Socialism is getting a hard push in theaters. Coming Soon:

[dennisw]

Do people in Hollywood sit and ask each other "For whom did you vote in the last election?" or they ask questions along the lines of "Will you help this project put a$$es in seats?"

Do you really believe Hollywood does not consider the politics of the movies before they make them? How many anti-war movies have they made in the last few years and yet most of them, if not all of them, have tanked at the box office. If you do not think there is a political agenda at play, look at it this way: We've been fighting the war against terror for eight years. How many quality movies have they made about our war efforts? How about zero! Coincidence? I think not. We can make movies about fighting and killing machines, bugs, nazis, etc. , but not about the real enemy. Why is that?

"For whom did you vote in the last election?"

If you do not think Hollywood monitors the politics of their stars, etc. you're kidding yourself. It's like the 30's and 40's all over again except there are no formal trials, and the political persuasion is blowing from a different direction.

In regards to Mr. Moore, I regard his films as a combination of self-promotion, political paranoia, and anti-authoritarian populism

Siggy ...Please. Save us all the goobly gook and call Moore's BS what it is ...very left wing movies.

I'm not conflating liberalism with anything. I'm simply stating that you accused JW74 of saying Matt Damon was socialistic when in fact he did not use the term, socialistic, until after you use the term.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by dennisw

I believe the gist of the original thread was that there are some liberal pictures coming down the pipeline.

Originally Posted by dennisw

I'm not conflating liberalism with anything.

As you seem intent on showing who used which word first, please show where the word "liberal" appears in the OP.

Originally Posted by dennisw

How many quality movies have they made about our war efforts? How about zero! Coincidence? I think not. . . .If you do not think Hollywood monitors the politics of their stars, etc. you're kidding yourself. It's like the 30's and 40's all over again except there are no formal trials, and the political persuasion is blowing from a different direction.

You seem to be saying that the dearth of films you would like to see with messages you would like transmitted, coupled with the absence of evidence are proof of a conspiracy by which a monolithic entity ("Hollywood") suppresses producers, directors, and actors from working on projects that depict a right of center viewpoint. (Curiously, I don't recall any studio executives being on the conference calls I had with Tony Scott when we discussed the background research I did on his behalf for the film that would become Spy Game [2001]. From his tone it was clear he was going to make the movie he wanted about the CIA's John Downey, facts be damned.)

Originally Posted by dennisw

Siggy ...Please. Save us all the goobly gook....

I acknowledge your attempt at sarcasm. Lamentably, I bring a different set of sensibilities than you to what is known in some circles as "the power of culture debate."* In those circles, it pays to know the differences between the intellectual descendants of the Frankfurt School and the Neiman Marxists <<LINK>>.**
__________________________________________________ ________
* A serviceable overview of the parameters of this discussion can be found in Steven J. Ross, "Struggles for the Screen: Workers, Radicals, and the Political Uses of Silent Film," American Historical Review 96:2 (April 1991); George Lipsitz, "Listening to Learn and Learning to Listen: Popular Culture, Cultural Theory, and American Studies," American Quarterly 42:4 (December 1990); Lipsitz, "High Culture and Hierarchy," American Quarterly 43:3 (September 1991); Lawrence W. Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, [The William E. Masey Sr. Lectures in the History of American Civilization, 1986.] (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).

For better and for worse, military historians (both academic and those working in various capacities for the American government) have approached the power of culture debate with profound ambivalence. While this reluctance speaks to the utilitarian approach to the historiography of warfare that one can trace to Thucydides, their restraint may have had unfortunate unintended consequences in terms of the standing of the military historian in the Ivory Tower. For an example of this ambivalence, see John Shy, "The Cultural Approach to the History of War," Journal of Military History 57:5 [Special Issue: Proceedings of the Symposium on "The History of War as Part of General History" at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey] (Oct., 1993): 13-26; and Charles Royster, Comment on John Shy, "The Cultural Approach to the History of War" and on Russell Weigley, "The American Military and the Principle of Civilian Control from McClellan to Powell," ibid.: 60-62. On the consequences of ambivalence, see John Lynn, "The Embattled Future of Academic Military History, Journal of Military History 61:4 (October, 1997): 777-789.

** According to a doctoral student of his, Lipsitz originated the term "Neiman Marxists." MOO, this winning quip almost absolves Lipsitz from overlooking the influence of Afro Cuban Jazz on the sensibilities of Californian musicians--especially those from East Los Angeles--during the 1960s and 1970s. YMMV.

[BryanK]

Originally Posted by SkiBumCFO

Not sure about all this political stuff but if you guys havent checked it out yet Clooney (a definite socialist) has a new movie that looks like a riot. Seems to be poking a little fun at us special ops types but tastefully of course The trailer is here : http://www.ncm.com/Movies/trailers.a...-Goats&LinkID=

The book was a good read, so it may be a pretty good movie. It would be more entertaining if they left it non-fiction as opposed to a comedy though.

[SkiBumCFO]

Bryan - i think many of us could use a little comedy at the moment

[Richard]

We've been fighting the war against terror for eight years. How many quality movies have they made about our war efforts? How about zero! Coincidence? I think not. We can make movies about fighting and killing machines, bugs, nazis, etc. , but not about the real enemy. Why is that?

Because they don't yet have a good script and there's The Unit to fill the public's curiosity until they do?

Richard's $.02

[Sten]

I am not convinced that "Big Hollywood" has any more of a plan then to make money.

Is it possible that the entertainment product that Hollywood sells is just entertainment?

[dennisw]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080802876.html


Why Are We Whispering?



By Andrew Klavan
Saturday, August 9, 2008; Page A15

At a recent writers conference in Southern California, one of my colleagues on a screenwriters panel told the crowd of about 50 people that she hoped Barack Obama would win the presidency. A number of people applauded. When it was my turn to speak, I politely said that I disagreed with her politics and moved on to other topics. There was no applause for me, but several writers approached me afterward. Each dropped his voice to a whisper and, looking around to make sure no one would overhear, said, "Thank you for saying that."
Which raises a question for all conservatives in the arts: Why are we whispering?

It's true throughout Hollywood certainly. In filmland business meetings, the executives, producers and talent feel free to wax on about how stupid President Bush is, how evil American foreign policy is, even what awful human beings conservatives are. Hollywood rightists, meanwhile, are reduced to holding secret gatherings to confess their beliefs in sympathetic company.

The results of having a bold artistic left and a cowering artistic right are clear on both the big and small screens. It's not just the movies attacking the war on terrorism or rehashing Joe McCarthy's peccadilloes or sanctifying murderous communist thugs such as Che Guevara. Those are mere vanity projects bravely speaking leftism to leftists. Far more pervasive, and damaging to our society, are the off-hand leftist assumptions that underlie a vast majority of mainstream TV shows and films: American might is sinister, soldiers are criminalized by war, Christians are intolerant and hypocritical, housewives are desperate, corporations are evil, the environment is in mortal danger from wicked man and, in general, something is terribly wrong with mainstream society that only the wisdom of radical types can cure.


It's true that conservative values are sometimes hidden away in the fantasy worlds of films such as "The Lord of the Rings," "The Chronicles of Narnia" or "Spider-Man 3." But that only raises the question again: Why are conservatives whispering when the left is shouting?

There are practical answers, to be sure. Personally and professionally, the creative left rejects right-wingers with small-minded savagery. There may not be a blacklist in Hollywood, but there is a graylist that makes it far more difficult for conservatives to get hired and instigate projects. When good films that openly defy the left-wing party line do get made -- "The Passion of the Christ," "Not Without My Daughter," "Tears of the Sun" -- they are often excoriated by powerful lefty critics in reviews that frequently include personal attacks on the filmmakers and stars. (It's not just movies, either. My latest novel was deemed the work of a "right-wing crackpot" by the Associated Press.) Who can blame artists for not wanting to step out of the foxhole a second time?

But I believe there is a deeper, more troubling reason for conservative reticence. The left has somehow succeeded in convincing the rest of us that there is virtue in a culture of lies, that some truths should not be spoken and that if you speak them you are guilty of racism or sexism or some other kind of bigotry. Right-wingers may disagree philosophically with this sort of political correctness, but I think they may have incorporated some of its twisted values psychologically and walk in fear of seeming "offensive" or "insensitive."

Thus they sign on to a creative mind-set in which the depiction of reality is considered immoral and distortion becomes an act of political virtue. The threat of Islamo-fascism must never be shown without drawing some moral equivalence with the West (see: "The Kingdom" and "Iron Man"). It must never be suggested that men might be better at some tasks on average or that many women might prefer homemaking to business. Sexual promiscuity and illegitimacy are romantic or funny (à la "Juno") and not contributing factors to poverty, depression and suicide rates (à la life). And so on.

Whenever I raise these issues in public, someone says, "Well, Hollywood's all about money. They just make what sells." That sounds like cynical wisdom, but it's only half true. Artists want love, praise and respect, which money represents but which can also be found in reviews, awards and good publicity, almost all of which encourage leftist distortions and teach us to respond to plain speaking with outrage.
Conservative artists can't battle this state of affairs with silence or secrecy. They must create -- with courage, openness and honesty. These are the tools of both conservatism and art. With them, we can take the culture back.

Andrew Klavan's most recent novel is "Empire of Lies."

[Richard]

FWIW - they do get taken to task for their Hollyweird ways - whether or not anyone listens or not is another matter. Here's a recent editorial by Charles T. Pinck, president of the OSS Society, regarding the movie industry's views of the OSS/CIA.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

'Basterd'ized History: An 'inglourious' View Of The Intelligence Services
Charles Pinck, Wash times, 3 Sep 2009

Given the very close relationship between Hollywood and World War's II Office of Strategic Services (OSS), forerunner of the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Forces, whose ranks included director John Ford and actors Robert Montgomery and Sterling Hayden, it's troubling that Hollywood has distorted the history of the OSS in two recent major motion pictures, "The Good Shepherd" and "Inglourious Basterds."

These two movies present diametrically opposite but equally false assertions about the OSS, particularly about the important role played within the organization by Jews and other minorities.

In "The Good Shepherd," OSS founder Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan (portrayed as Gen. William Sullivan in the movie), recruits Matt Damon's character, a member of Yale's Skull and Bones, to join OSS by telling him, "We are looking for honorable and patriotic young men. No Jews, No blacks, and only a few Catholics."

The notion that Gen. Donovan -- a devout Catholic -- would say such a thing is preposterous. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Catholics in OSS included William E. Colby and William J. Casey, both of whom would become director of central intelligence. Jewish Americans in OSS included Moe Berg, Arthur Goldberg, Saul Steinberg and Budd Schulberg.

Ralph Bunche, who served in the Research and Analysis Division, was the first black to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Georg Olden was a pioneering graphic designer who would become the first black to design a stamp for the U.S. Postal Service and designed the CBS eye logo.

Gen. Donovan understood that America's racial diversity was its greatest strength, contrary to claims made by Nazi Germany that it was a weakness. He made full use of this advantage in building his intelligence agency, noting that no other country in the world had so many citizens with knowledge of other countries.

Gen. Donovan, no stranger to courage himself, remarked the OSS Operational Groups, which operated behind enemy lines in Europe and Asia, were made up of recent immigrants from countries there and performed "some of the bravest acts of the war."

In his September 1945 farewell address to OSS personnel, Gen. Donovan made specific reference to the organization's diversity: "We have come to the end of an unusual experiment. This experiment was to determine whether a group of Americans constituting a cross section of racial origins, abilities, temperaments and talents could meet and risk an encounter with the long-established and well-trained enemy organizations. How well that experiment has succeeded is measured by your accomplishments and by the recognition of your achievements."

(OSS was politically diverse, too. Julia McWilliams, who served in OSS and later would become famous as Julia Child, said of Gen. Donovan that "political views were irrelevant to the director. He valued creative intelligence, a love of adventures, and a willingness to fight the enemy.")

"Inglourious Basterds," the new movie by Quentin Tarantino, who evidently never saw "The Good Shepherd," has an OSS unit made up entirely of Jews whose mission it is to brutally kill Germans behind enemy lines by scalping them, carving swastikas in their foreheads and beating them to death with baseball bats. Such an OSS unit never existed. (There was a unit of Jewish commandos in the British army who went ashore on D-Day and performed valiantly throughout World War II.)

"Inglourious Basterds" loses its pretense as a fantasy when it attaches this fictional group of Jewish commandos to the real OSS, thereby giving even the most knowledgeable viewer the impression that this story is true.

Given the enormous amount of material about the OSS available to the public, including its personnel and operational files and numerous books, there are countless true stories about bravery behind enemy lines that could be told.

The fictional "Basterds" may serve the film's purpose, but they do disservice to the history of the OSS.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...dized-history/

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by SkiBumCFO

Bryan - i think many of us could use a little comedy at the moment

You're not on the White House email list?

[SkiBumCFO]

You're not on the White House email list?

No TS, luckily I am not, as reading that material would scare the shit out of me!