—–

From Gavin O’Connor, the director of “Miracle,” comes “Warrior,” which opens September 9th.

The poster’s tagline is “Fight for Country.”

Hrm?

Here’s the synopsis, courtesy of IMDB:

Two brothers face the fight of a lifetime – and the wreckage of their broken family – within the brutal, high-stakes world of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighting in Lionsgate’s action/drama, WARRIOR. An ex-Marine haunted by a tragic past, Tommy Riordan returns to his hometown of Pittsburgh and enlists his father, a recovered alcoholic and his former coach, to train him for an MMA tournament awarding the biggest purse in the history of the sport. As Tommy blazes a violent path towards the title prize, his brother, Brendan, a former MMA fighter unable to make ends meet as a public school teacher, returns to the amateur ring to provide for his family. Even though years have passed, recriminations and past betrayals keep Brendan bitterly estranged from both Tommy and his father. But when Brendan’s unlikely rise as an underdog sets him on a collision course with Tommy, the two brothers must finally confront the forces that tore them apart, all the while waging the most intense, winner-takes-all battle of their lives.

A boilerplate story but boilerplate for a reason. Execution is the key and the trailer works on a number of levels.

Via Yahoo:

“I feel incredibly honored to have been invited to the Marine Corps Ball by Sgt. Dustin L. Williams,” Johansson said in a statement to Zap2It. “Not only does Sgt. Williams deserve recognition for his bravery, selflessness and dedication to the United States and its people, but he also displays a cheeky talent for film making. Sgt. Williams, unfortunately due to prior commitments I will not be able to attend the Ball with you this year but I am sending you a case of Moet and Chandon with gratitude. In my absence, I raise a glass to you and all the men and women of the U.S. Marine Corps, past and present, in thanks for your continued commitment to preserving the safety of our nation.”

A kind and gracious response, no?

It sounds like Williams will be understanding of Johansson’s conflict.

He told Zap2It before learning of Johansson’s reply, “If I was told she could not attend, I would understand. I would not believe the invitation would be denied without good cause. With her current career I would imagine Scarlett Johansson is a busy woman.”

Full story here.

—–

Thanks to Scott for the heads up.

—–

So I love Mila Kunis for two very good reasons.

First off: she accepted the invitation by a young soldier to attend the Marines Ball – and I hope she still plans on going.

But even more, I love her for what she said in a recent GQ interview, while promoting her new flick, called “Friends With Benefits.”

The interviewer asked her if she’d ever been in one of those relationships, herself.

She answered, quote:

Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism-good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?

And so, in just a few sentences, Kunis proved she’s smarter than just about every major movie star combined.

She was able to deflate one common cultural assumption propagated by Hollywood – that casual sex is harmless – while also dismissing a deadly ideology that garners glowing depictions on big screens everywhere.

That puts her head and shoulders above any of the more common Hollywood intellectuals – the type of clowns you see parading their Chomsky books at the local Starbucks.

(I’m talking to you Matt Damon).

Anyway, maybe it’s because she’s Ukrainian, and therefore understands how important a free market and a moral compass is.

That place was under the thumb of a system that rejected both.

Or she could just be really smart.

Either way, that’s why I like her.

It’s not cuz she’s hot.

Not at all.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe.

Tonight’s Redeye may be the most entertaining one ever. Our guests:

Andrew WK, Mahsa, and Bob Beckel. It gets out of control. In a good way.

Yes, Mila Kunis is a physically stunning woman with real star power, and true big screen charm and charisma (see the otherwise forgettable “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”), but today we’re talking about her gorgeous … mind.

Pajamas Media

GQ: Your new movie is called Friends with Benefits. Ever been in one of those relationships?

Mila Kunis: Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism—good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?

And this is Kunis’s SECOND thing she’s done this week to get on conservatives’ good side. Earlier she accepted an invitation to the Marines Ball.

Now she comes out both against promiscuity AND communism in one sentence.

We here at Big Hollywood would like to thank Mila for making this kind of news … which allows us a the editorial cover necessary to post her photograph.

Sgt. Scott Moore, of the 3rd Battalion 2nd Marines in Musa Qala, Afghanistan, last week set up a YouTube page and posted a video asking the “Friends With Benefits” star to accompany him to the Marine Corps Ball on November 18th in Greenville, North Carolina. …

After questioning her publicist if she knew about the invitation, the clearly flattered 27-year-old actress agreed.

“I’ll go, I’ll do it for you,” she said, turning to [Justin] Timberlake. “Are you going to come?”

“They don’t want me! They want you,” Timberlake responded. “You need to do it for your country.”

Kunis nodded.

“I’ll do it,” she confirmed.

—–

Full story here.

So it was last Thursday that I, along with a few other military organizations came to meet for a viewing of the upcoming movie “Lifted.” Because the director was a noted Hollywood liberal, I was not really sure what I was about to see.

In this ever polarized environment we live in today, it is rare to find a movie about the War on Terror that takes both a decided anti-war theme, but yet gives supporters of the conflict a chance to feel pride in the way a boy and his family overcome the struggles of deployment.

Such a movie will hopefully be in a multiplex near you very soon. That movie is “Lifted.”

Written and directed by Academy Award-nominated director Lexi Alexander, “Lifted” stars talented twelve-year-old Uriah Shelton in his movie debut. The movie takes place and was filmed on location in rural Alabama.

The plot revolves around Henry Matthews, played by Shelton, as an exceptionally talented young R& B singer, whose happy family life is disrupted when his father, a Marine, is re-deployed to Afghanistan and, despite all the obstacles including losing the family home and being forced to move in with his grandfather who hates his music, is inspired to enter a teen singing competition in the hopes of winning and escaping a world that is falling apart.

Uriah Shelton 

As you watch the movie unfold, you look at it in two ways: first is the technical side in which Alexander shoots the timeline of the fathers deployment, his mothers struggles with drug addiction, and the torment of Henry as an outcast in school and at home, and second the story itself and the overall feeling one takes away at the end of the movie with a plot twist that leaves you raw with emotion.

The movie is centered in the relationship between father and son and the music they create together. The father, played by Dash Mihok (“The Good Wife”), provides the freestyle routines that help give the movie its soul.

Others appearing in the movie include; Todd Simpson, former American Idol winner Ruben Studdard, country singer Trace Adkins and former MTV DJ Alan Hunter as himself.

Dash Mihok

At the end, one is left with a family struggling with drug addiction, unemployment, losing their family home, a boy’s dream, and the father’s deployment overseas. While you can say that there are a few issues with certain points in the way the plot unfolds (a scene with Studdard and the mother looking for Henry comes to mind), you are ultimately left with an emotional experience of a boy and his father and the bond they share.

In all my time dealing with wounded troops and the issues of deployment, the strain on the family, the overcoming of obstacles, and the idea that hope exists, this film does the best job of trying to capture all of it in 90 minutes and I hope you will soon be LIFTED….

Both shows started with wonderful Christmas flair: NCIS had a couple cutting down their own Christmas tree in a snow covered forest and NCIS: LA had a beautifully decorated downtown street complete with a Salvation Army Santa. Unfortunately the Christmas Spirit in both shows didn’t last through their first commercials. 

In the NCIS episode, the couple in the woods found a young white Marine, a Muslim, killed while praying toward Mecca. His father, once a Marine Colonel, retired to become a minister because in his words, “When my wife died, I wanted to be closer to God, now he’s taken my son as well.” 

As Gibbs and his team take the forty-eight minutes to figure out who-done-it, the audience is treated with some not so light-handed preaching favoring Islam. At one point, when the father of the killed Marine utters, “God forgive me, and Tom’s God too.” Gibbs responds with, “They are one in the same colonel.”  And although I would beg to differ, anybody who watches NCIS knows that whatever Gibbs says is gospel. 

Spoiler Alert—don’t read on if you plan to watch the episode and want to be surprised. 

It turns out the Marine was murdered by his own brother in what I can only describe as an “Honor Killing.” The ‘Christian’ family was so embarrassed by the son’s conversion to Islam that the brother thought the only recourse he had was to kill him. 

Out of all the cultures in the globe where honor killing is a very serious problem, how many have happened in America within a Christian family? Oh yeah—NONE. Is there a verse in the Bible one can point to where the Christian is instructed to kill the offending family member should he or she decide to convert to another religion? I think not. 

NCIS, what were you thinking? 

And evidently having received the same memo just in time for Christmas, the writers of NCIS: Los Angeles found a way to write into that night’s episode something just as shocking. 

Not too long into the Christmas holiday shopping scene, a young Marine’s head is blown off by his cell phone. The likely suspects are all part of an explosive ordinance disposal unit that was attacked by an IUD in Iraq: a mechanic who lost one leg, a man who turned to God after returning home, and a Muslim who’s face was burned badly in the incident. 

Spoiler Alert—one of these three suspects ends up strapping a bomb to his chest and attempts to become a suicide bomber.  Can you guess which one? 

A key clue in the middle of the episode is dust writing in Arabic on a blown-up car’s rear window.  “Those who reject our faith and deny our signs shall be companions of hell fire.”  At first, LL Cool J’s character attributes the writing to the Koran, Al-Maeda (chapter 5), verse 10. 

So, pulling the classic bait-and-switch on the unsuspecting audience where all things point to the Muslim Marine as the culprit, there is suddenly a break in the case. The staff psychologist is given a Bible by the Christian Marine and wow, he finds this passage in Thessalonians, “In flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God.” And the case is solved—it’s not the Muslim—it’s the Christian blowing up his fellow Marines. 

The scripture is actually 2nd Thessalonians, chapter 2 verse 7 in the King James Version, referring to when Jesus returns to Earth with his angels and brings about the final judgment. It should be noted that in that entire passage there is nothing about the followers of Christ helping out with that vengeance. The Apostle Paul was actually comforting those of the faith that were being persecuted, definitely not telling them to take any vengeance into their own hands. Ah, but I digress.  

That small point didn’t seem to matter to the NCIS writers. They just thought it was best to deliver another Christmas present to my family that afternoon—a Christian suicide bomber. And you might ask when was the last time a Christian strapped on a bomb and became a suicide bomber in this country?  I think you get the point. All I can say is thank God it was only in the warped writer’s imagination. 

These two episodes would have been troubling enough anytime during the year. But to air them back-to-back as their Christmas episodes makes me wonder what agenda the producers had in mind. I have been a fan of both shows and they usually have great scripts. But this day, I was truly disappointed. 

How about a New Year’s resolution NCIS? Go back to good story telling and leave the Christian bashing behind for 2010.

With all the unpleasantness that’s been in the news lately (ACORN, Polanski, Jaycee Lee Dugard, etc.), I was reminded of a book titled “The Last Undercover” by my friend, fellow Marine, and Big Hollywood contributor, Bob Hamer.  Bob spent twenty-six years in the FBI, all as a special agent working the streets, many of those years in an undercover capacity. He was the undercover agent in twenty administratively approved operations. Some of those assignments lasted a day or two others more than three years. He played such diverse roles as a drug dealer, contract killer, international arms merchant, degenerate gambler, and white collar criminal. By his own admission his most difficult role was playing a pedophile for three years as he infiltrated the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

–

First, let me say that “The Last Undercover” is absolutely riveting.  Seeing inside an organization like NAMBLA, one that preys on children, through Bob’s eyes is enough to keep you up at night.  However, as things have transpired over the last few weeks, I couldn’t help but wonder about the people on the periphery of such groups and individuals.  For instance, I remembered the travel agent in Bob’s book that was more than happy to set up the NAMBLA members’ trip to have sex with children.  Sure, he didn’t have sex with kids but, if he could make a few bucks off of others doing it, he was pretty okay with the idea.  How about the lovely folks at ACORN?  Setting up a brothel for underage prostitutes?  Okay, let’s figure out the tax ramifications for such a venture.  Then, of course, we have the folks that are defending the talented Mr. Polanski.

So, what is it with these people?  Why the indifference to the idea of adults having sex with children? In what universe is this behavior acceptable?

I decided to talk to my buddy, Bob, to get his take on it.

————————–

J.R. Head:  Bob, you spent a lot of time and energy taking down the folks at NAMBLA.  As a father, hell, as a human being, I’d like to thank you for that.  Right now, though, I’m trying to look at the bigger picture.  What are your thoughts about these folks on the periphery of such activity, the facilitators and enablers of sex with children?

Bob Hamer:  Wow!  No softball questions from you right out of the chute.

JRH:  Not today.

BH:  Well, I have never met a capitalist pacifist who owned gun store.  I believe fundamentally, the pacifist does not want to encourage what he perceives as a potential for violence, even if it might be profitable to own a gun store.  I’m a gun owner so don’t jump on me for that illustration but those I met while working undercover who helped facilitate sex with children saw nothing wrong with what they believed to be “consensual” sex with a child.  In fact, most believed an “enlightened” society would see the benefits of encouraging sex between consenting individuals of any age.  No one satisfactorily identified to me what those benefits were but “boy-lovers” as NAMBLA members refer to themselves often cite the ancient Greeks as an enlightened society.  The travel agent had no objection to putting together overseas trips even though he claimed not to be sexually attracted to boys.

JRH:  So, it was about the money?

BH: Certainly there was a profit motive for him but he saw nothing wrong with men having sex with boys and told me so.  Had he found the actions abhorrent I would hope he would never facilitate such conduct.

A Chicago psychologist we arrested who had a PhD told me of seeing a five-year-old operating out of a boy-bar in Thailand.  The psychologist said he did not have sex with that particular boy because the child “didn’t do anything for me, but I can’t be…a hypocrite and say, you know, ‘don’t do that…’” The psychologist told me his age of preference was “ten to twelve” and saw nothing wrong with his conduct. In fact, he bragged about his conquests.

JRH:  So, in his mind, having sex with kids is okay but God forbid he gets called a hypocrite.  Those are some messed up priorities, man.  Give me some info on NAMBLA.  What’s their story?

BH:  NAMBLA was formed in 1978.  Ostensibly its purpose was to abolish age-of-consent laws.  As my three-year infiltration demonstrated, the organization made no effort whatsoever to change the law.  Its sole purpose was to allow like-minded men, sexually attracted to boys, to legally congregate under the protection of the 1^st Amendment.  Even their definition of “consensual” differed from mine and I hope all of our readers.  They essentially defined “consensual” as “not bringing physical harm.”  I sat through a discussion where men believed it permissible to have oral sex with an eighteen-month-old boy as long as the boy wasn’t physically harmed.

JRH:  You’re kidding me.  How the hell do they justify that?

BH:  They justified the action because a child, while exploring his own body, might like the gentle touch of fondling himself.  Since the men believed they were in essence bringing pleasure to the child, their actions were permissible, even proper.  When that is your worldview, when you support men who believe those actions to be proper, it is easy to justify a lot of actions the rest of society deems illegal, even evil.

Most NAMBLA members with whom I interacted believe the boy-lover philosophy will be mainstreamed within their lifetimes.  I would have never thought that even remotely possible until recently.

JRH:  That’s the vibe I’ve been getting lately, too.  While reading “The Last Undercover,” I was filled with feelings of revulsion and anger about what these predators do.  I was especially disturbed to hear how they “profile” their potential prey and engage in the “grooming” of the target and the target’s family.  On the other hand, an understanding that the vast majority of people in the country would feel the same way about it comforted me.  However, the Polanski situation has kind of made me reevaluate my worldview.  Is the moral outrage over having sex with children eroding before our very eyes?

BH:  After investigating organized crime, drugs, terrorism, and child exploitation for two and a half decades, little shocks me but I am appalled at the Roman Polanski apologists.  Since when does being a “brilliant, fantastic genius” excuse anyone from heinous criminal conduct?  He admitted guilt.  He drugged, raped, and sodomized a thirteen-year-old girl.  Are we to excuse him only because his talent brought him riches and therefore he was wealthy enough to flee punishment?  Does Hollywood creativity allow one an alternative moral universe?

Whoopi Goldberg said on The View it wasn’t “rape-rape.”  No, it was non-consensual anal intercourse of a child.  Are we so perverted we will excuse such conduct because the perpetrator is an “artist?”  How can any parent or a person with a conscience condone such behavior?  Imagine the outrage of these same apologists had this been a TV evangelist or a priest.

I admire the victim who has forgiven Polanski but criminal charges are brought by the state.  A criminal indictment does not read “victim vs. defendant.”  It is the state or the federal government versus the accused.  Society is harmed by criminal conduct.  Apparently Polanski’s harm was greater than I first thought and not just to the child victim. It has infected a certain segment of society which condones the behavior and believes he should go unpunished.  Read the charges!  Read his admissions!  He deserves to be punished.

Polanski’s status as a Holocaust survivor has been cited as a reason excusing his criminal actions. As horrible as that experience must have been I can’t help but remember another survivor, Tibor Rubin. He wanted to pay back America for liberating him from the Mauthausen concentration camp in May 1945. Rubin joined the Army, fought in Korea, and was awarded the Medal of Honor.

JRH:  I’ve met Mr. Rubin.  He struck me as an extremely humble and unassuming man.  He has an incredible story and I encourage my readers to look him up on the web.  That being said, Polanski is just one part of this.  The folks at ACORN who turned a blind eye to what they believed to be a brothel for child prostitutes also bothered me.  Now, I’m hearing about this Jennings fellow.  Do you have any insight into that?

BH:  Kevin Jennings is President Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education.  His history and beliefs are well documented in the numerous books he has authored and edited.  There is some dispute as to the legality of his conduct while working as a teacher but by Jennings’ own admission the only counseling he gave a male high school student, who admitted having sex with a man he met in a public restroom, was to use a condom.  Jennings also has high praise for Harry Hay.  If NAMBLA had a Hall of Fame, Hay would be a member.  Hay fought for NAMBLA’s inclusion in the International Lesbian and Gay Association and once carried a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA Walks With Me.”  Although Hay died before I was invited to attend any of NAMBLA’s secret, underground meetings, Hay was a featured speaker at several NAMBLA conferences and at forums on man/boy love.  When members of the Administration admit to admiring a NAMBLA icon it gives me cause for concern and is at the very least a reason for further inquiry.

JRH:  I agree.  Do you feel like this is part of an inevitable coarsening of society in regards to the sexualization of children?

BH: What struck me about NAMBLA was how many men I encountered were high functioning members of our society…doctors, lawyers, ministers, teachers.  Yet these men looked upon boys as sexual objects and had no desire to change their behavior.  In the case of Polanski, “artists” are apologists for child rape.  As to ACORN, let me say I have the highest regard for the work of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles.  The ACORN tapes reinforce the idea that a segment of this society is unable to discern evil.  How can you label oral sex on infants or rape of a thirteen-year-old girl or promoting childhood prostitution as anything but evil?  We as a society must remain vigilant and maintain our moral compass.  I fear too many have lost theirs or never had one.

JRH:  I fear you may be right.  Thank you, Bob, for your service, your courage and for taking some time to talk with me, today.

“It would be a very, very terrible thing for the United States in many, many ways,” he said. Adding that Mr. Obama, “represents a huge step upward from (the) incompetence and misjudgment” of the Bush administration.”

You know, it’s a hard thing to watch your heroes fall. To see them as they really are, not as you thought they were, not as you wish they were.

I grew up loving Woody Allen movies, ranking “Annie Hall,” “Manhattan” and “Hannah and Her Sisters” as three of my favorite all-time films. With “Radio Days” and “Sleeper” not too far behind. 

I also grew up watching the evening news. I felt it was good, it was right when breaking news events came by way of the distinguished anchor, the courageous reporter in the field or by intrepid foreign correspondent, trench coat and all, reporting from overseas. I thought we were being looked after, our interests as Americans were safe with the names I could recite, everyone could recite, without skipping a beat, names synonymous with reporting, with news, with professionalism. I watched Dan Rather,  Peter Jennings, MacNeil/Lehrer, Bill Moyers and even a little of Walter Cronkite without a thought to any reason why I shouldn’t.  These were the voices I heard. These were the faces I believed. The people on TV that I looked up to. That’s the way it was.

Since then, I have learned that I was fooled. I was tricked, tricked by professionals at illusion: entertainers and journalists.

I don’t blame them.  I just feel sad. I feel sad that those fixed stars of my childhood have all but vanished, disappeared into a bleakness and a darkness that is bias, that is a pandemic misguidedness all in the name of power, power for one side, their side, their choices, with little regard for the big picture, the country, our culture.

Like myself, Woody Allen is a New Yorker. He, too, experienced the reality of 9/11 up close and personal. It hit home like nothing else before it. Yet, if we are to judge him by his statements to the press — the international press – he is ignoring the fact that our country has been untouched, completely and absolutely for the seven plus years since that horrible day. No matter how many arguments you have over oil, Halliburton, missing Bin Laden, etc, there has been no repeat of 9/11. None. It’s a fact that seems to go unnoticed by so many in the media, so many like Woody Allen, so many otherwise intelligent people. We have not been hit again.

Mr. Allen completely ignores the reality that this feat was and has been due in large part to the steadfastness of one man, one man who faced obstacles in our media, in our press, in our entertainment fields of movies, music, news, print and video. Every possible avenue of information dispersal in the English language and beyond has been hellbent on bringing down this one man, removing him – trying to do to him, to President Bush, with slow bullets what befell President Kennedy with fast ones.

They failed. No, they didn’t miss. They hit him most certainly. Yes, they wounded him and us.  They wounded and killed many in the field, many innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of our finest citizens who volunteered to protect our nation by joining the armed forces. They, that our friends in the press and entertainment call rubes, morons and uneducated, those honored souls that Hollywood defiles at every opportunity are our best. Yeah, those guys. How many of them were wounded or killed because our irresponsible media and shameless entertainment industry heaped scorn on our country’s Commander in Chief at the worst possible time, when all the world’s eyes were upon us, when everyone waited to see what the United States was going to do when attacked on its shores. Eyes strained to see what would happen when the entertainment capital of the world, Woody Allen’s beloved New York City was struck a lethal blow and when the political capital was likewise attacked.  What enemy would not want to see and examine what this so-called omnipotent super power was going to do next?

When the burned steel and flesh was still smoldering at Pearl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto allegedly stated, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” Whether or not he actually uttered those words, or only included them in his diary later, is unknown. But what is undeniable is that he believed them.

This phrase was repeated, in various versions all over the place after 9/11. So many people believed that we could not let 9/11 go unpunished. So many people felt we could not just wait for the UN to bungle it. So many people were certain we’d come together as a country, just like after Pearl Harbor. So many people were positive it was finally time to send the message that America was not going to allow its citizens to perish at the hands of madmen.

So many people… forgot.

Sleeping, indeed. Well, Yamamoto was half right. While most of the country forgot their words, their resolve, they went back to work, never really feeling a blip in their daily lives, since they didn’t live in Woody Allen’s New York or work in the Pentagon, and let’s face it, continuing to think about 9/11 was like going to watch “The Sorrow and the Pity” one more time. It was depressing. So, we went back to our lives already in progress. We fell back asleep again.

But our Commander in Chief didn’t. Our airmen didn’t. Our sailors didn’t. Our soldiers didn’t. Our Marines didn’t. They are our giants. And it is their shoulders we now stand upon. How many have lost eyes, limbs, years from their lives because callous individuals which make up our celebrity class are quoted in the domestic and overseas media constantly spewing their hate for this one man, for his stubborn efforts to keep us safe and prevent another 9/11?  How many suffered, who are not Americans, because terrorists, and that’s what they are, were emboldened by a fraud documentary or a movie star-of-the-week’s public mockery of our president to anyone and everyone who would listen. And brother, did the world’s press love to listen.

This reminds me of something I’ve thought about a lot since 9/11. In the movie “The Godfather,” there are so many great scenes it’s really hard to pick a favorite. But there is one very small but profound one that stands out for me.  It’s a keystone to what happens to the Corleone family from that moment on. Nothing for that family, other families and for the entire business – since the Corleone’s strength is what keeps the peace amongst them –  is the same after that scene.  Can you start to see why this scene comes to mind? No, it’s not a shootout at a toll booth in New Jersey.  No, it’s not a montage of execution and baptism, nor is it a very nice veal dinner ruined by a .38 caliber tracheotomy. No, it’s a very quiet scene. And many might not even remember it. But it’s the stepping stone to all that follows. And it applies exactly to what I have  witnessed my country doing to itself since 9/11, and maybe before, if I had taken the time to notice.

The scene takes place in the building of the Genco Olive Oil Company. The Godfather is there with his sons. He is visited by an ambitious outsider making the rounds to all the families who run New York’s underworld. When Sonny, for a brief moment, shows that he might be interested in a new line of business being pitched by this outsider, but which his father had already concluded was not in keeping with their line of work or morality, all is lost. Sonny blew it. That one moment, that one action of Sonny’s was to be the undoing of all that they knew.

How can that be, you ask?  Just by showing interest? Or was it greed? The Godfather, the father to his sons, had wisdom enough to realize that to show even the slightest bit of division of purpose within the family was to show the enemy how to attack and defeat them. His displeasure at his son’s carelessness is obvious, but he attempts to diminish its importance by writing it off to youth and a few too many amorous expeditions. But the damage is done. And the Godfather knows it. He shows it in his eyes. Brando is marvelous here. Coppola was very clever not to overplay this scene. He knew to keep it simple and subtle. Because it was subtlety, nuance, and yes, greed that gives away the shop, that exposes the weakness.

Division. You would think no celebrity, no movie star, no director, and especially no director from New York would ever miss something that poignant.

It’s known worldwide that President Bush was a man who did not always do well in front of the camera. But it’s not an easy thing for anyone in even the best conditions. It’s particularly difficult, if not impossible, when the camera has, so to speak, a limited focus and narrow depth of field. Thanks to those cameras, Bush’s every flub, every misstep, every awkward moment that we’ve all been prone to, was highlighted for all the world to see, and for our enemies to learn from, to learn of our lack of unity. Thanks to those cameras President Bush took the heat and became the figurehead for every error, perceived and real, made in America or abroad dating back to the Magna Carta. And for those small, insignificant gains, such as not being attacked since 9/11, for that actual accomplishment and so many others of which we never hear of, he is given none of the credit. Nor does he seek it. What does he do, instead? He thanks the troops.

Filmmaker Woody Allen knows all too well the manipulation possible with the camera,  microphone, and editing room. He knows all too well how easy it is to make things appear the way you want them to. The way you need them to.

He knows.

Yet, he seems to have been hoodwinked into thinking Mr. Obama was going to bring change, real change, positive change to the Oval Office. Why did he think this? What evidence was there? Mr. Allen had stated quite clearly that our country would suffer home and abroad if we as a nation did not elect Mr. Obama. Of what evidence or expertise did he consult or review to make such a claim, other than the promises made by a smooth candidate unknown to him and most of the world a mere one year earlier?  All we could judge this candidate on were his words and his appearance in front of the camera on the campaign trail. That, and promises of change, loosely dangled in front of self-inflicted weary eyes, hoping for something, anything to bring joy to them after the eight years of misery, of not being attacked again.

Make no mistake.  Mr. Allen is not to be grouped in the same category as the Matt Afflecks, the Ben Damons or the Maggie Cho Garofalos. No, he is not an outspoken and overpaid semi-talented celebrity smitten with the limelight and adored by fans hanging on and hooting at his every shameless, treasonous word. No, that is not Woody Allen. He is a talented director and a gifted writer with a vast reservoir of experiences that trump anything a pretty face and high friends in higher places could ever hope to muster. Unlike the celebrity actor, a good director is a manager, a contemplator of bigger pictures than the scene at hand, constantly dealing in the reality of imaginary ‘what if’s. With all due respect to great actors everywhere, and there are many, the director has a bit more to be concerned about than lines to be memorized, a mark to hit and a good side to show to the cameras. He must be a multi-level chess player aware of always changing contingencies on what to do if this fails, if that goes wrong, if so-and-so doesn’t show up. He is tasked with a never-ending list of scenarios of what ideally should be done, what can be done, and what will probably have to be done for each and every set-up, with more levels of uncertainty than a fictional “Buck” Turgidson or Walter Groteschele could ever dream of. He does this all the while inspiring confidence among his crew and never losing sight of the goal: to create something entertaining for others. Maybe even something fun.

In the James L. Brooks film “As Good as it Gets,” Jack Nicholson’s character, Melvin, is approached by a fan who adores his very successful novels.

Young Woman: How do you write women so well?

Melvin: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

Jack could just as easily be talking about our favorite liberal celebrities there. Too many on the left, while our nation is at war and lives are at stake, have failed to apply reason or bother to take responsibility for their words or any accountability of their behavior and actions, aside from that connected with their box office appeal.

Directors, traditionally, must be able to reason and are always accountable. That’s why, when a director makes statements such as Woody, it means more, it hurts more. While in the past, Mr. Allen had shown himself to be an astute thinker and poignant commentator on the comic tragedy called life and with all his abilities, all his experience, all his wit and humor on the fraud that is power, that is politics, he fully accepted Mr. Obama’s campaign promises on face value alone. He did so for no other reason than that such otherwise written blandness was performed well in front of the camera. With all his background why would Woody Allen fall for that?

Why did Dan Rather throw away a distinguished career on the eve of his retirement, to push a story he simply had to know was false, or at the very least stemmed from a single, highly questionable source? Again. Why?

What has happened to critical thinking?

Mr. Allen is not naive.  I won’t get into his personal life and criticize him for his judgement there. That would be unfair, and far too easy. Besides, who among us, including our former president, has not made decisions in their lives, absolutely certain of their correctness at the time, that to others, not in-the-know would seem misguided, wrong or downright evil? Mr. Allen seems unaware that the same description he used of what would have happened to us in America if Obama had lost, “a disgrace” and “humiliation,” are the very words most would apply today to our media, our entertainment industry and of course Mr. Allen’s own personal family life choices.

How can a man who brought us such great visions in his films suddenly be so blind?

Are we in good hands now? Today’s news says otherwise. Woody must feel we are at least not “a disgrace and a humiliation” to the rest of the world. So, that’s something, I guess. Are we safe? Time will tell. But watching the news as I used to do no longer leaves me with any comfort or feeling that the news system itself is in good hands, that they’ll get to the bottom of it, whatever ‘it’ is. Gone is the feeling reporters will leave no stone unturned while the anchor, fulfilling his namesake, will steady the nerves of the nation and remind us of our safety and our security as the president quietly but effectively ensures it.  Is that happening anymore for anyone? Is anyone out there feeling reassured by the news, that all may not be well, but that we can handle it because we’re Americans, after all?

I’m not getting that anymore.  And I don’t believe that those in the news really care anymore if we do. I think they did, at one time. I really think they tried. But that isn’t what is happening today in all newsrooms great and small. This is a sad conclusion that many, like me, have come reluctantly to meet, and that others are turning their eyes away from. I will confess, though, that what I miss more than most things about those days are the anchors themselves. It may sound shallow, but there aren’t any real anchormen or women in the news business anymore, are there?  Like the great actors and directors of Hollywood, they’re replaced by a  washed-out bland parade of interchangeable names and faces, all equally untrustworthy and lacking.

To my own questions I have no answers, it is true. Only a kind of sadness and a yearning. A yearning to go back to those days before I knew any better, before the stars began to fade, before they ceased to shine so brightly above, blinding me with their visual eloquence and to a reality that I can now see all too clearly.

I’m constantly amazed by the attitudes of some in our industry toward the military. Personally, the fact that I’m a former Marine is often met with incredulity. Apparently, I’m “pretty cool for a Marine” and I “seem so normal”. My favorite is the look on someone’s face when they ask, “Why would you join the Marines?” while they visually inspect for some previously undetected mental defect.

Being both an actor and a veteran allows me to come at this issue from a different angle. I know the men and women that we, in this industry, often portray. To say that, thus far, we have done them a disservice is an understatement.

It would be a travesty to allow our brave men and women serving in the Global War on Terror to be remembered in the way they are currently being represented by the films coming out of Hollywood. The extended families of our military members number in the millions. We’re basically telling them that their loved ones (their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters) are pieces of shit. Not only is this reprehensible, it’s not good business.

I remember reading an article about the lack of box office success of Iraq War films. The writer stated that, despite big stars and bigger budgets, the films just couldn’t find an audience. One of the people interviewed said that they’d “tried everything” but that America “just isn’t ready” for this subject matter. I thought, “Have you tried making a film in which we are the good guys?” I bet you’d find an audience then, genius.

There are thousands of stories of heroism, courage, sacrifice and honor to be told. And guess what? You don’t even have to hurt your head trying to make them up because they actually happened. Gravy.

Here’s my challenge to my colleagues in the entertainment industry… Tell the tales of sacrifice and bravery that are so abundant. Honor our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. It’s up to us to make sure they are remembered as the heroes they are.

Semper fidelis.