SYLLABICATION: a·man·u·en·sis
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. a·man·u·en·ses (-s
z)
One who is employed to take dictation or to copy manuscript.
Antonyms: Fiction, Hollywood, New York Times
Posted on 03/30/2002 1:15:42 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
As something of a movie buff and ardent collector of video cassettes, I'm dying to know how Hollywood will treat the current U.S. war on terrorism.
Since it takes at least two years to make a major flick at a cost of anywhere from $60 million to $100 million, Hollywood is always vulnerable in terms of being overrun by actual events. For example, the arctic blast of reality embodied in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon caused a certain squeamishness at Warner Bros. which delayed the release of "Collateral Damage," in which a firefighter portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger seeks to avenge the death of family members killed by terrorists.
Disney's "Bad Company," a comedic action film about CIA agents was delayed for release.
So what are "artists" suppose to do in time of war?
ITEM: While Hollywood liberals are reluctant through their works to become cheerleaders for a Republican administration in time of war because their political and artistic independence would be curtailed, one question cries to be answered: Confronted by a rattlesnake in one's livingroom, does one worry about animal rights?
ITEM: Much of Hollywood's mindset can be summarized in a quote from Netflix.com movie expert James Rocchi:
"I'm hoping that rah-rah jingoism and simplistic action while possessing a certain banal appeal, will be rejected by audiences who find it impossible to reconcile a cartoon morality, black-and-white portrait of war with the images on the nightly news." There are still folks who are seeking a moral equivalency between the murders of 5,000 civilians at the World Trade Center and the U.S. bombings in Afghanistan.
ITEM: Hollywood would do well to skip the hip cynicism of the Vietnam era and embrace the notion that wartime heroism and evil still exist. The fact that nationalistic pride and patriotism still sells at the box office was evident with "Saving Private Ryan" which grossed $217 million.
Will politically correct Hollywood, which is very effective in disparaging greedy tycoons, industrial polluters, and conservative pols, have the honesty to portray Islamic fundamentalist schemers as the bad guys?
Sixty years ago, there was a full World War II mobilization in Hollywood as the movie moguls joined the rest of the nation in waving the flag and summoning a national pride. Indeed, top film stars enlisted in the armed forces. Patriotism permeated every strata of society. Would it be too much of a deprivation for Hollywood to summon up a quarter of the nationalism of the 1940s? There will be plenty of time to agonize over the moral ambiguities of war once the terrorists are belted into eternity.
They do not take the financial success of patriotic movies as lessons on the culture.
At best, they have figured out how to use decent, patriotic movies as "cash cows" for perverted ones (i.e. make one "Private Ryan, earn enough for ten "Priests").
SYLLABICATION: a·man·u·en·sis
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. a·man·u·en·ses (-sz)
One who is employed to take dictation or to copy manuscript.
Antonyms: Fiction, Hollywood, New York Times
Let me help: resurgence....
No such effort or sacrifice by the pampered stars of today. James Webb, a former advisor to President Reagan and now author and screenwriter, related something he was told by TWO separate Hollywood bigwigs, a director and an actor; "If my child told me they wanted to join the military, I'd do everything in my power to stop that from happening." So much for having actual honor, courage, and commitment. No wonder they can't stay married.
I believe this is why they hate making patriotic war movies. It's deeper than political correctness or '60s "peace-love-dope" liberalism. It's because when you play a true hero, an Alvin York or Audie Murphy or even a Mike Spann, you have to face the fact that you're not fit to shine their shoes. An actor/director/screenwriter can have "it all"; money, looks, power, health...but when they have to really get to know a war hero, as when they must play, or write the character of one, they realize just how phony and insignifigant they really are. Thus, to make themselves feel better, they have to portray America's defenders in a less-than-heroic light.
Fortunately, Hollywood still has some patriotic standard-bearers in high places: Mel Gibson has made several pro-American movies recently, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is a dependable patriot. John Milius is an unabashedly pro-U.S.A. director and screenwriter(Red Dawn, Flight of the Intruder). Many others are out there, secure in the knowledge that they'll never see the accolades their self-hating brethren will.
Guess who gets MY money for their product.
Hmmm...Hollywood has in fact changed between 1945 and 2002. But please don't misunderstand...I don't think we'll see a patriotic Hollywood anytime soon! It may well be when my grandchildren (who aren't born yet!) grow up before the pendulum swings back to the right!
I got that magazine myself. The gun is the one used during the opening credits of Magnum Force.
I disagree with those who see little change in Hollywood after last year. Many (not most, but many) screenwriters see a paradigm shift coming, and, as always, actors have nothing to say and directors have nothing to shoot without the guys and gals who crank out pages.
No. Any other silly questions?
As I recall, Stewart was a bonafide war hero, and even attained very high rank (General?).
He also had a son who served, and was killed, in Vietnam. The only angry or negative thing I ever heard him say publicly was in an interview where he essentially said of the Vietnam war protesters "Damn them all to hell."
IMHO, most of the flip-flop to the current belief system occurred in the 1960's. By demonizing heroes, and painting them as fools, baby-killers, and ticking time bombs, those who cowardly refused to serve could seem, to themselves at least, to be "better" than those they attacked and ridiculed. It was an absolutely sick and evil way to justify and validate an inexcusable, self-centered cowardice. Unfortunately, it played directly into the hands of those whose motives were the destruction of America and those positive values for which she stands.
This forced "paradigm shift" ran its course by 1980 or so in every segment of society except those with the most invested in its perpetration: the entertainment industry and academia. Sadly, these were the very segments with the ability to keep that Leftist concoction of discredited beliefs on life-support. Those holdover '60s liberals will be around, still pushing their self-justification for craven cowardice, for at least another 20-30 years. They have infected one, maybe two generations with their selfish poison. The best we can do is to reward those, like Gibson and Milius, who do not slur their own country to salve their vestigial consciences. Besides, their movies are more fun.
The same man, while working on The General's Daughter, a military-themed movie, stated that all the uniformed men around, with their straight backs and short haircuts, were "funny looking...like robots."
This is what leftist, '60s-style thinking hath wrought. And this person probably fancies himself sophisticated and intelligent.
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.