What Elephant? — Patrick Goldstein Responds *UPDATED*
Posted by Dirty Harry on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008
In response to this post, Patrick Goldstein in turn responded on his own blog. I’ll go ahead and take these one at a time:
But back to Dirty Harry: I respect his point of view, but I think he’s over-simplifying. You could make the argument that Sean Penn is strident or occasionally boorish about his politics–or for that matter, about his inalienable right to smoke in public places, which I suspect is a position Dirty Harry might support.
I do.
But DiCaprio? Would you really label his mild-mannered, earnest pleas to save the planet boorish? If you really think saving the planet is–how should I put this–overrated, you could just as easily tune him out. And if you’re arguing that DiCaprio or Clooney’s political views are really hurting their movies with the American people, then how come U2’s Bono–who not only endlessly circles the globe trying to save the planet, but even politicks about it on stage at his concerts–is phenomenally popular, selling more records than ever, with no discernible backlash from his many followers?
The difference between Bono and DiCaprio-Clooney is three-fold:
1. Bono has talent.
2. Bono’s not wrong about everything.
3. Bono loves America.
Okay, 1 & 2 are a little snarky, but don’t misunderestimate 3. Bono spends more time talking about what’s right with America than what’s wrong. From day one Bono has told Americans that he knows we will do the right thing because we’re good. He appeals to the best in us. He doesn’t talk down or hector or scold or shame — he says he has faith in America, not because we can be great, but because we already are.
Remember U2’s halftime Superbowl show right after 9/11? Remember how Bono opened his jacket to show he was wearing our stars and stripes?
I would take a bullet for that liberal.
Bono’s simple gesture was the most moving, appreciated, and healing thing any celebrity did during those terrible days. And it was an unabashed, unqualified, unapologetic, un-yeah, but — love for America. And it was all the more moving and appreciated and unforgettable because celebrities won’t do that anymore. It’s not in them.
And we notice.
George and Leo and their ilk never talk about what’s right and great about America. Ever. Instead, they export films like Syriana and Blood Diamond to (among others) our enemies — films that are lies and which validate the hate our enemy holds for this country — films that confirm we’re a greedy people who tolerate a system that foments all the evils in the world.
These films would be easier to take and their stars easier to stomach were they to, every once in a while, choose to export what’s great about America. Films that told the stories of our heroes and sacrifices. Films about all there is to love about America and Americans.
I understand the liberal reluctance to see any good in Iraq. But even Obama’s in favor of the war in Afghanistan. Couldn’t we tell the story of an America that went to war with the Taliban, spent billions on precision weapons to avoid civilian casualties, handed the Afghan people the keys to their country back, and then stuck around to rebuild and protect?
The goodwill engendered by such a film… You have no idea how much we want to love Hollywood again.
If George and Leo and Haggis and Reese and I’m Matt Damon and Meryl and Tom and Robert and Sean and their ilk did what Bono does and told those other stories every once in a while… But they don’t. Their disdain for this country is so deep they would prefer to lose money on those other stories. The negative ones that confirm and expose the worst in us, our system, and worse — those who risk everything to protect it.
If just once they could wear the stars and stripes with the same pride that NotFromAmerican Bono did… But it’s all too obvious that it’s just not in them.
And we notice.
But politics is harder to pinpoint than personal values. George Clooney’s politics aren’t any more radical than Humphrey Bogart’s politics were in the 1940s. They were both old-fashioned liberals who stuck up for a few good causes, but onscreen played either likable rogues or heroes torn asunder by events swirling around them.
The difference between Bogart and Clooney – where to begin? Unlike Clooney and Robbins and Penn… Bogart wasn’t defined by his politics. He wasn’t a political animal constantly quarreling with half his audience every time a microphone was stuck in his face. Every other film wasn’t produced to flaunt his supposed moral authority and wag his finger in the face of those who disagreed.
Bogart never insulted his audience at awards shows or in his films or in interviews. He was a thoughtful, intelligent man whose moral foundation was based on the Ten Commandments. Humphrey Bogart was proud to be an American. Humphrey Bogart would’ve kicked the shit out of anyone wearing an orange ribbon to the Oscars.
Sure, Bogart spoke up against the Red Scare and was a proud Adlai Stevenson man, but he carried himself with class, and never would’ve made a Syriana while his country was at war. Bogart may have been pretty liberal in his day — so were a lot of great stars. But they were also patriots who served during WWII and could be found on USO tours.
But back to that unholy use of Bogart and Clooney in the same sentence: Don’t forget the movies. It’s more than politics, it’s also product. Bogart’s characters generally started off as detached cynics who ended up believing in something bigger than themselves — like their country. Whether it was Casablanca or The African Queen, Bogart’s arc turned away from the cynical and toward duty and sacrifice.
The difference between Bogart and Clooney is the difference between Casablanca and The Good German.
At the risk of putting too fine a point on it, Bogart would’ve cringed during Clooney’s self-aggrandizing Oscar acceptance speech, and can anyone imagine Bogart making fun of Charlton Heston’s alzheimers the way Clooney did?
I don’t see a clash there, simply a knee-jerk conservative disdain.
Then where was the knee-jerk disdain for Paul Newman, an unapologetic liberal? Neither myself nor a single one of my readers felt anything but a terrible loss when this good man died. But Newman was different because he didn’t insult us, he walked the walk with his charities, and he was an advocate – a proponent — who didn’t tear down the other side.
It’s not a knee-jerk disdain over politics, it’s a knee-jerk disdain over a lack of class. You never got a sense from Bogart, Newman, or even a Warren Beatty that they didn’t like us.
But we know this new breed doesn’t like us and we’re just not-liking them back.
An even more complicated case would be Oliver Stone. If “W.” fizzles, which seems likely, can the right really blame it on Stone’s lefty political views? Or if it fails, it is simply because people have lost interest in George W. Bush, in real life as well as on screen?
If Dirty Harry really believes “W.” could fail because people are offended by Stone’s offscreen politics, then how does he explain the surprising success of “World Trade Center,” Stone’s previous film. Even though the movie was a grim reminder of one of our country’s worst tragedies, it did $70.3 million in the U.S. alone, easily outdistancing “Good Night, and Good Luck,” “Lions for Lambs,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition,” “The Lucky Ones,” “Syriana” and all the other politically themed movies conservatives love to hate. If the case is that moviegoers won’t see films by outspoken political lefties, they why didn’t moviegoers punish Stone when he made “World Trade Center”?
This is taking my argument to the extreme of “won’t.” And I never said “won’t.” And I never said that boorish politicking was the sole problem or that Patrick’s analysis was wrong. My point was that it seemed glaring that the deep-seated ill-will some of these stars have obviously engendered in much of the population didn’t have a place in Patrick’s discussion over the demise of the adult drama.
But back to Oliver Stone.
I, for one, have not predicted ”W.” will fizzle. I haven’t even predicted it will suck. But if I had to guess…
Stone is an exception because, unlike the others, he is a ferociously talented filmmaker. I could double the size of this post exploring my love and admiration of Stone’s work, but suffice to say, at his best, Stone rises above politics into something that makes for as pure a movie-going experience as you’ll ever have. Simply put, his films deliver enough to offset the rest.
Oliver Stone also fought for his country. And, yeah, that means something.
ANOTHER POINT: First off, I’m enjoying this and thank Patrick for engaging. In my rush to get out the door, I forgot to respond to this:
The real flaw in the argument about all these politically minded Hollywood types is this–they’re not out of step with the American people. I hate to be the one to break the news, but the American people, by a broad majority, have turned against the war in Iraq, seeing it as a waste of American lives and a misuse of valuable resources that could be better spent on reviving our own schools and healthcare system. The American people aren’t insulted by actor’s preaching about saving the planet–they want to save the planet too, by a broad margin.
I agree that most people are against the war, but they never wanted to lose and absolutely resent our troops portrayed as anything less then the amazing individuals they are. I would also agree that a majority of American have been suckered by the environmental movement. On those issues the American people may be closer to Hollywood than I think is healthy for America, but these same people do not share Hollywood’s hostility towards this country.
For example, most of the people who are unsure of Sarah Palin were still appalled by I’m Matt Damon’s comments about her just as I would be appalled by someone who spoke with such ignorant ad-hominem about Obama.
It’s less about politics and a whole lot more about class.
If it were just politics, wouldn’t enough liberals see these films to make them profitable? Problem is, liberals don’t want to be talked down to or preached at, either. Who does?
Like I said in my original post, it’s not the politics, it’s the politicking.
Of course, the small minority of die-hard conservatives can choose to take offense all they want. But I don’t buy that a sizable amount of moviegoers are actually, like the guy I quote up above, dutifully compiling an enemies list of actors whom they refuse to see in a movie because they disagree with their political beliefs.
We don’t do that intentionally and wish it were different. But how can we feel the same way about people who trash our values as racist? Trash the country we love as Imperialist? Trash the men and women who protect us as animals?
We don’t want to stop enjoying our Lethal Weapon marathons but when Mel Gibson slurs our Jewish friends and and Danny Glover tongue-kisses Hugo Chavez how can that not cast a pall over our viewing experience and make us reluctant to step into the theatre again?
Who wants to spend two hours with people they don’t like and who lack the talent to transcend that problem?
Filed in General |
steevyon 14 Oct 2008 at 4:43 pm 1Bono walks the walk.He doesn’t come off like an arrogant hypocrite.He also gives credit where it is due even if it means he must praise a conservative.
Tommy Von 14 Oct 2008 at 4:51 pm 2It’s also worth noting that when Bogey discovered that they actually were Communists, and that they had claimed they weren’t in previous testimonies, and their “noble stand” was actually a ploy to avoid perjury charges…
He was pissed. He felt he had been used not to protect people’s civil rights, but to protect lying Communist.
Bogey’s liberalism was sincere.
Katoon 14 Oct 2008 at 5:07 pm 3Just to follow up on steevy’s point: Bono didn’t have a problem reaching out to conservatives like Jesse Helms (yes, the Jesse Helms). And he actually praised George W. Bush for doing more for Africa than any previous president. Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, Clooney or Penn ever praising W.?
lilbaggieon 14 Oct 2008 at 5:23 pm 4still, anyone pompous enough to name themselves Bono, wear stupid pink sun/eyeglasses and gets their own set of jumpsuits made to go out protesting with Greenpeace is a jack*ss…
Steve W.on 14 Oct 2008 at 5:28 pm 5The main reason these politically-themed films, and more generally, most dramas aimed at adults fail is because they are lousy stories. The reasons why they’re lousy stories have been hashed over many, many times on this site–cynicism, anti-Americanism, etc.
But they keep getting made, because the likes of Clooney, DiCaprio, Penn, etc. believe in that view of the world. They don’t believe that America is exceptional, that America and the men and women who defend her should be celebrated, and so they don’t make movies that do that.
I’ll grant that there are some people who hear, say, George Clooney make some preposterous comment about politics, and decide on that basis not to see his next movie. I don’t think that’s the case for most people, though, who probably don’t know what exactly Clooney believes or don’t really care.
Rather, the connection between Hollywood politics and box office failure occurs much earlier in the process: Their politics determine the kinds of movies that get made. Hollywood, being cynical and anti-American, naturally inclines towards making cynical and anti-American movies. The problem, though, is that most moviegoers don’t share those views and would rather see movies that celebrate America and acknowledge what a great country this is.
Andunedhelon 14 Oct 2008 at 5:29 pm 6DH,
I think this is one of the best pieces by you I’ve ever read. There’s so much passion, style and.. I wouldn’t know how to define it, that it’s moving.
johnmark7on 14 Oct 2008 at 5:38 pm 79/11 a tragedy? No, it was an attack, an act of war.
Stone’s World Trade Center sort of limped into success by disguise. People thought it was about celebrating the heroes of that day, and then found a bait and switch.
It was a disaster movie like The Towering Inferno without all the silly melodrama, but with weepy women and children clutching their hankies at the mouth of a collapsed coal mine.
HARRY HERE: Yes, I agree. Stone’s film was nothing more than a television movie.
Plissken79on 14 Oct 2008 at 5:38 pm 8The other issue is that George Clooney and Leo DiCaprio are insufferable hypocrites who demand everyone abandon their lifestyles due to the demands of the green fascism known as the environmental movement, while at the same type making themselves exceptions to their ideology, jetting around on their private planes to their vast mansions located in European tax shelters. That is why so many conservatives have a problem with stars like George and Leo
Christian Totoon 14 Oct 2008 at 5:40 pm 9Geez, Dirty Harry … did you have to wallop poor Patrick? Talk about a 1st round TKO. Bravo.
rrpjron 14 Oct 2008 at 5:41 pm 10Terrific response.
johnmark7on 14 Oct 2008 at 5:44 pm 11Isn’t it curious how liberals and lefties reflexively refer to 9/11 as a tragedy?
That’s because they are every kind of coward there is. To instinctively react to 9/11 as an act of war requires some masculinity, a call to arms, a girding of one’s loins. It requires a recognition of the line from Ecclesiastes about a time for peace and a time for war.
The left can’t bear the thought of having to fight, to put themselves on the line, to bear real sacrifice, and even take some joy in the call to arms as a test of valor and honor.
War calls on men to be serious for once in their lives.
Kon 14 Oct 2008 at 5:46 pm 12But DiCaprio? Would you really label his mild-mannered, earnest pleas to save the planet boorish?
When “saving the planet” is an ubiquitous euphemism for “let’s greatly reduce the world’s general standard of living to make a marginal impact on a situation blown out of proportion by hysterical doomsayers”?
That would have to be a “yes”.
TROon 14 Oct 2008 at 6:15 pm 13You’re gonna need some ointment and a bandaid for that, Patrick, cause it had to leave a mark.
Avery Bullardon 14 Oct 2008 at 6:18 pm 14Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, Clooney or Penn ever praising W.?
Matt Damon praised Bush for his help for Africa on Canadian TV - CBC’s The Hour. Personally, I thought it was just more evidence of Bush’s leftist liberal internationalism.
As for Bono, he’s a bit of a laughing stock in Ireland. He’s done the tax dodge thing there whilst demanding that more tax money go to Africa. But at least he does not sneer at the masses.
BTW Goldstein’s remark about Di Caprio “saving the planet” was comical.
Campaspeon 14 Oct 2008 at 6:20 pm 15I think Goldstein’s Bogart/Clooney comparison is not so far-fetched at all. Bogart was famously truculent in person, apt to say just about anything in interviews and vocal enough about his politics to make himself a frequent target of hard-right columnists like Hedda Hopper.
As for his idealistic characters, I submit Fred C. Dobbs, not to mention the violent, depressed vets he plays in Dead Reckoning and the great In a Lonely Place. While the films made during WW II are essentially cheerleading for the war, film noir takes a far darker view of the war’s effects on people.
Melon 14 Oct 2008 at 6:26 pm 16I think you’re wrong about Tom Hanks. He’s the spokesman for Welcome Back Veterans and made incredible pro-American movies. He’s served on the USO committee also. Great liberal, unlike the others listed.
memomachineon 14 Oct 2008 at 6:30 pm 17Hmmmm.
1. I have nothing but contempt for politicians who get admired for spending taxpayer money on personal projects.
2. Africa has sucked down hundreds of billions of American tax dollars with zero effect. Why? Because the rampant corruption means most, if not all, of that money was stolen.
3. Same thing with the Boxing Day Tsunami money. Stolen.
4. DiCaprio? Sorry but the guy’s acting technique generally involves squinting. Serious moment = squint.
Phoenixon 14 Oct 2008 at 6:58 pm 18But I’m too busy calling him a Chavez-bedding psychopath.
Or a Madonna-marrying sleazebag.
Or a militant fascist, bigot, hypocrite, and congenital liar.
We’re talking about the same Sean Penn, right?
When the morally preening imposter pisses it on our heads from a jet paid for by monster movie sets, in between mansion-loafing and world-junketing? As fast as his piss flies. You do know what boorish means?
He must really think reading comprehension is overrated:
“Even Americans in sympathy with what DiCaprio and Clooney believe don’t want to be scolded about the environment by the private jet, mansion-dwelling crowd.”
Can’t even discern the difference between Having Views, and Their Views? Beneath lame spin.
On his blog:
He’s a big-polluting big mouth liar. IE “an obscenity”.
Remember Larry Craig? His wide stance didn’t span the planet.
“Always”? You’re promiscuous with inflation.
Seen as His celebrity lifestyle boasts are a global AIDs trailer, and his “Good Night, and Good Luck” kinda glossed over tens of millions murdered and how it was coming to a theater near us, I kinda think he’s a posing pretentious shit of a fraud.
I oversimplify.
He has too many flops and too much Angelina Envy. Maybe Obama will finally recognize his heart-eyes if he got snaps with dying Africans.
Long, long ago.
But it’s been months since I dropped a few tens of millions to make the tenth miserably failing “Bush = Hitler and soldiers = KKK Terrorist Nutjobs named Rush” placard called a movie. But I’m a fringe obsessive against concerned mild boors from America’s heartland.
(some all-caps guy). Headline: Patrick Goldstein Discovers Internet,
Blames Everyone.
I’ll settle for not being anti-civilization assholes while calling me Hitler for recoiling. Something under $200 million a year, maybe.
You can settle for invite groveling, winky-dinky.
Politics - is - personal values.
He supported Obamesssiah of abortion rights after birth, and wrote Excuse Notes for jihadists, while boasting he was so sleazy that he’d probably hurt (reveal) the ticket? Or was it the snearing at a conservative having Alzheimer’s?
And think they’re all racist rapist torturers in front yard foxholes?
They don’t agree on what makes important Truther movies. Hate to break it for you. And that’s just Iraq, not TWOT.
DANG, we’re ALL getting jets to prove it??
Or of course, media can continue to pathologically suffer their long decline in polls and popularity, liberal newspapers can shed stock values and employees like yesterday’s claims, Hollywood’s support can shave five points off any candidate in a single news cycle, etc. etc. etc., and you can be the bitter “small minority of die-hard” in denial. Even liberals distance Michael Moore now, heh. TV is going Jack Bauer with us.
Or value our dignity, integrity, children’s future, and civilization, more. Look them up on a wiki.
Willfully disengenuous liberal porn drool.
So they still stupid suck.
Bennett Marcoon 14 Oct 2008 at 7:05 pm 19Bono got all the big meet ‘n’ greets and good photo ops — Bob Geldof did a lot more actual work for people in Africa (and publicly praised W’s anti-AIDS initiative, BTW).
Oh, and his band is (was, anyway) a lot better than Bono’s.
ExUrbanKevinon 14 Oct 2008 at 7:05 pm 20Well-said.
I’m here by choice, not by birth. I love this country and all it stands for, and it ticks me off when someone says that “so-and-so country” is far more enlightened/open/better than the U.S.
Baloney.
Actually, I wanted to say something stronger than that, but this ain’t Ace Of Spades ;).
Well-said, DH. What I want, what’s most important to me, is for Hollywood to appreciate the work that our troops are doing right now to make sure that others may live in freedom.
I don’t mind a star’s politics. I do mind them trashing and ignoring the amazing freedom they have in the U.S.
Fiftyfooton 14 Oct 2008 at 7:17 pm 21I’m a U2 fan. Bono’s been married to the same woman for ever, like me. We’re the same age. Needn’t come down on Mel Gibson so hard. He’d not a’done it if they’d not come after him first, I like to think. That said, Lethal Weapon is pulp.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 14 Oct 2008 at 7:23 pm 22“But DiCaprio? Would you really label his mild-mannered, earnest pleas to save the planet boorish?”
I agree with Plissken79 - Leo and almost all of the stars (maybe excepting Ed Begley Jr) are total hypocrites in the model of Al Gore when it comes to the environment.
When they start acting like global waring is a crisis maybe I’ll consider that it really is a crisis.
RESon 14 Oct 2008 at 8:08 pm 23
Charles Delacroixon 14 Oct 2008 at 8:16 pm 24DH, I just couldn’t agree more, from beginning to end.
And the U2 clip was sheer delight. I hadn’t seen it before and thought the rendition of “Where the Streets Have no Name” along with that backdrop of the Towers with the Vietnam Memorial - like renditions of the names of the deceased … was wholly moving. Clearly the folks at the Super Bowl Halftime thought so too.
One thing about Bono and U2 that needs to be added: they are genuinely talented and give wonderfully entertaining shows. Maybe not quite on a par with American in Paris or those delightful Jolson or Sinatra or Cyd Charisse clips you’ve been posting, but truly wonderful shows all the same. I know, I’ve been to a couple of their shows in the USA pre-9/11. In addition, U2 and Bono in particular have shown genuine humility and homage to their forebears: as their work with BB King, and their wonderful tour video “Rattle & Hum” demonstrate. And you are so right: even when they critique, they come from a place of deep love and respect for the people of our beloved country. They share deeply in the Stories and the Values and Images and Cultural mores that reflect the heart and soul of America and of mankind.
Rattle & Hum is a million miles from Syriana. And for that very reason, I too would take a bullet for Bono and the Edge and U2 any day of the week.
Props, Dirty Harry … keep up the great work.
Major Grahamon 14 Oct 2008 at 8:17 pm 25Many of you have probably read Laura Ingraham’s Shut up and Sing - if not check it out. Very nicely dissects the whole entertainment industry’s liberal tendencies.
One point she explained well which was always somewhat of a mystery to me was exactly why so many actors/producers/singers are liberals. Especially the very successful and wealthy ones. It is precisely because being successful in hollywood is more luck than talent. There are numerous individuals out there who are talented but never get a break. Those that do can go from waiting tables one day to eating caviar on a yacht at Cannes the next. This tends to reinforce the concept that life is just about good and bad luck and that is a very warped perspective.
This is very different from what most Americans face. My own career as a case in point. The military (Army for me) is as close to a pure meritocracy as you can get. You advance solely based on your performance and potential for increased responsibility. No one really cares where you are from or how good looking you are or aren’t. Your career generally follows predictable advancements in rank, pay and responsibility. No 2nd Lieutenant becomes a two-star General overnight just because some people like him. This is true in most businesses as well.
Also - a huge portion of the entertainment industry is filled with people who are utter failures in their lives and relationships. That is, the things that most of us find really important. Yes they get paid huge sums for making movies or music. But I am often struck by how childish and forlorn so many of them actually are. There are very few who have normal, healthy families and marriages. Many actually come from broken or dysfunctional homes. Politics is very often a means for them to find some significance in their empty lives. Is it any wonder that the tabloids sell so well because they are all about the latest scandal, affair, divorce, drug use? Just some food for thought.
maeon 14 Oct 2008 at 8:19 pm 26Great post. You captured my sentiments precisely. I adore Humphrey Bogart movies, his talent makes it a joy to watch the stories. Which are just that, stories, NOT lectures and NOT treatises on what’s wrong with America. What the heck is wrong with some people? I use as my absolute favorite example of how great our country is: during the early days of the Iraq war, I read that Iraqi parents would bring sick babies/children to the American soldiers for treatment. Now, please can one of the America hating celebs tell me when, in all of history, would an invading army take care of a sick child… No, actually, when, in all of human history, would a parent take her sick child TO the soldiers of an invading army fully confident in the humanity of their soldiers? America hating celebs deserve to loose everything they have earned through entertaining Americans.
Sharpshinyon 14 Oct 2008 at 8:28 pm 27Both PG and DH are missing the point. The reason Body of Lies flopped is simple. The trailer, which I saw several times, had “America Sucks!” written all over it.
As did Rendition. As did Redacted. As did In the Valley of Elah. As did Syriana. As did Lions for Lambs.
Americans don’t want to see movies that say America sucks.
DUH.
EPorvaznikon 14 Oct 2008 at 9:25 pm 28>>Americans don’t want to see movies that say America sucks.>>
Totally with ya, Sharpshiny, but neither do they apparently want to see An American Carol, a movie that says how great America is. In case anyone thinks MovieBob or abe stole my sign-on name, I’ll add that it’s really sad on the part of the lack of audiences AAC had/has. Pathetic really. We’re finally given something, however uneven some people found it (I just loved it for what it was: pro-USA and anti-Michael Moore mentality), to satisfy an appetite that seemed to be out there, and far too many dropped the ball. Hmm, maybe if it hadn’t been released so close to the election (and closer to Dark Knight’s run).
USS Benon 14 Oct 2008 at 10:43 pm 29Great post, Harry! And excellent comments!
I would only add that not only do these anti-American actors and directors lack class, but they also lack decency (which used to be common), patriotism, nobility, and, as Harry mentioned in the last Andrew Klaven post: humanity.
wfon 15 Oct 2008 at 3:07 am 30What do we know about the boxoffice pull of Asian and Bollywood actors? They have vast domestic audiences. Multiethnic audences in the case of India. I don´t think they got there by telling their fans how to live or slamming their country.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Oct 2008 at 5:16 am 31Not to pick nits, or anything, but your characterization of “Blood Diamond” as anti-American strikes me as somewhat off-base. There are only two American characters in the film—Jennifer Connelly’s journalist, and Stephen Collins’ Ambassador, and they’re both good guys. DiCaprio’s character is Rhodesian, and the thugs and greedhands are largely African or British.
I mean, unless you’re saying that ANY critique of the exploitation of African labor and resources is, by definition, anti-American. Which I don’t think is the case. Least I hope not.
HARRY HERE: Glenn the arch-villain in it is America and our sytem and Leo’s accent.
Rather Readon 15 Oct 2008 at 5:25 am 32Harry, like you I would take a bullet for Bono. No, I don’t agree with everything he says and there are times he can be very obtuse, but the man loves America and can see the good that we’ve done. He doesn’t think the USA is the locus of all that is evil and gives credit where credit is due. He works hard and the man is a damn fine singer/songwriter.
And that post 9/11 Superbowl halftime show was the Best One Ever.
Christianon 15 Oct 2008 at 7:47 am 33A huge difference between Bono and George Clooney is the respect each has for their audience. Bono has traveled to nearly every state in the union and has performed for everyone-red staters as well as blue. He genuinely respects and appreciates those who turn out to watch him perform. Clooney, on the other hand, has nothing but contempt for his audience, red & blue alike. Red for being red, and blue for not ‘doing something’ about the red.
It’s also a difference between positivity and negativity. Bono’s liberalism is of the ‘let’s heal the planet and plant a tree and get along’ variety. Clooney’s is of the ‘you disgusting monsters will pay for what you have done’ variety. One of those philosophies goes down a lot easier than the other.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Oct 2008 at 7:54 am 34The accent line is funny (and right on) Harry, but I’m still not quite buying it.
As for Clooney, I’m still steamed at him for declaring the original “Solaris” as “not Tarkovsky’s best work.” Such are my priorities, I guess…
HARRY HERE: You know I liked Clooney at first. At least he’s no meterosexual and I’m The One who loved The Peacemaker, but what he said about Charlton Heston… How can you like a guy capable of such a thing? If someone on our side had joked about Paul Newman I’d be just as outraged. It’s not about politics, it’s about class and character.
I can see that one of my jobs is to convince you guys on the other side that it’s NOT the politics we despise, it’s the cheap shots and insults. Fine, be as liberal as you want… Sure Bogie was liberal but he never insulted me, my values, or beliefs.
That’s the big distinction.
Movie stars have to be likable and after you insult us you’re no longer likable. Richard Gere is crazy-left and a little goofy, but I still like him because he does his own thing without attacking me and what I believe. Not true for the others.
Different worldview on Blood Diamond, I guess. We’ll start with agreeing on the accent and pound out more middle ground from there.
Zsuzsaon 15 Oct 2008 at 8:05 am 35I agree with everything everyone has said, but I would like to add that there is another problem with the anti-American streak in Hollywood: it eliminates suspense by making everything so predictable. Does it look like the black guy is evil? Well, he isn’t. He’s actually there to protect the hero. Is the hero’s “best friend” a corporate executive? He’ll betray the hero before the end of the movie? A suspect in the killings is a radical animal rights activist? He’s not the killer, that’s just a red herring. Your suspect is a pro-life abortion clinic protester? He’s guilty, and probably has an entire backup organization of evil abortion protesters planning to overthrow the government…
It’s why I stopped watching Law and Order. Partially because I didn’t like the politics, but even more because the politics made everything so boring. As soon as I know what liberal talking point the episode is about this week, I could write it myself.
Danon 15 Oct 2008 at 8:40 am 36Gere is a great example of how to be far left of the moon and still an accessible character on-screen. I’m capable of understanding that an actor may be ignorant and misled (after all, they studied acting in college, not reason) and still can sell me a movie that I enjoy.
I’m also capable of understanding that an actor may be ignorant and misled (Clooney, DiCaprio, that dumb skinny girl from Something About Mary, Sean Penn) and CAN ruin his product for me because he has made it impossible for me to separate his desire for me to be ignorant and misled and get back on the plantation and keep my mouth shut and his work product.
That’s for two reasons: 1) Clooney, DiCaprio, etc. aren’t great enough actors to overcome their myriad stump (and stumping) speeches and 2) Their politics have railroaded them into making propagandist films instead of art. Syriana, Blood Diamond, The Good German (man. That was vomit inducing, by the way. Crap acting, crap script, crap ideology, for a movie that preened itself to the point of believing that it should smirk while dining on its own crap sandwich. It would have contained more crap, but I believe the excess was sodomized back into Cate Blanchett’s duodenum by Spiderman in an early scene.)
Nice response, DH. Nice and true. Amen on Bono, a man who knows something there is something special, not unsettling, about the arms of America.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Oct 2008 at 8:47 am 37Harry, I think all the Clooney quotes we’re trading speak of something that finally transcends ideology: that is, a tendency to engage the mouth before warming up the brain. Suffice it to say I don’t place a whole lot of stock in his pronouncements. And I personally blame Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” on Clooney’s “liberals have always been on the right side” speech.
That said, I dig him in the “Ocean’s” movies, “Michael Clayton,” the new Coens, and others. Couldn’t really bear “Syriana.” And for what it’s worth, people who’ve worked with him attest to his generosity and kindness…
But there will never be another Bogie, for sure!
Growltigeron 15 Oct 2008 at 8:57 am 38“Of course, the small minority of die-hard conservatives can choose to take offense all they want. But I don’t buy that a sizable amount of moviegoers are actually, like the guy I quote up above, dutifully compiling an enemies list of actors whom they refuse to see in a movie because they disagree with their political beliefs.”
Growltiger is a die-hard moderate, socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Growltiger also is an intellectual snob, and when cinema deteriorates from entertainment into political propaganda, Growltiger gets p***** off that good coin was exchanged for bilge. Growltiger then crosses off that film maker — see Ridley Scott (”Kingdom of Heaven”).
If the actor (I Am Matt Damon) is a no talent and is interchangeable with numerous other actors and believes s/he is an oracle whose mission is to enlighten us poor dumb bas*****, Growltiger writes him off, too. If the actor (see George C. Looney) is scuzzy and always looks like he needs a shower and shampoo and is trying to play like a lawyer or a Wallstreet(er) (see Michael Douglas with his long greasy hair in “Wall Street”), then Growltiger can’t enjoy the film. (Alert to filmmakers: Wall Street types don’t put goose grease in their hair).
So, yes, it makes perfect sense that a bunch of “die hard conservatives” (add in a few die-hard moderates) eschew films because of who made ‘em and who’s in ‘em, but I suspect what’s really worrying this blowhard is that it will become some kind of organized boycott (which I hope it will) and Political Hollywood will suffer. Without their millions to funnel into political coffers, they’ll once more be rendered the very pretty nothings God or Evolution created them to be.
Growltigeron 15 Oct 2008 at 9:21 am 39Could not agree with Zsuzsa more!
I no longer watch “Law and Order” because the writing is so BAD and predictable.
No black has ever committed a crime on “Law and Order” (or any other film or t.v. show.)
No Caucasian or Asian is ever the police chief. When the all knowing brilliant police chief does encounter a white police chief, he or she is an idiot.
Black police chief always chews out white underlings. That’s a given. There are no white police chiefs, but if they were, they’d never be allowed to chew out a black underling.
If there’s a doctor in the script, you know damned well he knocked somebody off.
Corporate types - male or female (not black, though). They’re ALWAYS villains.
Nazis are everywhere.
Muslims are misunderstood.
Southerners are almost as bad as Nazis.
Sadly, films are becoming just as predictable.
PerfectTommyon 15 Oct 2008 at 9:30 am 40Something else about Bono. He’s a Christian. He lives out his faith, admitting that he is a sinner. He has humility that is sorely lacking in most of the Hollywood crowd.
Matton 15 Oct 2008 at 10:30 am 41johnmark7 says: “Isn’t it curious how liberals and lefties reflexively refer to 9/11 as a tragedy? That’s because they are every kind of coward there is. To instinctively react to 9/11 as an act of war requires some masculinity, a call to arms, a girding of one’s loins. It requires a recognition of the line from Ecclesiastes about a time for peace and a time for war. The left can’t bear the thought of having to fight, to put themselves on the line, to bear real sacrifice, and even take some joy in the call to arms as a test of valor and honor. War calls on men to be serious for once in their lives.”
I haven’t posted here for quite some time, but this post is just so far removed from reality, that I have to comment. Let’s get something straight: America is not at war. Roughly 150,000 American soldiers are.
America is shopping and blogging and carrying on in an absolute fog. We–liberals and conservatives–are “limited-liability” patriots; we are more than happy to stick a magnetic yellow ribbon on our car bumpers and nod somberly whenever someone mentions the valor of our soliders. We are happy to cheer-lead perpetual warfare, Middle East democratization, and forced moderation of Islam…just so long as it’s some other family’s kid taking the IED.
We can crow about the success of Iraq between mouthfuls of Cheetos…success now defined as tenuous stability duct-taped together by bribes and four years of ethnic cleansing, for the rock-bottom cost of 4,000 soldiers and nearly a trillion dollars.
When George Bush says that the War on Terror is defining conflict of our generation, I’d bet that 99 percent of the people here nod their heads and pump their fists….and then run errands for the rest of the day. It never seems to occur to any of us that if we truly believe that this is a generational conflict worth fighting and dying for, how come we’re not signing up for ruck-sacks and a tour of duty? How is it that we can so dishonestly “support the troops” and yet cannot muster the moral disgust that so few of our country men are making any sort of sacrifice at all; and making that sacrifice for three, four or five tours of duty? If you answer truthfully, then they way we REALLY treat our servicemen is a black, black stain on our country.
Dirty Bombs, Dirty Elections; a roundup | The Anchoresson 15 Oct 2008 at 2:11 pm 42[…] Dirty Harry: misses Bill Clinton and admires Bono […]
Elleon 15 Oct 2008 at 2:14 pm 43I’ve always loved Bono for that moment at the SuperBowl. And he took nonsense for daring to love America, too.
Elleon 15 Oct 2008 at 2:23 pm 44Clooney is interesting though, in that I think his liberalism is completely opportunistic. I remember when 9/11 happened, he got a big American flag and rode around LA waving it from his motor cycle.
Someone must have gotten to him quickly, though, becuase he changed right after that.