Memo to Hollywood: There’s Money Sitting On the Table
by Kurt SchlichterThat the SEALs solved the pirate problem with three shots/three kills last weekend was no surprise; what was should have been really interesting to those of you in the Industry was the American public’s reaction. The public was thrilled. The good guys won, the bad guys lost – decisively. There is a lesson there for you.
Here’s another lesson. During an unpopular war, a popular star risked everything to bring a bestselling book to the screen about American fighting men battling a cruel and vicious enemy. In 1968, you might think an unabashedly pro-war movie where the Americans were the heroes and the enemy the villains would have been soundly rejected, and it was – by the liberal elite.
Roger Ebert, who never saw a film trashing the American fighting man he didn’t praise, still lists John Wayne’s “The Green Berets” as one of his most hated films forty years later. But the public welcomed it, a film that could tell good from evil, and turned it into a hit. It even spawned a hit song. Where is the next war movie that outrages Roger Ebert while lining audiences up around the block?
This is not just about doing the right thing – as a lawyer who has worked with Industry people, I would get farther talking particle physics to my terrier than right and wrong to an agent. It’s about the one thing everyone in the Industry understands – money.
There is good money sitting on the table waiting to be picked up by the filmmaker who dares to buck the Hollywood tide and make a film about the War on Terror that shows the struggle for what it is, a struggle of good versus evil with clear heroes – us – and clear villains – al Qaeda, the Taliban and all the rest of that sordid crew of thugs. Americans understand this instinctively. They will embrace films that do as well.
Simplistic? No. See, the American public – the ones you want to buy tickets to your movies – understands that our enemies are evil. The public also understands that our service members are on the side of good. And they have thoroughly rejected every film that could not face up to this very basic truth. That’s why Redacted, Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Elah and all the rest gather dust in the Blockbuster remainder bin.
So, Americans just want smiley-face propaganda? You Hollywood types need to get out of the 310 area code more often. HBO’s “Taking Chance,” a movie that portrayed the true costs of the war in a respectful and emotionally raw way was a big hit. “Generation Kill,” with all its many faults, also found an audience, though it might have been bigger without the endless scenes of characters bickering and whining. But nearly eight years after the War began, there has been no non-documentary film that unabashedly celebrates our fighting men and women even as it depicted their experiences in combat.
It is not as if there are no stories to tell. Five Americans have earned the Medal of Honor in combat during the War – two of them Navy SEALs. Dozens have earned the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Silver Star. Thousands have earned the Purple Heart. Many veterans have penned their memoirs. And those are just the real-life stories.
There once was a time before all movie material had to come from old TV shows, videogames or comic books – excuse me, “graphic novels.” As odd as it may seem, once there were films with original stories set against the backdrop of historical events. You might have heard of them – films with titles like like The Dirty Dozen, Guns of Navarone and Casablanca. Apparently, they met with some small success.
As Tom Tapp recently reported here on Big Hollywood, at least one studio is giving it a try. Judging from its killer trailer, The Hurt Locker might just break through. But it is not exactly a traditional war movie. It’s about explosive ordinance demolition specialists, folks so nuts that when one of my lieutenants told me he was going to try out to be one I almost ordered him a psyche eval. The question of whether a straight ahead modern war movie can succeed remains.
As with so much in life, John Wayne provides the answer. In his 1968 review, Roger Ebert slammed The Green Berets as “old-fashioned.” I bet the Duke was crying all the way to the bank. The fact is that John Wayne understood that the American public wanted and deserved a movie that showed them the essential truth of a conflict the media at best ignored, a movie not afraid to take a side – our side. They still do, as our national celebration of the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips demonstrates. The question for Hollywood is this: Why are you leaving money on the table?







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
156 Comments
There was one movie last year that showed our soldiers in Iraq as brave and heroic and Islamic terrorists as utterly evil creeps that the movie's hero mowed down like bandits. That film became one of the biggest hits of all time. It was called IRON MAN.
As much as I agree with you, Lt. Col. Schlichter, the problem is that the money *isn't* on the table. Movie producers and distributors in Hollywood control the "purse strings" and won't invest the millions of dollars it would take to put together the movie(s) you've described, distribute it, and make their money back. This is for either purely ideological reasons or because their main distribution channels (i.e. moneymakers) are 50+ percent outside the USA.
Better question to ask: "How can a good ol' American hero movie be funded and distributed to the millions of potential viewers using sources outside of Hollywood?"
Whoever answers this question is going to make a ton of money…
The Green Berets was about good versus evil? We came into Vietnam to take a side in a civil war and killed hundreds of thousands of people Now we can quibble about whether or not this was wise — but we were good and the people we killed were evil? All of them? Because they chose a political system we didn't approve of? Tell me, Mr. Schlichter, how do you define "good" and "evil"? Because from what you writer here it sure looks like if we do it, it's good, if someone else does it, it's evil.
The lefties may yet figure out that there's gold in them thar hills, and at least produce a movie about soldiers who aren't crazed killers. The problem then will be that they will only use pouty-mouthed pretty boys for the parts who obviously couldn't fight their way out of a Campfire Girls attack. The movies will lose money, and they will conclude that pro-military or military-neutral films are no good for their profits. So they might as well go ahead and lose money on anti-American, anti-military movies to educate the public about the dangers of protecting America from our enemies (friends we haven't met yet). Then they would feel good about losing money on their trash, because it's the "patriotic thing to do."
Can we clone John Wayne? We sooooooo need another one right now…
Naturally, Variety's Todd MacCarthy took a dig at the War on Terror by calling it a fantasy in which Americans defeat terrorists.
I'm writing it. Its going to be good.
Hey wr1, Come on lets just hear the arguments about how noble the Communists are. Wayne knew evil when he saw it. Please try to defend the political system that has brought more death and and misery to mankind than any other. We (USA) made a promise to help defend people. I wouldn't expect you to understand that as most Libs have no concept of honor.
wr1, I would simplify it this way: if Democrats support it, it is evil. If they oppose it, it is good. It's just that simple.
Democrats have waged war on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To do so, they had to wage war against this country's founding documents. These documents declared us one nation under God. So God had to be struck down. Once God was removed from the picture, so were the laws and commandments this nation was founded on. Now, you can take from one person and give to another. God called it theft. Democrats call it the income tax and "wealth redistribution."
God said that if any man sheds innocent blood, his blood shall be required. Democrats removed God from the picture, criminals who murder get prison sentences and released to kill again, meanwhile innocent life is allowed to be shed because "it may be an unwanted pregnancy."
Evil abounds. Look for a man with a (D) by his name, and you will see a child of the Devil.
Some better questions to ask are: Was Pol Pot evil? Was what the Khemr Rouge did evil?
And then after you get the answers to those questions, ask another: How many died at their hands because we left?
it was a little more than just a political system, it was a system that murdered and oppressed it's people. Call it whatever you want, just understand that it was wrong and needed to be stopped from spreading.
You have pretty much summed up the conservative mindset in one sentence. Anything they do is righteous because they did it. They use this kind of circular logic to help themselves sleep at night while people are being tortured without a fair trial. If you criticize them, they pretend like you are criticizing the troops so they won't have to take any responsibility. It must be a blissful world.
Why yes, wr1,
The Green Berets WAS about good versus evil.
Sadly for the Vietnamese, evil won after the Democrat-dominated Congress in 1975 reneged on our agreement at the Paris Accords to supply the South Vietnamese Army in the event the North Viet Nam violated the agreement they had signed in 1973. The deaths of millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians followed during the next few years.
So sorry your moral compass isn't working.
Your mind is a hermetically sealed jar of putrid mayonnaise.
AMEN!
We need an actor we can believe in. Who makes movies that make you feel good about the USA.
According to a survey I read, John Wayne ranked #3 as one of the most popular actors. And he died 30 years ago.
I know I still love his movies
That's been left out in the sun for a week…..
I'm going to jump in on this one, since my perspective is quite different from many other posters on this site. I was an anti-Viet Nam war activist. I hated that war, and I still think America made a tragic mistake getting involved in what was, as you said, a civil war. I'll go even farther and say that it was a direct violation of our SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) treaty obligations. That didn't mean I should root for the communists.
At the height of my radicalism, I never blamed or hated our troops for doing their duty. I never made the mistake you're making. A "political system we didn't approve of?" It was a communist dictatorship stirring up warfare among the oppressed victims of another dictatorship. We didn't have a legitimate dog in that fight, and even I agreed that the South Vietnamese government was an oppressive dictatorship. But I didn't see a lot of "choosing" a government on either side. I may think we should have stayed out of that mess, but our troops largely served honorably (yeah, I know all about My Lai). and the enemy were not a bunch of freedom-fighter democrats. The North Vietnamese troops were well-trained surrogates for larger communist dictatorships in China and the Soviet Union and had no intention of allowing free elections in either of the divided parts of Viet Nam. The Viet Cong were efficient murderous local thugs egged on by their coaches to the north. They murdered anyone who got in their way, including hundreds of thousands of fellow Vietnamese civilians who weren't on either side. We may have been wrong getting involved in this particular instance, but I have absolutely no problem defining communist expansionist mass murderers as evil. And fighting evil is a good thing.
And I still hate the war, and I still don't like "The Green Berets." Yet the purges after we pulled our last troops out were an indication of what fine people the communists were. No matter how oppressive the South Viet Nam government may have been, it never came close to that kind of mass murder.
I'm going to jump in on this one, since my perspective is quite different from many other posters on this site. I was an anti-Viet Nam war activist. I hated that war, and I still think America made a tragic mistake getting involved in what was, as you said, a civil war. I'll go even farther and say that it was a direct violation of our SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) treaty obligations. That didn't mean I should root for the communists.
At the height of my radicalism, I never blamed or hated our troops for doing their duty. I never made the mistake you're making. A "political system we didn't approve of?" It was a communist dictatorship stirring up warfare among the oppressed victims of another dictatorship. We didn't have a legitimate dog in that fight, and even I agreed that the South Vietnamese government was an oppressive dictatorship. But I didn't see a lot of "choosing" a government on either side. I may think we should have stayed out of that mess, but our troops largely served honorably (yeah, I know all about My Lai). and the enemy were not a bunch of freedom-fighter democrats. The North Vietnamese troops were well-trained surrogates for larger communist dictatorships in China and the Soviet Union and had no intention of allowing free elections in either of the divided parts of Viet Nam. The Viet Cong were efficient murderous local thugs egged on by their coaches to the north. They murdered anyone who got in their way, including hundreds of thousands of fellow Vietnamese civilians who weren't on either side. We may have been wrong getting involved in this particular instance, but I have absolutely no problem defining communist expansionist mass murderers as evil. And fighting evil is a good thing.
And I still hate the war, and I still don't like "The Green Berets." Yet the purges after we pulled our last troops out were an indication of what fine people the communists were. No matter how oppressive the South Viet Nam government may have been, it never came close to that kind of mass murder.
I'm going to jump in on this one, since my perspective is quite different from many other posters on this site. I was an anti-Viet Nam war activist. I hated that war, and I still think America made a tragic mistake getting involved in what was, as you said, a civil war. I'll go even farther and say that it was a direct violation of our SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) treaty obligations. That didn't mean I should root for the communists.
At the height of my radicalism, I never blamed or hated our troops for doing their duty. I never made the mistake you're making. A "political system we didn't approve of?" It was a communist dictatorship stirring up warfare among the oppressed victims of another dictatorship. We didn't have a legitimate dog in that fight, and even I agreed that the South Vietnamese government was an oppressive dictatorship. But I didn't see a lot of "choosing" a government on either side. I may think we should have stayed out of that mess, but our troops largely served honorably (yeah, I know all about My Lai). and the enemy were not a bunch of freedom-fighter democrats. The North Vietnamese troops were well-trained surrogates for larger communist dictatorships in China and the Soviet Union and had no intention of allowing free elections in either of the divided parts of Viet Nam. The Viet Cong were efficient murderous local thugs egged on by their coaches to the north. They murdered anyone who got in their way, including hundreds of thousands of fellow Vietnamese civilians who weren't on either side. We may have been wrong getting involved in this particular instance, but I have absolutely no problem defining communist expansionist mass murderers as evil. And fighting evil is a good thing.
And I still hate the war, and I still don't like "The Green Berets." Yet the purges after we pulled our last troops out were an indication of what fine people the communists were. No matter how oppressive the South Viet Nam government may have been, it never came close to that kind of mass murder.
Mel Gibson privately funded a Jesus movie Hollywood wouldn't make. If there's so much money to be made in America giving itself a collective reach-around for killing 10,000 guys that weren't our direct enemy before we invaded at the expense of 100,000 innocent civilians then shouldn't the neo-cons be all over that investment? I thought the only thing they loved more than killing was making a killing.
This movie was made DURING the Vietnam war as a pure propaganda piece. John Wayne said as much himself that's why he signed on. Guns of Navarone, Dirty Dozen, The Longest Day, A Bridge too Far etc were all made 10 years after the war's end and they were "positive" war movies because WWII was a popular war. It had a REAL bad guy, we fought actual soldiers in uniforms, we won, then it was completely over just like a movie.
Green Berets has made $21M dollars. Other Vietnam movies? Platoon (negative of the war) $137M. Apocalypse Now (negative of the war) $78M or nearly 100 if you count Redux. The list goes on and you can adjust for inflation all you want. Directly contrary to the opinion in the article the NEGATIVE Vietnam war movies grossed far, far more. The dollars don't lie these are the Vietnam films America embraced not "The Duke" getting the bad guy and winning the day yet again like every tired Western he ever did.
In the Valley of Elah and Lions for Lambs aren't even War movies. Valley of Elah is a mystery involving soldiers in the USA and Lions for Lambs is an abomination. What America wants from it's "Iraq" war movie is going to be a movie that captures the sentiment of the war as perceived by Americans and this is going to take a few years to sink into the collective consciousness. Given our former "Commander in Chief's" record low popularity, and a new one that was elected in part on his opposition to the war I'm not thinking the "definitive" Iraq war movie is going to be the kind of movie the author thinks is the "right" movie to make.
I mean, the guy who wrote this nonsense even admitted to being a lawyer and even worse a lawyer who works with Hollywood producers. How does a lawyer decide right from wrong? He asks which side is paying him more.
Pie?
What's with the pie???
I love The Dirty Dozen, but I don't know if I'd call it a pro-military movie. It seems a little more ambivalent than that. Most of the military in that movie take it on the chops. Mind you, it's nowhere near the likes of today's so called masterpieces like In the Valley of Elah and Redacted. I don't know how those filmmakers sleep at nights.
John Wayne, not the greatest actors, but I LOVED HIM ANYWAY… No metrosexual there, thank you very much.. I loved that movie, have watched it many many times.
And THAT is the primary purpose of Big Hollywood.
I also hope you're right about the ton of money bit, because a bunch of folk here could surely use it: http://www.gifilmfestival.com/
And THAT is the primary purpose of Big Hollywood.
I also hope you're right about the ton of money bit, because a bunch of folk here could surely use it: http://www.gifilmfestival.com/
I still love him too…. What a great man…
Gover, take a powder!!! Okl, sssweet ssspirit
After the not-undeserved negative comments about Hollywood, you should have named the studio supporting the one new film you call out in positive terms,. "The Hurt Locker." It's Summit Entertainment.
[...] It is not as if there are no stories to tell. Five Americans have earned the Medal of Honor in combat during the War – two of them Navy SEALs. Dozens have earned the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Silver Star. Thousands have earned the Purple Heart. Many veterans have penned their memoirs. And those are just the real-life stories. – Big Hollywood [...]
The movie didn't spawn the hit song. The hit song, which was recorded a few years before, spawned the movie! And even a newspaper comic strip…It helps to be old enough to remember this.
I agree with this post 100%.
The mass graves in Iraq that have been documented were enough proof that we did a good thing removing the evil Hussein. Those terrorist who moved in to fight a proxy war with US after we were there and the old government that was removed are both indeed evil. I saw the Daniel Berg video and will never be the same. That is evil in our world and needs to be fought.
Oh I'm sorry did I just hurt the self esteem of the foolish commenters who are saying that conservatives only give the reason "we are doing it" as justification for why we are the good guys and why they are the bad guys?
Yep. Some of the best stories in the world have come from comic books. I'd like to add that in the original stories Tony Stark was fighting his way out of Vietnam. More recent comics have been leftward leaning but the classic stories are indeed about good vs evil and might surprise some people with the relevant symbolism and even direct historical references.
I thought plans were in the works to do a movie based on Marcus Luttrell's book "Lone Survivor". The story of his experiences in Afghanistan when his SEAL team was overrun by Taliban fighters and an engagement which resulted in the MOH being awarded to Michael Monsoor, the team leader and Navy Crosses to the other members of the team. The engagement also tragically resulted in the largest loss of life in the SEAL community from one engagement when a helicopter carrying a rescue mission was shot down.
Marcus unfortunately was in the news again recently when some punks shot and killed the dog that been given to him as part of his rehab.
Fascism is socialism which by the way is what liberals are wanting which makes your antifascist name precociously appropriate.
I agree with most of what you're postin' Lawhawk. Your money quote was –"We didn't have a legitimate dog in that fight,"–. Absolutely true. It was not our ideals for fighting the war that I disagree with but that very point. The South just didn't have a credible government that would fight wholeheartedly for self-determination. We should have deep sixed the whole affair very early. A sense of impending embarassment, I'm afraid, rendered that all but impossible at the time. LBJ was gonna carry that out no matter what. I have way too many problems with the absolutely moronic way war fighting was accomplished at the strategic level then. Stupid. As regards the protest movement, I was way too young to understand any of that until reading later on. in the late 70's. I'm not that big a fan of the Green Berets, also.
Kurt, you nailed it, right on the head. My dear old Dad flew combat missions as a pilot for the USAF in Vietnam. He first flew into Vietnam and S.E. Asia for the first time in 1959. Ya, we were already there. My point is, he told me a story of propaganda and the BENEFIT of propaganda in a little vignette of a story. He landed in Phnom Phen, Cambodia at the civilian airport there in the late 60's and deplaned with his crew. He told me that as he walked the little Cambodian kids came up to him and the crew saying in their best English "you cowboys! you American cowboys" in a good complimentary way. He was stuck by their positive feeling considering the U.S. media spent at least 30mins. a night tearing down the military. They knew Americans from American movies to be the "good guys" not evil Imperialists.
I had the misfortune of reading "Fly Boys" by the same chap that wrote Flags of our fathers and let me say that this guy portrays the US as villains and the Japanese as the people that were gregarious. That is until the evil Imperial US came along with their white fleet causing the poor Japanese to have to attack the Philippine Islands because they had no resources. Therefore it was our fault that they attacked Pearl Harbor. The nerve of that guy. No, LawhawkSF I am afraid that the lefties must always paint the US as the bad guy and the US corporate machine as evil. The truth is that most of the lefties are the corporate machine, but that makes for bad movies so we have to sit through so called war films like Jarhead. What a crock even Platoon had some redeeming value and Apocalypse Now was great until Brando's crazy drug induced native montguard part.
Anti-Fascist sounds like Auntie Fascist, aunties make pie, so we asked for some, for days now though she's not making with the pie. We're a little annoyed.
Auntie Facist won't answer the question of whether or not she knows how to make pie. It seems the question terrifies her, poor dear.
part 2 of my point: I've told this story in this forum before, I might have accidentally said it was Bangkok, Thailand. Regardless, it was a civilian airport in one of the two, it is still true and applies anyway. Why can't we be the "good guys" anymore? "We Were Soldiers" is the last movie that humanized and found a positive way to portray the U.S. fighting man; I could be wrong. It works, it has ancillary benefits and does box office. Somebody try it, I'll be there.
I was going to reply with something extremely pity but then I saw that you had used the term 'neo con' and realized that intelligence may not be your best attribute. Therefore I put this to you – if doom and gloom about how evil America is what sells why then can we go ahead and give France and England back to Germany and China back to Japan and go ahead and take over the rest of this continent from Canada and Mexico?
The left will never admit their complicity in the murder and rape of Cambodia. They can't connect the dots. After the poitical elements of the war turned against the US. post-Tet, the die was cast. If we had hit the North full blast after Tet, the war would have ended before '70. The political will wasn't there. If that is what the radical 60's anti-war folks want to call a victory (for them), have at it. Ohh, this is gonna piss off antifascist and wr1, shoulda SURGED!!!!
To tell the truth, I don't care much for "The Green Berets" either. While I like the message, I just thought the movie was kind of weak.
I don't agree about Vietnam. I fully accept the domino theory. Keep in mind that the Russians were working hard to install puppet regimes all over the world, and they were succeeding. We had to stand up somewhere or it wasn't going to stop.
That said, I have very serious issues with how our political leaders (including senior commanders) conducted the war. In hindsight, I don't see that they had any plan to win the war, and you should never send soldiers unless you intend to win.
The drumbeat of B.S. concerning Vietnam started at CBS and spread to become the cancer we have in the W.H. now. World apologists, a bunch of touchy feely, whiny Democrat losers. If you don't understand what was at stake in Vietnam ask a Vietnamese refugee that lives here now, or even better the Vietnamese sweatshop worker that sewed your Nike's. Ask the victims of PolPot in Cambodia. You can't talk to the 2 or so MILLION that he killed because they didn't assimulate to his brand of communism quickly enough. I don't have time to correct the litany of crapola you post here, sufficed to say, it will fill history books. We are in a war with radical Islam. They don't wear matching uniforms. It is OUR best interests to make them "not alive" so they can't kill Americans. If they didn't kill citizens of Iraq and Afganistan as political cover and manipulation there would be a whole lot less dead civilians. I have work to do, so I can't get right back to you other than to say, "give Obama a reach around next time he does you". Out.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong – and I'm not saying this to denigrate WWI or WWII – just trying to make a point. It seems that liberals label conservatives as "warmongers". But riddle me this one?
Who gave the go ahead to get involved in WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? I think they were all DEMOCRATS weren't they?
"We declare war on socialism, not because it is socialist, but because it has opposed nationalism"
-Benito Mussolini, 1919
Stay in school, kids.
The domino theory had its basis in truth, so I can't disagree entirely. But my comments were directly aimed at our agreements not to enter into civil wars, and The SEATO Pact. Had there not been a Viet Cong, I might have thought differently, but no matter how murderous they were, they were native to the country in which they were fighting, they were a huge force, and they had immense support throughout South Viet Nam. That civil war was being fought long before the North entered the fray in any substantial numbers, and two wrongs don't make a right. There were phony civil wars going on all over the world as you said, but most if not all were clearly insurgencies posing as civil wars. Viet Nam was simply not the same as the other communist attempts at indirect warfare.
So I stick to my point. Being wrong is not tantamount to being evil. And I agree with you that you don't fight a war you don't intend to win. Worst of all, the Viet Nam war provided the left with their perpetual anti-war cry: "X lied, people died." In Viet Nam, it was true. Johnson lied, and lied, and lied. And people died. The fact that Bush got it wrong (maybe) about WMDs, doesn't mean he lied or that he was wrong about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or mass murder and territorial war in Iraq. But Johnson's lies provided the left with perpetual cover, starting with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. As a result, we will be living with the constant stream of false "it's a quagmire just like Viet Nam" arguments for a very long time to come. Viet Nam became the left's justification for never going to war, under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever.
Hi, 98: I'm not sure I mentioned it directly to you before, but my favorite uncle was a Marine Corps Colonel during the Viet Nam war. He got his field commission originally at Suribachi fighting that desperate and bloody battle up the mountains of Iwo Jima. He stayed with the Corps for the rest of his life. When I was making my objections to the war known loudly in the family, my mom said "call your Uncle Joe and see what he has to say." I expected a chewing-out, but instead he said "not this war, not this time, and not in that place." Fortunately his boss, General Hershey never found out about him telling me that. I've expanded a bit on that theme in my reply to my friend Andrew below.
Yes, Iron Man did show the international conflict in a reasonable light but it just could not resist bashing corporate America — the goose that lays all the golden eggs.
All the CEOs I've had to have the privilege to meet have more in common with the brave CEO of the Maersk Alabama than they do with the scum and villainy that thrives in Hollywood and in Washington DC. I’m sick of seeing them slandered relentlessly on the silver screen.
Kurt, absolutly right. Problem is, the anti-US have a funding base that ignores profit, while we do not. One of the critics above cited the profitability of post-VN movies which were critical of the government and our leadership I suppose, but none were critical of the soldiers in the way that DePalme and the current euro-efties are. Not only don't we have funding sources that ignore profit, guys like yourself don't even have funding sources for profitable pop culture works. I don't understand that.
Seriously? Are you kidding me man? They attacked socialism but they were a socialist state. Fascism is not capitalism nor is it right wing it is left wing. It was called the German Socialist Workers Party for crying out loud. Here's a definition example wiki
"The term fascismo is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means "bundle", group, or "union", and from the Latin word fasces. "
Here's another one.
"Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement."
Public school is a socialists wet dream by the way. History shows that fascism is part of Marxist theology.
By the way Mussolini hated socialism because he was a nationalist, which is another word for fascist which is another word for socialist. You tell me to stay in school? Good grief.
Also, for the record the Southern states were not fascist either they were a capitalistic confederacy.
Go back to school and learn the definition of "context." Mussolini wasn't saying what you imply he was saying there because that's a cribbed part of a speech. The full intent was that he was not declaring war on the concept of socialism, which he espoused, but against international socialism which became the internationalist Communism of the USSR. He was for Italian socialism, which is what Fascism was.
"What is one life in the affairs of the state?"
He also said this after running a child over in a car. You might not want to quote Mussolini…
Go to school, Anti. Maybe you can go to cooking school and learn to bake pie!
I don't accept the civil war dichotomy because the Russians were supporting one half of the civil war. Their intent to create a client state was clear from their conduct and we had to stand up and stop them or we were going to keep having Russian-inspired civil wars appear in country after country.
I think our mistake was not pushing the French in the 1950s to conduct an orderly hand over of their colony. If the French had created a home-grown government and then handed over control to that government, that would have taken the wind out of the communists sails — like in India, for example.
I don't accept the civil war dichotomy because the Russians were supporting one half of the civil war. Their intent to create a client state was clear from their conduct and we had to stand up and stop them or we were going to keep having Russian-inspired civil wars appear in country after country.
I think our mistake was not pushing the French in the 1950s to conduct an orderly hand over of their colony. If the French had created a home-grown government and then handed over control to that government, that would have taken the wind out of the communists sails — like in India, for example.
Say what you want about John Wayne, he been gone for a whole generation, yet he is till on the Top Ten list for Actors. I would much rather see one of his Movies, The Green Berets included than some of the junk that passes for movies these days. As for the current Crop of Soldiers Sailors and Marines, they have more in common with their Grandfathers then they do with anyone else. Those Seals the other day just do what they do, close with the enemy and kill them.
To be fair to Iron Man though, the evil CEO in the movie was pretty much the same evil CEO of the comic. So I think it was less a Hollywood corporate bashing for bashing's sake, than an accurate portrayal of the source material.
To be fair to Iron Man though, the evil CEO in the movie was pretty much the same evil CEO of the comic. So I think it was less a Hollywood corporate bashing for bashing's sake, than an accurate portrayal of the source material.
Kathryn Bigelow can be a damn impressive director.
Another example – when I was in DC in 1992 working the POW situation, the Roaring Thunder guys set up a tour with a Route 1 ride from Hanoi to Hue and brought all-new exclusively Harleys for the trip, The secret police prohibited them from flying their US/POW colors until they were out of Hanoi, after which the riders ignored everything my people had told them not to do, the colors were out and the Harleys were what they are. THE VN lined the roads village after village mile after mile, openly cheering The American Cowboys. Reason? They do not watch our media or attend our schools, they see John Wayne and Dirty Harry from their experience, not ours, and we are the "good guys"
Club, you're talking to an idiot. Auntie doesn't know what fascism is. She just knows that she's been told it's bad, so it must be something Republicans like.
Club, you're talking to an idiot. Auntie doesn't know what fascism is. She just knows that she's been told it's bad, so it must be something Republicans like.
Auntie fascist knows less about fascism than she knows about pie — which is diddly.
Cooking school may be beyond her ability.
A lot of problems going on now would have been much easier to handle had de-colonization been done a little more intelligently at the end of World War II and the years after. Take a look at almost any sub-Saharan African country and what they've gone through and it bears out. It's also not just a matter of handing a country over to people, they have to be given the tools to also manage what they're getting.
The Green Berets has its corny and inaccurate moments, but it also has some truth in it. Its historical veracity is not worse than that of more celebrated movies. Purely as film Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece but it´s not about Vietnam. Kubrick may have been a stickler for historical detail, but you learn little from Full Metal Jacket. It´s as much a caricature as Dr Strangelove or (unintentionally) Michael Bay´s Pearl Harbor.
I've heard that very comment "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" before. I have to search that corrupted database I call a brain and remember who. A mustang, huh? My favorite type of officer. Been there and done that. I watched Canoe U. officers get more of less blown off by some grunts that went a–holes and elbows once that mustanger came back in the area. They don't screw around and they KNOW their business. Iwo…..I had an uncle who cruised with the 6th Marine Division on Okinawa. He NEVER talked about it. Never. I didn't even know he was a Marine until I got a letter from him in boot ribbing me because I was a pansy a– Hollywood Marine. He went to Parris Island. I was stunned. If your uncle is still kickin', give him a Semper Fi from a wet behind the ears 'cruit. Old Breed, …….oooh-rah.
I have to agree with you on Full Metal Jacket, it's an amazing movie, and one of my favorites, but if you watch it with no other knowledge about Tet, Hue or Vietnam in general you're going to still get a kick out of it, but you won't get any deeper knowledge about the situation or it's real importance. My best friend in high school's father was with the 5th Marines in Hue City and while he liked the movie, he always said there was something indefinably lacking about it.
In many ways, that was a pretty disasterous failure on our part — with "our" being democratic presidents and democratic congresses. We were willing to stand up to the French and British at Suez, but beyond that we seemed pretty indifferent. We should have done more.
If we had worked with these places to create responsible, independent governments, I think the world would be a lot better place today.
We can't change the past, but it does make one wonder about what our foreign policy goals should be today?
I agree, the southern states were not fascist 150 years ago. They were a bunch of despicable slave-traders, far worse than fascists.
lousy democrats
That's the million, or billion, or trillion, whatever passes for a lot of money these days question isn't it?
If the goal, stated or otherwise, is to bring democracy to countries where US forces are deployed right now in combat roles, then I think we have to carry through on it. Turning over a half-baked democracy is just as bad as walking away as soon as Baghdad fell would have been in my opinion. They'll never be democracies like the US is perhaps, but it they can get something up and running that works, and is hostile to terrorist and Islamist tendencies, if you get that then you have something.
Honestly instead of putting teams of lawyers (no offense!) on drafting the new Iraqi and Afghan constitutions to try to come up with something "perfect" I think a better route would have been building up the Iraqi and Afghan armies to where they were credible forces more quickly, then taken the Turkish constitution out and whited out everywhere that it said Turkey and replace it with Iraq and Afghanistan as required.
Is that a perfect solution? No, but it's effective and has a proven record for a stable democracy in a Muslim nation. And at least if instability creeps in, it's quickly rectified by the military and then new elections happen. Something I think Turkey itself is on the road to again right now, but that's just my opinion with what's been happening there of late.
I'm not so sure, Andrew unless your suppositon states that it would have been a goverment by Uncle Ho. I don't think that was acceptable to the French. It is very possible though that, had that transition took place, it may have gone Democratic. Ho was a friend of the US til we supported the French so, that may hold. Pushing Vietnamese independence then sure would have changed things….(duh) Thinking back on what I've studied, even getting out of Vietnam around 64-65 and brokering an accord with Ho directly and around the Russians, could have worked to our advantage. Hindsight, it's what's for breakfast!
Another great ensemble war movie where the war is mostly background for the drama. Talk about all-star casts, too. The only Hollywood heavyweight with enough juice to get something like this done today, that I can think of, is Mel Gibson, and he's, ah, going through a bit of a rough patch at the moment.
"Where is the next war movie that outrages Roger Ebert while lining audiences up around the block?"
It's already happened- check out his belated review of 300, a movie he hated.
And we were supporting the other half. It was the same intent they had all over the world, but in this one case, the civil war long preceded the military influence of either the North or the Soviet Union. We're never going to come to complete agreement on this, and we both know that Viet Nam works as a metaphor for the left that just won't die. Even our little colloquy here, a friendly disagreement, gives new life to the leftist arguments. We're just assisting them in re-fighting a war that has been over for thirty-plus years.
As for the French, they can't even conduct an orderly handover of Paris. I had to throw that one in.
So, which is worse, a genocidal organization that runs gulags, or a slave holding aristocracy?
Did you see that the head Islamist in Turkey — Erdogan, got his rear handed to him in local elections? Interesting. I guess it's not a one way road after all.
I certainly agree that we need to stand by Iraq until they are stable. We are slowly, but surely creating a stable and free country. It would be a very regrettable mistake to pull out now and wipe that out — I've been reading some interesting articles on how upset many of the locals are that the Americans are starting to leave (American commanders are the only people the locals trust to settle disputes and get things done).
Still, I'm thinking even beyond Iraq, should we be pushing "allies" like the Saudis and the Egyptians to open up and guarantee Western freedoms? Would that encourage Islamic fundamentalism or are we encouraging that now by supporting repressive regimes? History seems to show that increased freedom usually diffuses extremists. Are we again on the wrong side of history?
Lawhawk:
So you supported the war fully in 1969 after the VC was obliterated post TET and no longer an issue?
What is little known by the Anti-war side in the US was the VC leadership was injected into the south post French Withdrawel. Nor was the North and South ever part of a single country to allow civil war to occur. Ergo it was not a true civil war.
I agree. I always watch the Green Berets and realize he looked uncomforately carrying an M-16. Like it was a tool he was unfamiliar with.
But a great man none the less.
Sadly, he died a few years back. He was a tough guy, but the way he was protective of my mother (his oldest sister) was totally touching, particularly when my dad died when I was fifteen. He kept out of our affairs, but he once said "you're the man in your family now, take care of your mother, I'll be watching." I always knew he meant me well, and I wasn't about to let him down. Otherwise I'd have gotten some Marine Corps training I wasn't planning on.
Yeah Erdogan was rocking the boat to the point where the military was hair trigger ready to go in and get him out, they were just waiting for the elections to see if they'd have to or not. The way things turned out, looks like they won't for the time being.
Egypt is problematic all on its own, it's our friend only so long as Mubarak is alive and there looks to be a stable succession, otherwise the Muslim Brotherhood is the most popular political faction in the country right now. So if you push Mubarak he looks weak, that strengthens the Brotherhood, if you stay with the status quo then it allows for resentment against Mubarak by "reformers" to grow as well. Egypt is a fine sticky mess right now in my opinion and I have no idea what should be done with them.
Saudi Arabia on the other hand could survive a few carefully timed and restrained nudges though, their population is very familiar with the West (moreso than the Egyptians are right now honestly) and many of them have been there, so they know what they could have if it were allowed. But with Saudi either way you go it's going to annoy the radicals, so if push comes to shove I'd go hardline on them, if you're going to cause problems with the radicals anyhow at least give the Saudi people a shot at something better. Or at least that's how I see it. There's no "easy button" in the Middle East so sometimes the status quo is the best thing you can hope for, at least for the time being.
I've always understood that Ho liked us until we supported the French, but I don't know if that's true or just propoganda. Castro supposedly like us too, but that didn't turn out too well.
It's always hard to tell how history would have turned out — too many moving parts. But where we have pushed for freedom, we've generally been rewarded. So I suspect the world would be a freer, more prosperous place if we had helped secure their independence and then used the goodwill to guided them in forming governments.
Friendly disagreement is right. Isn't it funny that rational minds can talk calmly, but idiots like our pie-free troll can only shout people down?
You're absolutely right about Vietnam having become a metaphor for the left. But of course, I see Vietnam as an interesting study of the dangers/failures of leftism:
1. As soon as Vietnam got its freedom, those same good communists slaughtered hundreds of thousands of the vanquished, invaded their neighbor and killed vast numbers of them, and fought a war against China — an ideological ally.
2. Once they installed their workers paradise, their economy crashed. When they finally gave up on all that leftist garbage and embraced capitalism, their economy took off. Now they are catching up for decades of retarded growth.
3. Vietnam demonstrated clearly that America cannot trust its left to remain loyal, and that we cannot trust democratic politicians to let the generals fight wars.
4. Vietnam exposed the leftist sickness that crept into many movements that otherwise seemed relatively harmless — eco nuts, peaceniks, hippies, etc.
The French withdrawal was almost fifteen years earlier than the Tet Offensive, and the Viet Cong were not the Viet Minh who were required by the treaty to withdraw. But I made it clear I am not disputing how bad these people were. If Johnson had conducted an open and honest war, I might have been more supportive despite my underlying objections to the legality of the war. But he refused to tell the truth whether it helped him or hurt him, put our troops in mortal danger, and allowed civilian think tanks to conduct a war halfway around the world. I never opposed the idea of war, I opposed the war in Viet Nam for multiple reasons, not the least of which was Johnson's playing games with the lives of our troops.
If you've been following the posts on this site over any length of time, you will notice that I admitted that both the anti-war and pro-war sides got most of their information from the newspapers and television. There were a lot of things we didn't know until years later because of the complicity of the press and the anti-war groups. Walter Cronkite pronounced the war lost after the Tet Offensive, and we bought it hook, line and sinker.
It took many of us years before we read North Vietnam general Giap's love note to Walter thanking him for turning a stunning and irreversible defeat into a communist victory. Please don't mistake me for the loonies who celebrated America's withdrawal from Viet Nam. And it's the reason I haven't trusted anything the MSM tells me for about twenty years now.
And on that, we can agree 100%.
They are definitely different situations.
If it were up to me, I would push the Saudis to start allowing more and more freedoms — though I would not go straight to voting because the people only know royalty or religious extremism. You have to give them a taste for freedom first. To do that, I would follow the Chinese model — allow certain cities to open up and flourish under the Western model of freedom. Then, as the idea of freedom becomes more enticing to the rest of the country, just expand the freedoms to other parts of the country.
Egypt is a different case. We should stay in the background there. But what I would do is to push Mubarak to copy what the American military has done in Iraq to earn the trust of the locals. Combine honest government with direct, hands-on local assistance and increased business freedom. At the same time, I would probably start to impose more elements of rule of law and disband the secret police. Finally, move for real elections in a decade or so.
But that's just me.
A different type of Democrat, for the most part. Wilson was the first "world view" POTUS. Congress wasn't buying, he had a stroke while trying to sell the League of Nations. U.S. never ratified, never a member. FDR was at the helm when Japan attacked, military weapons conversion of industry majorly helped pull U.S. out of Great Depression, not a pothole like Obama has. Truman's was a U.N. action, we are still technically "at war" with N.Koreans. Kennedy faced down the Soviets and recognized a proxy war when he saw lt and chose to fight it. Different Dems, many of these people would be ashamed of what their party turned into a sniveling, whining, apologetic joke.
87.5% (just kidding)
Done. Now when do we get the pie?
Just as soon as Auntie learns to make some. . . don't hold your breath!
She may already know, but she's feeding it to her fellow trolls.
I'm betting she doesn't know how, but she's furiously trying to learn right now.
And Democrats started the Civil War!
Memo to Kurt and Big Hollywood: stop sitting around and complaining and make the films yourself.
I read on the old Libertas site years ago that producer Gale Anne Hurd (Terminator films, Aliens, The Abyss, Armageddon) had purchased the rights to Thieves of Baghdad, a true story about the looting of the Iraq National Museum and one soldier's efforts to find the stolen antiquities – sort of an Indiana Jones meets CSI in the Middle East tale. And it's all true. I want to see this made into a movie.
http://www.amazon.com/Thieves-Baghdad-Matthew-Bog...
1. The U.S. mission in Vietnam was a noble cause.
2. I love the Duke.
3. "The Green Berets" is a lousy movie.
There are better movies to cite (yes, they're considerably post-war, but far superior to the GBs):
"We Were Soldiers"
"Flight of the Intruder"
Maybe they're not specifically "pro-mission." but they're both pro-soldier (and sailor).
Hey Auntie,
You are an insufferable little toady gutter snipe…without pie.
For the first time, in along time, I am almost rendered speechless to your complete ignorance on this, above all other subjects, you rant about.
How old are you? No really, when were you born and why.
How much is you did your parents pay for your education?
Did your parents have any children that lived?
Go ahead and call me a baby killer, a rapist, or murderer. Please.
Because, I spent 13 months over there, and witnessed FIRST HAND what those filthy thug VC did over and over to helpless small villages.
They would start with the youngest baby there, and chop it up slowly WHILE IT WAS STILL ALIVE to force the villagers to hide the weapons and food under their beds.
I must say if I ever meet you on the street I would take you over my knee and whack the sh!t out of you, because that’s what you do to a soiled, weak minded, brain washed loser twerps like you.
Liberals are sick and deluded at everyone else’s expense. Including the deaths of millions and millions around the world for generations. Their blood is on people like yours hands idiot.
Now answer my question, how old are you?
Not Over.
No, the mayonnaise left in the sun for a week would have spontaneously evolved more intelligence than antifascist displays. And I say that as someone who is anti-Darwinian. (Conservatives will therefore understand the logic of this position, while it will befuddle the poor liberals.)
Hey Auntie,
You are an insufferable little toady gutter snipe…without pie.
For the first time, in along time, I am almost rendered speechless to your complete ignorance on this, above all other subjects, you rant about.
How old are you? No really, when were you born and why.
How much is you did your parents pay for your education?
Did your parents have any children that lived?
Go ahead and call me a baby killer, a rapist, or murderer. Please.
Because, I spent 13 months over there, and witnessed FIRST HAND what those filthy thug VC did over and over to helpless small villages.
They would start with the youngest baby there, and chop it up slowly WHILE IT WAS STILL ALIVE to force the villagers to hide the weapons and food under their beds.
I must say if I ever meet you on the street I would take you over my knee and whack the sh!t out of you, because that’s what you do to a soiled, weak minded, brain washed loser twerp like you.
Liberals are sick and deluded at everyone else’s expense. Including the deaths of millions and millions around the world for generations. Their blood is on people like yours hands idiot.
Now answer my question, how old are you?
Not Over.
Guys… y'gotta start finding better movies to hang this "if you make it, they will come" stuff on than "The Passion" and "Green Berets." Yeah, they were profitable. So is porn, cocaine and Nascar. What's you're point? One is at best a "how'd that happen" boxoffice curio – a right-wing equivalent to inexplicably popular "grassroots" cult-megahit crap like "Billy Jack;" the other is easily one of the worst films The Duke ever made, right up there with Conqueror.
You must be logged in to post a comment.