Posted on 12/20/2005 4:51:51 PM PST by RMrattlesnake
Maybe Top Gun since it portrays our military in a pretty good light.
If a movie can't get made, it can't get seen. Certain subjects and themes are taboo in big Hollywood movies, for instance anything anti-communist, anything even mildly critical of the "gay" lifestyle, anything "flag waving", pretty much anything pro-business, etc.
One common theme is to initially portray protesters or environmentalists as the villain but then as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that a greedy corporation is really to blame.
I can't even count how many times Law and Order has used this. This occurred recently on the show Numbe3s, where a unabomber type guy was originally the villain but later it became clear that he was just trying to expose an drug company that had illegal allowed harmful drugs to get to market.
Another popular one is to show lumberjacks being injured by spikes being put in trees by protesters. Initially law enforcement goes after the misguided, but well intentioned youth, but as the the show progresses, it becomes clear that the lumber company is actually doing something highly illegal. The corporate boss that makes the initial complaint against the protesters is always the one that ends up going to jail in the end.
Most of the actors, and writers were hardcore leftys.
My marxist teacher in college made the class watch it and write about it.
I thought it showed the evil side of marxism for what it really was.
She (admantly) disagreed by saying that pol pot corrupted marxism and that it showed proof that America was to blame.
The movie isn't conservative, its just anti-pol pot and anti-american at the same time.
It also is written just the way so that anyone can draw any conclusion they want from the movie.
I can't say Pol Pot was the purest marxist.
If you ever feel like swimming in a sewer full of slime and garbage, check out the internal debates and divisions between the various factions of marxism.
You'll need a few showers after reading through such sludge, but one thing does become more and more clear.
Marxists are, at heart, egalitarian psychopaths with serious mental issues.
FWIT, Stalin only killed more people then pol pot because he had more people to kill, Pol Pot probably eliminated a larger percentage of his population then Stalin did.
Even the chinese started to think these guys were nuts......and they killed in numbers rivaling stalin.
When I wrote my paper in college about the movie "The killing fields" and ripped on marxism, for what it was, my teacher was quick to use the whole movie to prove her points (as faulty as they were) that America was to blame, and that Pol Pot and his terrorists government were extraordinary deviants of marxism (You should have seen her face when I asked her if he was different because him and his group were educated in france and if the european influence on him was to blame).
It could also be that Stalin and Pol Pot used Marxism to control the people and was not the reason for the murder per se.
To be clear marxism, communism and socialism in all of it's various forms are terrible forms of government, but I feel that the murders can be attributed more to a despotic leader than to his political ideology.
High Noon
Because it shows the difference between populists and people with courage and convictions.
I'm not sure.
Stalin, this definatly can be the case, he saw marxism as a tool for control and ideology as a method to impose slavery.
Pol Pot though, is more freaky, looking at his background, his interests, education and everything else.
He was a living breathing communist idealogue who studied, analyzed, crafted and thought deeply about communism, the kind of nut you might find teaching in a university.
Its scary, but to him, the ends were a communist utopia, to the point where he had problems with other communists (sick freak), murder, violence, and slavery were all means and methods for the communist paradise he envisioned (or as I see, the 12th circle of hell).
Looking at these guys, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky (the acadama favorite, fled stalin and murdered), Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the list goes on and on, they all have philospical and ideological differences, differences in goals, beliefs, methods, and means.
But they have one thing in commom.
Murder.
It even gets interesting when you look at why China communists didn't get along with Soviet communists, over idiotic ideological differances, these maniacs had no problem with people dying over academic text book definition philosophical differances which had no real world application anyway.
Anything with John Wayne or Charleton Heston.
"Full of Life" starring Judy Holliday. A pro-life, pro-marriage-in-church, very Catholic movie that is nearly impossible to find for obvious reasons.
The book is awesome.
The book is awesome."
It is fair to say that both the book and the movie are a bit artless. Rand was not a good fiction writer and wooden describes much of it. It is the ideas that matter. They are the meat of the message and that comes through in the movie and the book.
Goblet of Fire. Some very anti-socialist themes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.