Posted on 08/15/2007 5:08:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
"[C]onscience," agonizes Hamlet in Act III, Scene I, "does make cowards of us all; / And thus the native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, / And enterprises of great pith and moment / With this regard their currents turn awry, / And lose the name of action."
The tragedy of Hamlet is the tragedy of overweening self-criticism. "If Hamlet is sick," writes theater critic Walter Kerr in his masterpiece, "Tragedy and Comedy," "he is sick with a passion for perfection." Hamlet waits for the perfect moment to kill Claudius, says Kerr, and so misses his opportunity. He wants all women perfect, and so abandons Ophelia to her fate. He wants all friends as trustworthy as Horatio, and so leaves himself vulnerable to Claudius and Laertes, losing his life and his throne.
Self-criticism is valuable and necessary. Without it, we could not correct the mistakes of the past. But reflexive and exclusive self-criticism -- obsession with purity of heart and purity of act at the expense of right action -- is dangerous. While we purify ourselves, our enemies plot against us. Mortal offense cannot be met with self-reflection.
The American left refuses to acknowledge this basic truth. So does its propaganda arm in Hollywood.
Since the Vietnam War, Hollywood has unleashed a torrent of films targeting the American government. Hollywood believes, to quote cartoonist Walt Kelly, that we have met the enemy and he is us. That sentiment has gained renewed momentum since the advent of the war in Iraq.
The latest incarnation of this view is "The Bourne Ultimatum," featuring Matt Damon in the title role. The movie is tremendously entertaining -- the action sequences are some of the best ever filmed -- but the message is familiar: The CIA is corrupt and evil. CIA higher-ups, played by character actors like Scott Glenn and David Strathairn, pontificate about the need for more authority while blithely ordering the murder of the rogue hero. Bourne, meanwhile, tries to contact the good apple in the bad barrel, Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), in order to discover his own background. In order for Bourne to succeed, he will have to take down much of the bankrupt CIA infrastructure.
It's great popcorn entertainment, but bad politics. It's also part of a broader pattern of recent anti-American claptrap. 2007 brought us "Shooter," directed by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Antoine Fuqua, an inane Mark Wahlberg vehicle in which a Dick Cheney caricature (Ned Beatty) -- the character is a tubby, balding six-term senator from Montana who fancies hunting, remarks casually that democracy is problematic, and laughs maniacally that the war in Iraq is about oil -- organizes the slaughter of an African village and the assassination of an Ethiopian archbishop in order to secure the building of an oil pipeline. The film's dialogue is atrocious -- one of the villains, played by Danny Glover, growls at one point that he can't be found guilty for his actions because "this is the land of the free and the home of the brave."
"Shooter" received plaudits for its politics from the movie reviewers. Richard Corliss of Time magazine lamented that there wasn't a real hero to face down the "monstrously real problems" and "plausible" conspiracy theories addressed by "Shooter." Manohla Dargis of The New York Times saw the film, remarkably enough, as a combination of "live-free-or-die vibe [and] deep-fried gun-and-flag fetishism."
"Shooter" and "Bourne" are just the beginning. Later this year, Hollywood will release "Lions for Lambs" (Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep), in all likelihood an anti-war on terror screed; "Grace is Gone" (John Cusack), an anti-war flick about the husband of an American soldier killed in the war on terror; "Rendition" (Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal), another "the CIA is so evil, they're torturing my husband" piece; and "The Torturer," sloganned "In a post-9/11 world, no one can hear you scream."
America should scrutinize her own policies. There is a difference, however, between self-scrutiny and self-flagellation designed to cripple the will to action. Hollywood recognizes no such distinction.
For Hollywood, self-criticism is heroism. Hamlet is a hero while he vacillates, a villain once he acts. The only heroes worth their salt, according to Hollywood, are those who resist the government's war on terror; those who fight terror simply aren't self-reflective enough.
There's only one problem: When it comes to destroying America, the self-reflective anti-heroes of Hollywood and Islamic terrorists join hands. Terrorists will take allies wherever they can find them. And Hollywood is certainly a convenient ally.
“For Hollywood, self-criticism is heroism.”
Unless it’s criticism of Hollywood; then it’s unforgivable apostasy.
Oh, ferchrisakes, it’s just a movie, and a damned entertaining one at that. The plot of the “evil” CIA attempting to kill Bourne is entirely consistent with the original book (these three movies really only roughly covering the plot of the book “The Bourne Identity”) and the first two movies. OK, maybe it is played up a little bit more than necessary, for dramatic effect, but I hardly think it is making a serious political statement or that anyone is likely to take it as such. Sometimes a movie is just a harmless piece of entertainment.
which is why hollyweird does not get american dollars.
Claims of “its just a movie” are just the viral justifacation of paid spokesmen for hollyweird. It is not “just a movie” it is a message.
Exactly...
You could also make the political argument that the CIA is populated with Socialist scum like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and of course a Jason Bourne character would be a protagonist in such a situation.
Actually, the CIA, or at least part of it, does appear to be corrupt and evil, but not in the way Hollywood believes. The CIA, which is packed with liberals, appears to constantly leak classified information about our national security to the likes of Seymour Hersh and Walter Pincus and other members of the press. They appear to have their own foreign policy and undermine the policies of our elected leaders without consequence, and the one guy, Porter Goss, who tried to clean the place up, got run off. Instead of people like Jason Bourne, the CIA actually relies on people like Valerie Lame and Joe Wilson.
Tell that to Bill O'Reilly. LOL
http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=21662
If someone, say Mel Gibson, makes a movie depicting the crucifixion, then they all get worried that it will inspire anti-Semitic rioting around the world! Two-faced b*st*rds!
Harmless? I wonder.
Undoubtedly you or I would see it as merely harmless entertainment. But I am not so sure how foreign audiences are affected by it. (And increasingly, these films are being made with foreign audiences in mind.) Anti-American films could have a strong negative influence on those who have no other frame of reference regarding the United States.
For that matter, I have encountered far too many Americans whose world view is based on what they see in the entertainment media. Consequently, much of what they think they know is false—and some of them vote.
Very true. Just a bunch of spoiled lib bureaucrats with an unlimited budget, secure as tenured professors in their jobs.... What was the last thing they got right? The collapse of the Soviet Union? Oops, missed that one! Hussein invading Kuwait? Oops again. Stopping OBL and maybe preventing 9/11? Sorry - missed that one too!
Years ago, someone told me that the CIA was full of would-be academics who couldn't get jobs in the universities. It seems that he was right.
Well, then, one could also look a little closer and see that the “evil” CIA depicted in the movie is actually a rogue element acting outside gov’t approvals or even normal CIA channels, and that at the end of the movie the rogue elements have been exposed and are being investigated.
Seriously, I think only slightly paranoid “conservatives” who are always on the lookout for something to get offended by will take the movie that way. But, whatever, I enjoyed it a lot, anyway, and would happily recommend it to anyone else who enjoys a good, intelligent action flick (as opposed to another rehashed comic book hero movie).
I am sure, and can tell you from personal experience that many people in foreign countries hold the most absurd anti-American notions as true, and that their impressions are generally formed from two sources: news filtered through biased anti-American media, and the endless ridiculous anti-American plots and messages packed into Hollywood entertainment in movies as well as television programming syndicated to foreign networks. Many people hold these views despite personally knowing Americans and even despite visiting the U.S. This really does hurt us out there in the real world.
As conservatives we do not advocate censorship, but it is right for Americans to be calling Hollywood on this as often and loudly as possible. Strangely, some people seem to be of the view that more entertaining a movie is, the less important are the underlying anti-American messages that it may contain.
The following paragraphs are taken from "Damon was born to be Jason Bourne" (registration required), Barry Koltnow's Chicago Tribune interview with Matt Damon:
In "The Bourne Identity," the CIA-trained killer suffers from amnesia and tries to assemble the pieces of his life. In the first sequel "The Bourne Supremacy," Bourne seeks revenge against the people who killed his girlfriend. Now, in "The Bourne Ultimatum," Bourne is again the target of rogue CIA agents, but this time he returns to New York to find those responsible for making him into a monster.All three films are based on the late Robert Ludlum's best-selling Cold War novels.
"Both the novels and the films are products of their respective times," Damon said. "Doug [Limon] always said that he was turning what is basically a Republican book into a Democratic movie."
Enough said.
Yes, that is my experience also.
I think of it this way: We are in a war, and have been for years. In war, the opposing sides use propaganda to influence the hearts and minds of people, both at home and abroad. In this particular war, Hollywood serves as the propaganda arm of our enemies.
As conservatives we do not advocate censorship, but it is right for Americans to be calling Hollywood on this as often and loudly as possible. Strangely, some people seem to be of the view that more entertaining a movie is, the less important are the underlying anti-American messages that it may contain.
No, censorship is not the answer, even if it were feasible. We have to do something more.
I have long thought that despite our political successes, conservatives have been losing the culture wars. Until we can take back the culture, our political and economic gains will ultimately amount to nothing.
Muslims must be good because they're never featured as 'bad guys' in Hollyweird releases.
Note to Ben: “The CIA is corrupt and evil.”
I saw this moron on the Actors Studio where he took a cheap shot at President Bush, (as if he really knew George Bush,) insinuating that GWB was stupid. He then proceeded to tell how everyone in Boston used the slang word for fornication (i.e. F*C*) in so many creative ways. Brilliant.
I turned it off.
So what exactly is the problem there?
“So what exactly is the problem there?”
During Democrat administrations we get movies where the president flies jets and fights terrorists, leads a fighter squadron to destroy alien invaders, and warms our hearts with his affection for a cute little lobbyist.
During Republican administrations we get movies where the government is pure evil.
There’s the problem.
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.