# 5 Myths About Those Tinseltown Liberals



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2008)

[SIZE=+2]*5 Myths About Those Tinseltown Liberals*[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Andrew Klavan[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Washington Post[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sunday, October 12, 2008; B03[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Excerpt:
[/SIZE]
_Hollywood used to be called the Dream Factory, but nowadays it seems to be grinding out as much propaganda as anything else. Next off the weary assembly line: Oliver Stone's "W.," which opens on Friday. If the trailer is any indication, this movie will depict our current president's life as an evolution from drunken loser to dangerous idiot -- and just in time for the election, too._
_The director of "Nixon" and "JFK," Stone has shown himself to be a master of rewriting reality until it resembles his left-wing ideology, but he's by no means alone. For the past 30 years or so, Hollywood storytelling has been guided by a liberal mythos in which, for example, blacklisting communist screenwriters during the '50s was somehow morally worse than fellow-traveling with the Stalinist murderers of tens of millions ("Trumbo"); Che Guevara was a dashing, romantic liberator instead of a charismatic killer ("The Motorcycle Diaries"); and the worldwide violence currently being waged by Islamo-fascists is either a figment of our bigoted imaginations or the product of our evil deeds ("V for Vendetta")._
_Hollywood moviemakers, in other words, have been telling lies -- loudly, constantly and almost always in support of a left-wing point of view. And these lies are most prolific and tenacious when the Hollywood left is lying about itself. Here's a list of their most egregious whoppers:_
_1. Hollywood has no political agenda -- it's just out to make money_.
Would that it were so. All through 2007, Hollywood sent American multiplexes the message: "We don't like the war on terror." All year, American moviegoers sent a message back to Hollywood: "We don't care."
END EXCERPT (Except to excerpt the second through fifth myths)

_2. Hollywood liberals speak truth to power_.


_3. Hollywood liberals are liberal_.

_4. Liberals don't exclude conservatives; conservatives just aren't that creative_.


_5. Hollywood leftists are patriotic in their own way._
_End Excerpt_
Interesting article. G rated movies make tons more money than movies of any other rating, yet, many directors aim for an R rating as if there were some kind of prize attached.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> [SIZE=+2]*5 Myths About Those Tinseltown Liberals*[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]By Andrew Klavan[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]The Washington Post[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]Sunday, October 12, 2008; B03[/SIZE]
> ...


 


> The surprise about W. is that its left-wing creator made a movie that is not so much operatic or hysterical as utterly plausible.
> Yes, there are soapy oversimplifications and embellishments (and some hallucinatory camera work involving baseball stadiums and showdowns in the Oval Office) that Bush loyalists will seize on as reprehensible distortions.
> But all in all, the straightforwardness of W. suggests that Mr. Stone set out to make a critical biography but was somehow spooked. The director who has built a career on vowing to unearth hidden truths made a movie that feels more familiar than revelatory


 
Seen here


----------



## Kreth (Oct 12, 2008)

Oliver Stone, Director (D)... right?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 12, 2008)

I have to giggle a bit when I hear the lamentations about Hollywood liberals.

Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Willis anyone?

The left and the right in Hollywood work in different ways. Oliver Stone makes docu-_dramas_. Michael Moore makes documentaries of an entertaining sort. Their films are polemical, and I quite enjoy them.

Films featuring America's more Republican players -- ie the Holy Trinity of big budget action flicks listed above -- tend to be allegories in which outrageous violence is the only reasonable recourse in extreme situations. I like their films too.

To quote Tom, narrating the opening scene from Tennessee Williams' _The Glass Menagerie_:



> Yes, I have tricks in my pocket, I have things up my sleeve. But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion.




I delved a little deeper into Klavan's article and found the following quite disturbing:



> Making anti-war films while American troops are under fire is not patriotic. Exporting movies that consistently show the United States in a bad light is not patriotic.



I would argue that being able to make and show ant-war film in time of war shows that the First Amendment might just be alive and well, which is extremely patriotic.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

Oh sure..Stone has no political aims with this movie at all.

Right


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> I have to giggle a bit when I hear the lamentations about Hollywood liberals.
> 
> Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Willis anyone?


 How many movies have Bruce and Sly made recently? If you think, this long into his governorship that Schwarzenegger is a conservative, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Arnold's celebrity got him elected, to pretend otherwise is to ignore facts.





> Michael Moore makes documentaries of an entertaining sort.


 No. He does not. Calling fictional films documentaries doesn't make it so.


> I would argue that being able to make and show ant-war film in time of war shows that the First Amendment might just be alive and well, which is extremely patriotic.


You could argue that, and be wrong. As stated in the article patriotism is a love of one's country, making America and Americans out to be the sole source of evil in the world is not showing a  love of one's country. Oh, sure, it is using the Constitution to their ends, but, that, in itself is not loving the country. Using the freedoms ensured in this country to run this country down is not patriotic.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 12, 2008)

If you believe that America is not the source of most of the woes of the world at the moment, in the eyes of those that are outside of the States, then that could well be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Patriotism is all very well, just as faith is all very well ... the proviso is a soto voce "Within limits".  The "My country, right or wrong" attitude sold very well in times gone by but that's what's gotten us (i.e. "The West") in so much trouble of late.

Things might look all very rosy in Casa Americano (lack of a functioning economy not withstanding) but appearances are very deceptive.

I have asked before, Don, if you could tell us what has lead you to such extreme views (or at least the views you choose to express here at MT).  It'd be very interesting to hear what it is that so guides your steps and makes you proof against all alternate viewpoints.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

If most of the "Old World" could have handled the last two world wars without our help we wouldnt be where we are in the world today.

If we werent called upon or expected to deal with international problems as often as we are we wouldnt be where we are today either.

We arent so bad when someone wants our money or our military, until we arent wanted any longer.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 12, 2008)

Probably best not to go there, *Angel*.  Then again, as I'm about the only active Englishman here on the boards, it really doesn't matter - my one voice will soon drown.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

Say as you will..."most" of our military presence around the world is the due to WWII. The cold war build up and whats currently left of it is directly related to our post war military presence in Europe after WWII. WWII is what broke us out of isolationism.

Mind you Im not one of the "The US saved your *** in WWII" types...not at all. None of the allies alone would have done it (although the Pacific campaign was at least 85% a US operation that kept the Japanese from distracting the USSR from their western front). All Im saying is that if we were never involved in WWII I dont think we would be as globally involved as we are today. Not even close.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 12, 2008)

That is true and I will say in America's defence that 'you', as a people, did not come willingly out of islolation and had no 'designs' on the world stage such as have since played out.

I think perhaps I should point out that any negative connotations from above are not directed at the American people but rather the corporate 'string pullers' that are deciding the foreign policy that your governments follow.  The tail is wagging the dog and putting decisions into play that are very much setting your country up to be the "Bad Guy" in the eyes of many.

Sadly, the Mod in me has to say that this is a discussion for another place, as it has not much to do with the OP .  I wonder where would be an appropriate place?  'The Study' maybe?  Tho' given that many of the overt effects of this 'corporate politics' are military, perhaps the War College would not be unsuitable?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

One final point. 

It would also help if it didnt seem like the rest of the world always turns to us to "do something" when theres a genocide here or an invasion there. If that is indeed a fact or not..thats how it seems to appear. "You guys are nosing in where you are not wanted!".."Hey what are you going to do about this!?!?"


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> How many movies have Bruce and Sly made recently? If you think, this long into his governorship that Schwarzenegger is a conservative, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Arnold's celebrity got him elected, to pretend otherwise is to ignore facts. No. He does not.



In mentioning Sly, Willis, and Arnold, I thought I was stating the obvious. They have been huge backers of the GOP for a very long time.



> Calling fictional films documentaries doesn't make it so.



I called them documentaries of an entertaining sort. I also said that the films of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are polemical, which is to say it's not like their bias is some kind of secret. If a movie goer walks into a Stone or Moore movie without knowing in advance that what they will has a strong liberal or leftist point of view, s/he shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.

Similarly, a movie-goer attending a Stallone/Arnold/Sly film knows that the story arc will involve bare knuckles and big guns.

In regards to my comment about free speech / First Amendment, you said,



> You could argue that, and be wrong. As stated in the article patriotism is a love of one's country, making America and Americans out to be the sole source of evil in the world is not showing a  love of one's country. Oh, sure, it is using the Constitution to their ends, but, that, in itself is not loving the country. Using the freedoms ensured in this country to run this country down is not patriotic.



Whose country are you talking about? Approximately half your own electorate did not want George Bush, Jr, in the White House in two consecutive elections. This is the danger of this _America: Love it or leave it_ business. Are they supposed to simply put up and shut up for eight years? Are critics of a sitting president automatically unpatriotic because they exercise a constitutional right to criticize that president's running of the country? I can guarantee you that the GOP did not shut up for eight years that the Clintons were in the White House.

And yes, regardless of what you or that Hollywood hack have to say, I think the First Amendment is a very strong example of love of country in the USA. It means you're prepared to hear things you don't agree with. It means that you're mature enough to argue with the person who said them, rather than dismiss them as unpatriotic or un-American.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 12, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Probably best not to go there, *Angel*.  Then again, as I'm about the only active Englishman here on the boards, it really doesn't matter - my one voice will soon drown.



You're not completely alone on that score, Sukerkin. Though I'm Canadian, I know exactly what you are talking about.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> If most of the "Old World" could have handled the last two world wars without our help we wouldnt be where we are in the world today.



Actually, do a little more history reading, both wars had turned before the US got involved.  Which it only really did in response to attacks on the US (Germany sinking some ships in WW1, Japan at Pearl Harbour in WW2)

One thing that would have happened with WW2, had the US not gotten involved, Russia would have marched straight across Germany, and the Soviet influence on Europe would have been a lot stronger, which was something the US wanted to limit.  US help in Europe was also partially dependent on the Allies help in Japan, which had declared war on the US.

American help was definitely a good thing, without it the fight would have lasted a lot longer and possibly could have turned again, and likely would have resulted in more deaths.  But it most likely would have been won without the US.

But back to the topic, Hollywood is not all 'liberals."  Not even close, there are movies made on that side of the line, but there are also movies made on the other side of the line.

Movies get made to make money, everything else is secondary to that.  If a movies doesn't make money then the film maker will be out of a job.

Some genres tend to lean left, others right.  Just depends on the target audience.  Sci-fi tends to lean left, comedy tends to lean left, military - right, religion involved - right, cop shows - right, superheros - left.

Who cares?  They are just entertainment, watch the ones you like, not the ones you don't.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

"Turned"? WTF? The Germans were watching the English coast from the East side of the channel before D-Day. Without Lend/Lease none of the Allies would have survived. Without the US keeping the Japanese occupied in the Pacific, they would have opened up another front on the USSR. You are misguided in your Anti-US fervor.

As I said I was never saying that the "US won WWII" just that it is a large part of the reason for our current global positioning. 

And for our "small and unnecessary" role in it we certianly wound up with a large and mostly uncontested post war presence.

Oh and that Marshall Plan $$ was nice too.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 12, 2008)

Come along, gentlemen.  This is a discussion worth having, if only to clear the air between some of us forumites who may see some historical events in a different light ... but we're actively diverting this thread.

We can either start a new one in the Study or elsewhere or we can meet in a pub and have this out .  I'm sure that all of us would learn something as every event has more than one side (tho', for the record, 'Ours' is the right one  ).


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 12, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Probably best not to go there, *Angel*.  Then again, as I'm about the only active Englishman here on the boards, it really doesn't matter - my one voice will soon drown.



Suk, how is he WRONG?

that man has a point, everyone around the world cries and moans 'where are the Americans" when something bad happens to them....

then afterwards, they like to call us names over plates of some disgusting crud they call a 'cheese"


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 12, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> But back to the topic, Hollywood is not all 'liberals."  Not even close, there are movies made on that side of the line, but there are also movies made on the other side of the line.



nope, dont think so, and you aint gonna change my mind

lets just put it this way

name the last military movie that painted the US Military in a positive light?

having trouble? it isnt a shock.

for every "We were Soldiers", there are 5 "Stop loss" made in hollywood, and even though they NEVER make money, hollywood keep cranking out these turds

redacted
stop loss
valley of elah
redention
lions for lambs


why, if as you say, they are all about profit?

cuz they HATE the US military and more importantly, they want the people to hate them too


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

And how about "cop movies"..theres at least 2 (possibly 3) "dirty nasty rouge killer cop" movies playing now.

If they arent outright dirty then they are these "Max Payne" type cop heroes who are out on a rampage of "street justice".


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> cuz they HATE the US military and more importantly, they want the people to hate them too



Is that why people like Robin Williams, Kid Rock, 50 Cent and others go entertain the troops? Because they hate the military?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> I called them documentaries of an entertaining sort. I also said that the films of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are polemical, which is to say it's not like their bias is some kind of secret. If a movie goer walks into a Stone or Moore movie without knowing in advance that what they will has a strong liberal or leftist point of view, s/he shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

Actors are only part of Hollywood. Who is putting up the money to fund these non-profit "political point makers" and why?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Is that why people like Robin Williams, Kid Rock, 50 Cent and others go entertain the troops? Because they hate the military?


Perhaps, because they know supporting the troops is popular with people and need people to buy their products? Or gee, maybe, their protests are for show and their service to the troops is not...


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Perhaps, because they know supporting the troops is popular with people and need people to buy their products? Or gee, maybe, their protests are for show and their service to the troops is not...


 
Hmmm..show to "conservative" of a side in Hollywood and suffer a lack of work perhaps?

Possible. Who knows?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Hmmm..show to "conservative" of a side in Hollywood and suffer a lack of work perhaps?
> 
> Possible. Who knows?


Selleck has had loads of lucrative work since his appearance on Rosie hasn't he?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Actors are only part of Hollywood. Who is putting up the money to fund these non-profit "political point makers" and why?


Maybe fielding these crappy, although not non-profit, non-profiting movies is some kind of accounting tool, i.e. we spent x million dollars on this and only sold 5 tickets...


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 13, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Is that why people like Robin Williams, Kid Rock, 50 Cent and others go entertain the troops? Because they hate the military?



actors STAR in movies to get paid, for the most part, i am pretty sure the average actor is too stupid to be in on the "smear the military" train

producers and directors decide which movies get made. And it is pretty clear that THEY have an agenda.

The anti-right bias in hollywood is well documented.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1846714,00.html

just a taste:

_There are the things you admit to in Hollywood--that you've been to rehab, that you wrecked your first marriage, that it took 12 people to pick out your outfit. And then there's the thing you don't admit to: that you vote Republican. "I preface it by saying I've been convicted of child molestation, and that breaks the ice," says director David Zucker of sharing his political views with liberal-leaning colleagues. "Then being Republican doesn't seem so bad to them."_ 





_ About as common per capita as vegans in Texas, Republicans in Hollywood

_


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 13, 2008)

So ... why do you think that people who make a living by observing, studying, dissecting and recreating human behavior would ever be liberal?  People who have the opportunity to travel the world, meet people from all walks of life?  Create a personality from scratch? 

I suppose because they made good business decisions to be lucrative with a talent they possess (or one that people will pay for) and they actually are *liberal* ... doesn't set well? Makes them "morons?" Not entitled to a political opinion?

I think it's quite interesting that so many American people identify with the political statements put out by these "left-leaning" movies and that this is automatically dismissed and Hollywood, I suppose, should be barred from expressing political opinion in art? 

Now who's uninformed again? Oh wait! What's that word sgtmac used?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 13, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> So ... why do you think that people who make a living by observing, studying, dissecting and recreating human behavior would ever be liberal?  People who have the opportunity to travel the world, meet people from all walks of life?  Create a personality from scratch?


You really think much too highly of actors.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 13, 2008)

Big Don said:


> You really think much too highly of actors.


Think highly?  Of actors?  Please.  You know nothing of my loathing of Hollywood.

My statement is factual. The craft of acting is what I posted.  It is not opinion.  An actor gets a role ... and researches the character in the writing to construct a personality.  It can take a lot of research or one can simply just fake it. Both approaches seem to work depending upon who you are and what kind of ah ... "information" ... and talent one possesses.  

They seem to have similar personal lives to politicians, ironically. :lol2:

Nevertheless ... just as your dentist, your pastor, your doctor, a coworker or three make a habit out of contributing and volunteering locally and globally, so do some actors.  

As to the movies, after what I've seen on the screen over the past decade or more, I daresay people really don't care what they're looking at.  The most idiotic smut I've ever laid eyes on have been blockbuster hits and yet, righties and lefties alike pay money to throw away two hours of their lives to watch crap.

How dare anyone have a differing view, anyway? What the hell is that about? Where do these people think we live? AMERICA????? :cuss:


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 13, 2008)

Obviously we have different opinions on this thread. So whats wrong here? Are we not just being "Americans"?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 13, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Hmmm..show to "conservative" of a side in Hollywood and suffer a lack of work perhaps?
> 
> Possible. Who knows?


 
That's exactly it. Take it from someone trying to break in as a screenwriter. 

Remember--you can't spell "flake" without "L.A."


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 14, 2008)

Well, 3 pages in, I won't have the luxury of using quotes to specifically tailor my responses, but here's what I think on a few of the general assertions made here.  On topic, of course; the U.S.'s contribution to World Wars and its move from isolationism to imperialism is, indeed, another topic.  

First off, when hearing people bemoan the "obvious bias" of that singular, uniform entity called Hollywood, I often wonder what exactly would rectify matters.  Shall we make a law that, say, once an actor or director has made their first million dollars, they're not allowed to involve themselves in or comment on politics, or make movies that address political issues?  These actors and directors, biased for or against the government or military as they may or may not be, are still individual citizens of the U.S.  If--who was it, Matthew McConnohey, I think?  I know I butchered his name--wants to spend his money on a "fact-finding" trip to the Middle East, he's certainly being arrogant, but it's his perrogative.  Funny thing is, aren't we, the movie-going American public, the ones who seem to idolize celebrities and thus give them this allegedly hightened status in the first place?  Actors and directors are people with their own opinions, and they do not and should not surrender their rights to express views simply because they've become public figures.  

Next, it is indeed NOT unpatriotic to criticize the government or choice to go to war, doing so is one of the primary rights and freedoms that defines this country.  First Amendment, anyone?  Freedom of the press?  You think these were created solely in the hopes that we'd all wake up each morning and, of our own free will, recite the national anthem Leave-It-To-Beaver style? Some things that I would consider unpatriotic are direct treason like selling nuclear technology to foreign nations, interfering with election processes, revealing the name of a CIA agent in order to penalize her husband, or arresting citizens for acting on the rights that our country's founded on.  THOSE acts are unpatriotic and piss on everything that our forefathers and soldiers have fought and died for, not disagreeing with the government.  

Finally, and this flows from the second point, just because someone makes a documentary that's critical of current government policies, or thinks that the choice to go into Iraq (now, sadly, a moot issue) was meritless, does not mean that that person hates America or wants to throw on a turban and steer the next plane into a tower. It's not only ignorant, but willfully ignorant, to think that every liberal out there who criticizes current decisions and situations, from Michael Moore all the way down to broke college-student me, hates America and needs to leave.  I love this country, always will, but recent history has brought about some things that don't make me proud. That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, am not a true American.

I think I've had my say on the matter.  If you choose to respond to anything I've said, I'd appreciate it if you used more than one or two sentences.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 14, 2008)

While I dont really care one way or another... 

I did notice today while relaxing after my weekend and catching up with some shows "on demand" in two of the four that I watched they made deragatory remarks about Republicans... One was a girl being embarrased to find out the guy she was dating was one, and one where the girl questioned the guy asking if he was some kind of Republican.

So I'd say there _*may*_ be some bias from Hollywood twords republicans.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 14, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Next, it is indeed NOT unpatriotic to criticize the government or choice to go to war, doing so is one of the primary rights and freedoms that defines this country. First Amendment, anyone? Freedom of the press? You think these were created solely in the hopes that we'd all wake up each morning and, of our own free will, recite the national anthem Leave-It-To-Beaver style?


 
To be fair, excercising these rights doesn't make somthing patriotic, however.  Patriotism ISN'T excercising your rights of freedom of speech, or right to bear arms, or assemble, etc...

BUT Patriotism is a showing of pride and support in/for your *country.*  And not neccessarily your *government*... so on that point I'll agree with you.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 14, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> BUT Patriotism is a showing of pride and support in/for your *country.*  And not neccessarily your *government*... so on that point I'll agree with you.



Very well put, Cryo. And I *completely* agree.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 14, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> *If most of the "Old World" could have handled the last two world wars without our help we wouldnt be where we are in the world today.*
> 
> If we werent called upon or expected to deal with international problems as often as we are we wouldnt be where we are today either.
> 
> We arent so bad when someone wants our money or our military, until we arent wanted any longer.


 

Well we paid you for that didn't we? The last payment of £45,000,000 was paid to you in December 2006 by our government. We've been paying you every year since 1945. We went to war with Japan  to aid you as we have been to war in Iraq and Afghanistan with you, to support you not the other way around but I think that's a discussion for another day. Too many good lives have been sacrified for freedom to cheapen them by suggesting we only appreciate our friends and allies when we can get money and troops off them. 

Hollywood has long changed history in it's films to the point that many actually believe what happened in a film rather than the truth, this is especially true of Second World War films and any historical epic. I suspect that it's more to attract box office ratings though rather than any political plot. Making Che Guevara an attractive character will get more bums on seats than a boring trawl through an unattractive life! The same with Eva Peron, people don't want 'the truth' when they go to a cinema, they want to be entertained and the film makers want money in the bank. It's a business.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Making Che Guevara an attractive character will get more bums on seats than a boring trawl through an unattractive life! The same with Eva Peron, people don't want 'the truth' when they go to a cinema, they want to be entertained and the film makers want money in the bank. It's a business.


Good point,those are certainly two of the WORST people to be made heroes by Hollywood.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Well we paid you for that didn't we? The last payment of £45,000,000 was paid to you in December 2006 by our government. We've been paying you every year since 1945. We went to war with Japan to aid you as we have been to war in Iraq and Afghanistan with you, to support you not the other way around but I think that's a discussion for another day. Too many good lives have been sacrified for freedom to cheapen them by suggesting we only appreciate our friends and allies when we can get money and troops off them.


 
I dont want to give the impression that the UK are "fair weather friends", my barb was aimed a bit more east of you folks.

The main point of that post was to give my opinion of how the US got to its current position in world affairs, and that is rooted in our post war philosophy of "not again". As in we were not going to be sitting by isolated on this side of the pond only to play catch-up if and when the next big war "over there" flared up. And through out the Cold War it did indeed look like another one was.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> nope, dont think so, and you aint gonna change my mind
> 
> lets just put it this way
> 
> name the last military movie that painted the US Military in a positive light?


How many war movies are being made right now?  One that jumps to mind is Band of Brothers.  That was AWESOME.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 14, 2008)

That was HBO. Then they had to make "Generation Kill" to balance the ledger a bit without insulting ALL US servicemen.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 14, 2008)

stevebjj said:


> How many war movies are being made right now? One that jumps to mind is Band of Brothers. That was AWESOME.


 
There was also A Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, and We Were Soldiers; all older movies, but still examples of Hollywood painting soldiers in a very positive light.  Then there's Platoon, a much older film which, while not making shining beacons of soldiers, depicted the moral ambiguity and personal conflict of a soldier at war.  Point being, Hollywood films kinda run the gamut of glorifying soldiers, demonizing them, and everything in between.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 14, 2008)

Did you watch "Thin Red Line"??


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 14, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Did you watch "Thin Red Line"??



i was gonna ask


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> That was HBO. Then they had to make "Generation Kill" to balance the ledger a bit without insulting ALL US servicemen.


Are you suggesting that they have a tally sheet?   The question was if anyone could think of a recent film made that paints US Military in a positive light.  Band of Brothers came to mind.

Again, not sure if I could list a bunch of recent ones, but I can tell you some of my favorite from my lifetime.

Saving Private Ryan is up there.  
Memphis Belle is one of my favorites.
Flags of Our Fathers
Letters from Iwo Jima (although not specifically about our troops)
We Were Soldiers

Honestly, I'm having trouble thinking of any movies that paint our soldiers in a strictly negative light.  Some, like Full Metal Jacket, attempt to tackle the moral ambiguity of combat and don't specifically make us out to be heroes.  I haven't seen every movie that's been released, for sure, so maybe I'm just missing them.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 14, 2008)

If I'm honest it's the films like the Saw series that worry me, historical facts get changed and twisted every day and if a film distorts or maligns people like soldiers at least they can get up and protest that the film is wrong. What worried me is the insidious pushing of boundaries where violence is concerned. I don't think this is political or even done by people with a political agenda, it's done purely to get jaded people who have become used to violence into cinemas. This to me is far worse than anyone trying to use cinema for propaganda purposes.
If someone makes a film presenting a politician for example in a certain light, good or bad at least people can discuss it, refute it or make a film with an opposing view. Films with extremes of violence however are marketed as entertainment and it becomes accepted that it's normal to watch scenes of torture, we become hardened then to scenes of real violence in warzones, on the street etc. We become desensitised and less compassionate, we become worse people not better. Politics in the cinema can make us angry or amuse us or we can ignore it altogether, it does far less harm in the long run.


----------



## Nolerama (Oct 14, 2008)

I'm dropping the Troll Hammer (from some POVs)...

Maybe Conservatives don't have a whole lot of creativity on a general level...

Look at Adam Sandler. Outside of a few Focus features, he's pretty much made the same movie since Billy Madison. (Staunchly Republican)

Oh yeah, while Michael Moore is an abrasive, loud-mouthed, "Liberal", he does make good points.

But from my end: who cares? It's sad when your vote is swayed by bad TV or Movies. Really sad.

Hollywood isn't the "Evil Liberal" organization that's going to tear this country apart. It's the big international conglomerates (who are very "Conservative") that will.

Again, name calling is a fruitless effort. Getting beyond that whole semantic thing will probably ease some minds.

Oh yeah, the whole "Why are there so many negative movies about the US military?" thing is awkward and an unfounded argument. Someone can watch Full Metal Jacket and think that it's a patriotic and very real story. If there are problems with that point of view, then deal with it. Lament over how Free Speech is denying your right to pursue happiness. 

*To attempt to deny someone the right to think about their true opinion on a movie is totally un-American, fascist, and plain ignorant.

*Do you want open propaganda? We, as Americans, are a hair's width away from experiencing that (if not already). We're told what to buy, convinced that consumer goods are life necessities, and offered to vote for two parties that just so happen to have huge bankrolls to fund their advertising on national television.

One might bemoan the "Tinseltown Liberals." I bemoan the swill consumer propaganda that floats from the airwaves, to our TV screens and into our minds, as if it were handed down by God.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 14, 2008)

micheal moore CANNOT make any good points, since everything he does is based on lies


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> If I'm honest it's the films like the Saw series that worry me, historical facts get changed and twisted every day and if a film distorts or maligns people like soldiers at least they can get up and protest that the film is wrong. What worried me is the insidious pushing of boundaries where violence is concerned. I don't think this is political or even done by people with a political agenda, it's done purely to get jaded people who have become used to violence into cinemas. This to me is far worse than anyone trying to use cinema for propaganda purposes.
> If someone makes a film presenting a politician for example in a certain light, good or bad at least people can discuss it, refute it or make a film with an opposing view. Films with extremes of violence however are marketed as entertainment and it becomes accepted that it's normal to watch scenes of torture, we become hardened then to scenes of real violence in warzones, on the street etc. We become desensitised and less compassionate, we become worse people not better. Politics in the cinema can make us angry or amuse us or we can ignore it altogether, it does far less harm in the long run.


 
Agreed. That and the "gangsta" idolization films. The thugs are good and the cops are all corrupt.


----------

