative but says he is.
Terry — that’s funny because I’m a real conservative, a Zionist, support Israel fully and seek to further Israel’s goals, and I’m not even a Jew.
Now you’re not really saying that to be a real (sic) conservative, one cannot support the Jewush state? Are you? That would be a bit silly.
“1) Why can’t Whites have “White empowerment films”?
2) A neoconservative is simply a Zionist who claims to be conservative in order to hoodwink real conservatives while simply trying to further Israel’s goals. George Bush is a fine example – loyal to Israel over the US, he isn’t a conservative but says he is.”
Hitler called. He wants his armband back.
John — thanks for a fascinating peek into how “Three Kings” came to the big screen. Very few folks fit snugly into labels, but too many people are eager to slap labels on everyone who crosses their path.
It’s always interesting to hear how movies evolve from conception to the screen. Those stories tend to be tragedies more often than triumphs. But Mr. Ridley’s point, that you can’t peg someone’s personal politics simply by watching a movie they had a hand in, is pretty clear.
Having read several posts, and their commenters, on this site now, it seems clear that one can find conservatism wherever one looks. So the underlying theme of this entire site (”We conservatives can’t get our message out because we are victims of the liberal Hollywood machine”) seems, well, unnecessary.
Everytime I see the word neoconservative I think what would Teddy Speak softly but carry a big stick Roosevelt and Ronald peace through strength Reagan would say. Having a muscular foriegn policy isn’t a Neocon or even particularily new idea.
Jack Bauer -
Yep, you are a rube – no doubt a Christian slave.
“Now you’re not really saying that to be a real (sic) conservative, one cannot support the Jewush state?”
A conservative would be a patriot, not someone with divided loyalty with a FOREIGN country.
Jack Bauer -
Yep, you are a rube – no doubt a Christian slave.
“Now you’re not really saying that to be a real (sic) conservative, one cannot support the Jewush state?”
A conservative would be a patriot, not someone with divided loyalty with a FOREIGN country.
Stephanie – January 7th, 2009 at 7:34 am
“Everytime I see the word neoconservative I think what would Teddy Speak softly but carry a big stick Roosevelt and Ronald peace through strength Reagan would say. Having a muscular foriegn policy isn’t a Neocon or even particularily new idea.”
OK, so what American goals are served by supporting ISRAEL? It costs us enormously and we get nothing for it. You cite a tactic that is valid to support a strategy that isn’t.
BTW, should we also support a White homeland? Or do only certain groups get a homeland paid for by US tax dollars? Does that seem right to you?
I’ve always found the politics of the film to be quite the muddle, and it’s HARDLY a conservative film. Look at the opening. Soldiers shooting surrendering Iraqis, troops drunkenly singing “Proud to be an American” and a member of the media shtupping George Clooney while crying out about how powerful he is. (Geez…a little on-the-nose with your symbolism, aren’t you?)
Yet ever since, I meet Republicans who love the film. Me, I’ve got to be honest and say I despise it.
Terry have you ever actually seen Schindler’s List? Ever walked through Sachsenhausen? The Gestapo Prison on Prince Albrecht Strasse in Berlin? Talked to a Holocaust survivor? Ever know someone who actually interviewed Albery Speer? What about talking to American vets who rescued prisoners? Do you have a clue?
When you get one then we will talk. OK? Your moral equivalency isn’t even worthy of a discussion. Its not worthy of an American to even say such things. I am not shocked at the moral equivalency because its rampant now everywhere however don’t bring it to this discussion.
Oh and Terry just for teh record having a muscular foriegn policy does not have anything to do with Israel. Never has never will. If you doubt it ask Dick Cheney as I am sure the VEEP could explain it to you.
Terry:
“OK, so what American goals are served by supporting ISRAEL?”
I dunno — maybe the only functioning, open, liberal democracy in the Middle East deserves just a little of our support?
“BTW, should we also support a White homeland? Or do only certain groups get a homeland paid for by US tax dollars? Does that seem right to you?”
Maybe if “Whites” spent the last 2000 years being persecuted in most of the world, being used as scapegoats in whatever communities they lived in anytime things went bad, and had a little thing like systematic, industrial-scale genocide happen to them, then yes, I would support a “white” homeland. Then again, there is a little place called “Europe” — made you should look it up sometime.
Whether Terry intended it or not, his discription of a “neocon” fits with the way the term is generally used…as a slur. The broad question that this issue presents is, is there anything to be gained by incorporating ideological goals (one may read ideological as meaning consistent with natural law) into U.S. foreign policy or are we better served by a real politik approach.
The same question can be asked about domestic policy. Are we better off recognizing the natural aspirations of individual as expressed in natural law (we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights) or are we better off approaching domestic policy as merely a means of social control. It’s the same issue and where you come down on it says a lot about your worldview.
Addison:
I’m a big fan of Natural Law myself. And I happen to think that the only real, sustainable, attainable way to reach “World Peace” is by exporting the concept of Enlightenment-era Natural Law to everyone on the planet. When even the poorest of the poor in say, Sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East know that they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not worry about being kicked in the face by tin-pot despots who care only about Power, you’ll see less incentive to strap on a suicide vest, or listen to evil bastards like bin Laden.
Terry, I’ve got news for you: Your Nazi philosophy died in 1945 with your Fuhrer. You will never get to have a lamp shade made from the skin of Jewish people. You will never get to yank the teeth out of a Jewish child’s mouth to pass the time away. You will never get to send any Jewish women into a gas shower room.
In other words, get some help – YOU REALLY NEED IT.
Terry is probably a Stalinst troll trying (pathetically) to act the agent provocateur.
He seems to be failing miserably, whoever he is.
One thing he isn’t, is a conservative, you know in the line of Adam Smith, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (PBUH).
Stephanie – January 7th, 2009 at 8:21 am
“Terry have you ever actually seen Schindler’s List?”
In typical fashion, the Zionist dupes change the subject when cornered – play the “Holocaust card.”
Have you heard of the “Holocaust Industry”?
Last I checked, the Americans weren’t guilty of that anyway. So, why are American tax payers punished for it? Why are the Palestinians?
Jack – one thing you aren’t is a patriot like George Washington (who warned against foreign entanglements.)
Terry, your turban is too tight. Now go take your meds please.
Anyway, enough about Freulein Terry. “24″ is the best television show ever made, in my humble opinion. When I watch the reruns, I will sit on the edge on my seat in suspense, even though I’ve seen the episode I’m watching a dozen times.
My guess is that during this 7th day Tony will start off as an enemy but later it will be revealed that he was operating under top-secret and/or special circumstances, and that he was on our side all along but had to make the enemy think that he was working for them. I mean, that IS the “24″ way, right?
Terry still hasn’t answered the question posed in my post above and doesn’t seem interested in engaging in any real discussion. Not worth our time.
“1) Why can’t Whites have “White empowerment films”?
2) A neoconservative is simply a Zionist who claims to be conservative in order to hoodwink real conservatives while simply trying to further Israel’s goals. George Bush is a fine example – loyal to Israel over the US, he isn’t a conservative but says he is.”
I bet that sounded better in the original German.
Nickolas Dilmore – January 7th, 2009 at 8:27 am
“I dunno — maybe the only functioning, open, liberal democracy in the Middle East deserves just a little of our support?”
Then by that reasoning, why didn’t we support Apartheid South Africa.
Oh, btw, did you know Israel was an ally of Apartheid South Africa? Bet not. You see, Israel can never be critisized. Any other nation supporting SA would have been. But there is a good reason they were allies – they shared a defining characteristic…..apartheid.
Israel is not “open.” In fact, why are we supporting a nation that is racist by design? One group has different rights than others….based on race. I guess that is why people like you are programmed not to THINK – especially about THIS topic. Instead you just parrot nonsense about them being a democracy.
There are democracies in the region. In fact, Iran elected a leader we didn’t like, so we deposed him and put in a puppet. Look up “Operation Ajax.” One of MANY times we have OPPOSED a democracy in that region. How about some current examples?
We opposed democracy in Gaza because ISRAEL didn’t like who won (and neocons like Bush take orders from Israel.)
We supported a military dictator named Musharraf
So, the facts are quite different from what you seem to think.
Ah — more and more of the conserfauxtive “Terry” is slipping out.
Sounds and acts more like a DUmmie and Kos klown with every post.
Keep it up Terry, at this rate you’ll have revealed your Socialist Workers party membership number by the end of the day.
Addison DeWitt – January 7th, 2009 at 8:57 am
“Terry still hasn’t answered the question posed in my post above and doesn’t seem interested in engaging in any real discussion. Not worth our time.”
I see no question directed to me – and only a rhetorical question in general. Perhaps you were confused with one you posted under a sock-puppet account?
Thanks for the clarification. To be blunt, I didn’t like the film because it struck me as a poor remake of “Kelly’s Heros” (without the laughs). Now that we know that it was suppose to showcase that the black guy was just another thief wearing an army uniform. Armed with this information, I still don’t like the film or it’s premise.
More Later.
Terry
It’s not rhetorical. I apologize if I didn’t explicitly direct it to you, but it is at the heart of this issue, and until you at least address it, there really isn’t any point of debating. Your just trying to score cheap points. So how about boosting the level of discurse, huh?
“Neoconservative” may have had a limited but valid use at one time; but nowadays usage of “Neocon,” like usage of “trickle-down economics,” is pretty much just like a sign atop the user’s head, with a downward pointing arrow signifying, “No real thinking going in here.”
Of course they are Zundi. I mean National Socialist German Workers Party…how commie can you get?
Wow I am a Zionist Dupe? Did you read anything I wrote? You come off so Nuremberg 1935. And really Terry displaying your lack of historical education is kind of foolish. Tis better not to say a word and let us think you are a fool, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt. That Abe Lincoln….he must have been a “zionist dupe” to.
mcnease – January 7th, 2009 at 8:59 am
“I bet that sounded better in the original German.”
I’m only answering this nonsense about a “Black empowerment film.” Seems I’ve struck a nerve.
Terry actually your rants are quite amusing. Puzzling. But rather humerous. Its like listening to a 15 year old.
Terry,
Gaza is NOT “their territory”, as you neo-nazis claim. The land was originally given to Israel by God. There is no higher authority that can or should be answered to. So your snot-nosed neo-nazi tirades only show you to be a pathetic little hate mongerer patterned after the 1930’s Deutchland-style.
There is NO Über-race. So knock it off.
stephanie — he’s a Kos troll, minimum. So 15 may be pitching it a bit high.
Look at his very first post.
1. Tries to get people to wander down a path that he hopes will generate racist posts. 2. The hackneyed neocon imbroglio which seeks to divide conservatives into leftist-like factions.
People please, stop engaging with the dope as if he is being serious. He just wants to derail the thread.
Weren’t we talking about “We Three Kings”?
The cure for trolls is to ignore them.
Could we stick to the subject? The film “3 Kings”.
Cool – January 7th, 2009 at 9:37 am
“Gaza is NOT “their territory”, as you neo-nazis claim. The land was originally given to Israel by God. There is no higher authority that can or should be answered to. So your snot-nosed neo-nazi tirades only show you to be a pathetic little hate mongerer patterned after the 1930’s Deutchland-style.
There is NO Über-race. So knock it off.’
I LOVE it when you guys destroy yourselves. First off, “God” doesn’t need the US’s help doing anything so we can stop those enormous payments to Israel immediately. Secondly, you demonstrate quite clearly that the Israelis are the same as the Nazis. Just two different people saying they are the master race.
Jack Bauer – January 7th, 2009 at 9:37 am
“1. Tries to get people to wander down a path that he hopes will generate racist posts.”
That was begun by the blog owner and “Black empowerment films.” It would be racist to suggest Whites have less of a right to their own films, wouldn’t it?
Michael Hutchison – January 7th, 2009 at 9:40 am
“Weren’t we talking about “We Three Kings”?”
The topic is clearly neoconservatism and stop using sock puppets.
when we were developing the movie the studio didn’t know a Shiite from a Sunni or an Arab from a Muslim
A cousin of mine, he’s Mexican-American, worked as an extra in “Three Kings,” in scenes shot in the Arizona desert outside Phoenix.
Doubt he knew whether he was playing a Shiite or Sunni, either.
Terry – January 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
<>
What are you, stupid? First off, God doesn’t belong in quotes. You’ll have to answer for that one. Secondly how is there even the slightest demonstration of the kind you so idiotically suggest? No one suggested that Israel is a kind of a “master race”. Those are your words, not mine. Typical liberal neo-nazi. You don’t even have a clue as to what you’re reading. It’s called “comprehension”, you moron.
I’m skipping all troll posts.
What I find curious about Mr. Ridley’s original idea is that his black American rises up to support his “dark-skinned” brethern. These “dark-skinned” Muslims are at this very moment enslaving black Africans across the continent, and have done so since Mohammed first came up with his death cult. Muslims have enslaved, bought and sold Africans and they were, in fact, the ones who set up the encampments to ship African slaves to England and the Americas. Our horrible American slave past could not have happened without the Muslim belief in slavery, and would not have ended without the principled Christians who stood up against it.
I don’t care about the color of a person’s skin, Mr. Ridley, and I’m sad to read that you do.
I don’t care about the color of a person’s skin, Mr. Ridley, and I’m sad to read that you do.
In a perfect world, Bonnie makes a valid point.
But in the real world, the skin-hue-driven thought processes Ridley had IceCube act out are plausible, and compelling.
Bonnie,
Very well put. One small thing I might add is that of those courageous Christians who ended the muslim-influenced slavery were a small group who created the Republican Party, the first President of which was Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery through legal methods, including the amending of the Constitution and the resolution of a Civil War being the preservation of a United States all one country. No small task for sure.
Cool – January 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
“No one suggested that Israel is a kind of a “master race”.”
Apparently they deserve a homeland paid for by foreign slaves (tax payers.) Who is this a homeland for? Only a select group of people.
At least Hitler wasn’t creating a welfare state like Israel.
Terry, hey take a chill pill, buddy. You’ve pounded your drum long enough. You don’t like Israel. I get it.
If you have this much to say go start your own blog and save us the repetition.
DonB71InWA – January 7th, 2009 at 10:44 am
“If you have this much to say go start your own blog and save us the repetition.”
Well, I don’t get affirmative action breaks like this guy and further, criticism of Israel is not allowed in the US.
Three Kings is a masterpiece. It’s one of the most influential films of the past 20 years. No joke.
Ironically, I think Terry has just reminded us why Israel is needed. You never know when someone like that might come to power somewhere in the world.
Just for the record, the Israelis built their own state, with minimal initial support from outside. You think those crops just popped up in the desert or what? Read you history. Or don’t. I couldn’t care less.
Funny…Love the references to “strong foreign policy” Reagan…Funny because two of my friends that grew up with me in the Military were in Beruit when the Marine Barracks was blown up with 250 or so Marine deaths…Ronnie’s “big stick” response? Pulled the troops immediately!
To the point of a couple posts about what a “NeoCon” is…The NeoCon movement was started by Jewish Democrats/Liberals who felt their party was not taking a strong enough Military stance in protecting Isreal and in spreading Military might in general.
Fortunately Reagan was a liberal and chose to negotiate with Libya, remeber them even worse than Iraq, versus invade…Currently diplomacy in Libya resulted in cooperation…Invasion in Iraq has resulted in a couple hundred thousand dead humans, a hundred thousand wounded, unrest in the whole Middle East and a Trillion dollar bill and counting…
No wonder PNAC has basically closed it’s doors!
>>At least Hitler wasn’t creating a welfare state like Israel.
Sweet baby Jesus, Terry.
Somewhere, a Ku Klux Klan meeting is missing its Kleagle. Get thee hence. You’re stinking up the joint in here.
“Terry”,
Is there cartoon music in your head? C.O.M.P.R.E.N.D what you are reading before making statements. Otherwise you’re just another Michael Moore/Al Franken sound-alike Obamatron.
The thought of Israel being “paid for by foreign slaves (tax payers.)” is absurd, as is all your statements. Israel is not paid for by anyone. Their GNP is magnitudes above their islamic neighbors due to free enterprise and capitalism.
“Who is this a homeland for?” it’s for anyone who wants democracy and to make a living without having to bow to your satanic “Allah”. Of course, in Israel if you want to be a muslim you can and no one will kill you or take your livelihood away. Try the opposite in a muslim country. Yeah, right.
The only reason Hitler’s Germany wasn’t a welfare state was because of the war effort. Combating the evil of your hero, the USA greatly boosted its economy
via the war effort as well. The difference is that afterwards, your side was defeated and the world was quite a bit more free. Also, the USA kept its economy rolling forward. The reason you’re even reading this on your mom’s computer is due to American Technology.
Yes, Israel deserves to live. They deserve their homeland and to live in peace. Your Hamass comrades have no right to keep lobbing missiles onto the Israelite citizens who are guilty of only getting up in the morning to go to work and school. Israel even calls the houses of the Palestines (who your Hamass bullies are hiding behind) to tell them that there is Hamass in their area and to evacuate before they get hurt.
Who calls their enemies to warn them? No one. The Palestines are not the enemy of Israel. It’s those terrorists (like Hamass, your buddies) that are the enemy and they hide behind civilians like the cowards you people are. Israel wouldn’t have to kick butt and take names if they weren’t provoked over and over and over, you neo-nazi idiot. But now that they are, it’s fantastic to see them not back down to scum like Hamass and you.
PS: It’s time for you to go to school now. Go on. Get.
masha – January 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am
“Just for the record, the Israelis built their own state, with minimal initial support from outside. You think those crops just popped up in the desert or what? Read you history. Or don’t. I couldn’t care less.”
No, they received enormous support from Germany and racist J3ws throughout the world.
Speaking of History, you might want to look in to the King David Hotel bomging and the Irgun. Israel was built by TERRORISM. It was built by ethnic cleansing.
Cool – January 7th, 2009 at 11:01 am
“The thought of Israel being “paid for by foreign slaves (tax payers.)” is absurd, as is all your statements. Israel is not paid for by anyone. Their GNP is magnitudes above their islamic neighbors due to free enterprise and capitalism.”
Israel receives BILLIONS of dollars every year from the us from tax payers. Imagine that – Americans pay taxes for a “homeland” for a select group of people! This is antithetical to our principles.
Then they receive more money in loan guarnatees and charities. Then they receive money from Germany. Israel is the biggest welfare state to ever exist.
“Who is this a homeland for?” it’s for anyone who wants democracy and to make a living without having to bow to your satanic”
You must be confused. It is a Homeland for a single race.
“The only reason Hitler’s Germany wasn’t a welfare state was because of the war effort. Combating the evil of your hero, the USA greatly boosted its economy”
Wars cost money – they don’t create it.
“your side was defeated and the world was quite a bit more free.”
You forgot about the Iron Curtain, huh?
“Yes, Israel deserves to live.”
Not at the expense of Americans. Palestinians have a right to live, yet we support Israel who is actively committing genocide against them.
Isreal broke the cease fire when they invaded Gaza on Nov. 4th. Bet you didn’t know that, did you? Israel has had a blockade on Gaza for a year. Bet you didn’t know that. Israel is the cause of the problem. Now you know that whether you admit it or not.
“Terry”,
How could Israel receive support from “Germany and racist J3ws throughout the world”? Germany was decimated and split, owned by the Allies. The United Nations formally decreed Israel a nation in 1948. You show your stupidity more and more with every post. The country may have had help with establishing itself and it sure grew with a little help from its friends (who doesn’t?) but your statements are ludicrous.
Israel was built IN SPITE OF terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
Man, you’re an idiot.
lolz @ Terry, funny stuff.
fyi, to people trying to engage in a debate with him: it is pointless. He is coming from the premise that the “racist j3ws” of Israel are terrorists and “ethnic cleansers”. That they are the “bad guys”. For any on our(conservative/right leaning) side to engage him in debate is silly. To debate is to believe that your arguments are able to persuade your opponents of the truth of your position. Given his absurd and insane positions, you’re all beating your heads against the wall.
The best way to deal with trolls like him is to laugh then ignore him. Then make sure that people like him never get into any position of authority or power, lest they spread their insanity beyond their warped, little realities.
“Cool”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany
I’m sorry, is “Jew” a dirty word? Since when? Please enlighten me why you feel compelled to spell this word with a letter-substitution trick reserved for curses?
And for the record, which group do you think is the latest beneficiary of Israel’s existence? Black Jews from Africa. That’s right. Oh but I forgot- Israel is racist for just wanting to exist. My bad.
Jerb –
Would a Homeland for Whites be ok? How about US tax dollars creating and supporting it?
Israel is a racist nation by design. What part of “Homeland for J3ws” confuses you?
I never thought 3 Kings was conservative in anyway. In fact I would hold the view that it’s the same kind of moral equivalence garbage that Hollywood has been throwing out for years. Like when the Iraqi asks Mark Walhberg how he would feel if someone started bombing his wife and kids. Of course they don’t mention that you and your wife and kids are living in a country that routinely tortured and killed it’s own citizens and used poison gas on them and invaded Kuwait. Funny how that is never mentioned. After hearing about your version of the script I can calm Mr. Ridley of his fears of being a neocon no you are not sir.
BONNIE,
Superbly written. Thank you.
There was a time when most people aspired to live by Dr. King’s words, to be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin.
Seems like we are regressing…..
I never thought Three Kings was conservative. But I have noticed that the film’s central bottom note (in the 1990’s w/ a Democrat president) “America bad for deserting these Iraqis” has been lost to the new conventional wisdom of the 2000’s, under a Republican President:”America bad for not deserting the Iraqis”
Please help me to like Hollywood again, guys!
I love Three Kings – especially the writing – nice going, John! – but I hate its politics and agree that it’s full of moral equivalence and easy America-bashing. John’s post is highly entertaining because of its realistic description of how movies come to be what they are – that line about Ice T as the sidekick made me laugh out loud – but it’s also full of all the usual left wing assumptions. America was “going to once again basically turn a blind eye to the plight of the oppressed”? Really? Do we? That rumbling sound you heard was a lot of dead American boys turning over in their graves having gotten there in the fight to free most of the people on this earth who ARE free including America’s own slaves. Also, “war for oil.” It’s a cliche in the original sense of the word – words put together so automatically the printer might as well put them all on one plate. Oil is an essential resource and so figures into the politics of both war and peace but the scene where the torturer pours oil into Wahlberg’s mouth was merely the living expression of the cliche and political silliness. This is exactly what bugs me – that people as hugely talented as John obviously is simply accept these left wing assumptions. If you tried to make that movie with the same great writing but the opposite assumptions, you’d've been hounded out of town.
Three Kings, the movie, I only saw it until recently on cable; nothing else to watch. Three Kings, the original story as revealed by John Ridley, the synopsis would stopped me from watching it. That said, I appreciate your article. Thanks.
Terry, how does it feel to be “Isarel” in this blog? Most here are attacking your belief, and you have to dish everything out to defend your POV. Get it, dude?
All I can say about Terry waxing his isolationist proclivities (honey, Patrick Buchanan is lonely…go tend to him okay?) is…(and with a nod to Mr. Gary Graham) : FTS!
Vince R – January 7th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“Terry, how does it feel to be “Isarel” in this blog?”
If I were being Israel I would invade your house and kill your family. How would it feel to be a Palestinian?
I, Terry, am an uneducated idiot. So please either ignore my posts or believe the opposite.
qoute:”Terry – January 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
If I were being Israel I would invade your house and kill your family. How would it feel to be a Palestinian?”
After I keep throwing stones at you, straping bombs to my chest and walikg into your tanks, ramdomly firing rockets in your back yard, and promise your destruction? I’d say I’m getting exactly what they deserved, for not standing up to the people who terrorize you USING MY NAME.
But it seems pointless trading posts with you, since you’re paid to and I’m not.
Guys, Terry is not a neo-nazi, he’s probably an NYU student who’s been brainwashed by his pro-muslim/anti Jew teachers. He’s probably of Muslim decent, 1st or second generation, but he could be white, or a black Muslim. What is so apparent, is how nazi ideology is identical to radical Muslim ideology.
Terry is probably a really smart guy who’s consumed by hatred. He would never admit it, but he is a radical fascist who has no problem sharing a starbucks with friends before an anti-Israel rally.
Terry, why is it bad that we send money to Israel, but not bad that we send money to Saudi Arabia?
Terry, Israel was always an outspoken opponent of South African aparthied. Germany, France, and a few other countries supplied more arms to SA than Israel ever did. South Africa also has its own weapons industry and supplies quit a bit of weaponry to Iran.
Terry, the Jewish homeland isn’t just for Jews. The population is comprised of many different peoples who have the same rights as any people in any democracy.
Terry, Jews had been moving to Palestine as early as the late 1800’s and buying land. Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population for many many years before that. They finally got the land of Israel from the British with the baking of the United Nations.
Terry, the first Zionist were secular, Jewish, socialists. They’re reasons for wanting a Jewish state was not religious, and Judaism is by no means a race, so there is no way Israel can be considered a place for one race.
Terry, we send millions of dollars to the Palestinians and have always supported peace between the two parties.
Terry, you’re a troll, and you’ve succeded in becoming the center of attention in the comments thread. But it’s fun discrediting everything you say.
John, Thanks for that vignette on how the movie was shaped – very interesting to me as a complete outsider to the media biz. The explanation (whether true or not – and I expect that it is) certainly makes sense. Like others I noticed in real (reel?) time the story similarity to Kelly’s Heroes as well -a movie I also enjoyed. 3Ks was different enough though that I didn’t feel the need to compare one to the other. All three leads were terrific too. In retrospect, layering in a more overt racial theme may have been more than the movie was able to handle. My 2 cents.
I had no idea whatsoever that Three Kings was supposed to be a star vehicle for a black man with a black-centric story. How in the hell did George Freakin’ Clooney end up as the star of that story? Hollywood can screw up anything.
Terry, you need to study this article:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/1948–israel–and-the-palestinians–annotated-text-11373
A little enlightenment never hurt anyone.
John, enjoyed Three Kings when I saw it at the Chinese Theater back in 1999. Thought the theme that empathy and compassion for unjust human suffering transcends cultural differences was well done.
But I always suspected that George Bush saw the movie and believed the more glorious aspects of the film as being the true history of Iraq. And who says there aren’t conservative movies?
Alright, moving on to Three Kings…I didn’t hink it was all that anti-American. It was anti- America abandoning people through unfinished wars. It made me think more of Vietnam than anything else. I also didn’t see moral equivalency in there. An Iraqui abusing an American prisoner while spouting anti-American propaganda does not constitute moral equivalency. There’s some critique leveled at military bureaucratic process, but still that’s not anti-American per se.
As to the original intent of the story, yeah well, that’s what happens when you hand control over to Hollywood bigwigs. That’s why so few good books get made into decent movies.
I don’t know if Big Hollywood is operating an ‘anything goes’ policy with respect to comments. If so, that’s fine. But if that’s not what’s happening, surely Terry has done more than enough to get himself kicked out of here? He’s either an antisemitic nutcase, a pure troll with no real goal other than to cause disruption, or both. Either way, he’s hijacked an otherwise interesting thread with his nonsense.
If he’s not going to get kicked out of here, can we at least stop feeding him?
I concur with JIC.
Someone asked,
“Would a Homeland for Whites be ok?”
Sure. It wouldn’t bother me. But you’re mixing apples and oranges.
Both blacks and whites live in Israel.
Jews don’t limit Israel to Jews only, they also allow Muslims to live there, as well as atheists, Christians, and any other group.
Most of Europe was predominantly Christian for hundreds of years (so too the USA), and most Middle Eastern nations, along with some in Africa are predominantly or solely Muslim.
I don’t get why it’s okay for Christians to have Christian nations or Muslims to have Muslim nations, but it’s not okay with some people for Jews to have one lone Jewish nation station?
Bonnie said,
“These “dark-skinned” Muslims are at this very moment enslaving black Africans across the continent, and have done so since Mohammed first came up with his death cult.”
I’m I’m recalling correctly, black Muslims are killing black Christians in some areas of Africa.
TVO’s Film 101 did a show interviewing people involved with this movie and the movie about the Afgan war called “The Beast”.
http://www.tvo.org/pdf/TVOListingsJan09.pdf
Three Kings’ ?Producer said that he was worried about offending large groups of people, and surprised that the movie won an Muslim Media Award. http://www.mpac.org/about/timeline/
I appreciated the movie scene where Mark Wahlberg was being tortured by the Iraqi whose family was bombed and asked Mark how he would feel if his family was being bombed. But I couldn’t understand if the producer was worried about offending the people who gave the award to the movie’s producers. It was about U.S. soldiers using the invasion as an excuse to steal Middle Eastern gold. They should have expected the award.
When I watched THREE KINGS many many moons ago, I never got the impression that it was a neocon movie, especially when one of the terrorists was trying make Wahlberg eat Arab oil. I thought it lost its logic on that since I never seen any liberal or Hollywood-type ride a bicycle to the Academy Awards.
Anyhow, be glad at least Hollywood put on a happy ending to THREE KINGS. The 8 anti-Iraq war movies that came out in 2008 all flopped, even when using Hollywood measurements.
[...] even had esteemed screenwriter and self-confessed “flaming liberal” John Ridley debunk the notion that “Three Kings” was crafted as a neo-con critique of the first [...]
[...] capable John Nolte. In the first few days after launch, liberal scribe John Ridley dropped in to explain that his script for Three Kings was neither “neo-con” nor filmed the way it was [...]
Great site.
[...] Read the Rest from John Ridley at Big Hollywood [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.