Posted on 12/04/2002 6:59:43 AM PST by WaterDragon
December 4, 2002, Charlie Rose (PBS) -- Viggo Mortenson. He is the actor who plays Strider (Aragorn of Arathorn) in the Ring Trilogy. He is, he says, an American. He appeared on this program with Peter Jackson, the director and Elijah Wood, who is Frodo. Wearing a t-shirt that he made himself, which said "No more blood for oil....(snip)
For Complete Article, Please Click Here.
Does this naive child think it got this way by accident? Does he think it will stay that way without being willing to spill blood (our own included) to stop those who would take away the freedoms he so cavalierly takes for granted while smugly criticizing those who do the heavy lifting for him???
Mr. Leonard is making the mistake of equating the opinion of ONE of the actors in the film to the attitudes of the filmmaker and all the other actors. The film has nothing to do with America, and Peter Jackson didn't make it that way. He has followed Tolkien's books as closely as possible, and added things which he thought might make the films more understandable to those who haven't read the books. I hope others won't punish PJ, and the other fine actors in this film because of the stupidity of one of them.
He doesn't sound unorthodox to me, he sounds like a lockstep liberal who is spouting the same party line all the others spout. And if they are so artistic, why do they have nothing original or intelligent to say unless someone hands them a good script? I'm sorry, but from what I can see, actors = original like suburban kids with blue hair = rebellion. As in: not even.
1. Who gives a flying flip what Viggo thinks? Is he in any position to dictate policies or make war time decisions? NO. So ignore him and enjoy his role as Aragorn. After that, I for one won't bother to watch anything else he stars in.
2. The war against Saddam Hussein, regardless of its motivation, is absolutely necessary. This beast would LOVE to kill Americans, any Americans, innocent or not. He will and probably has provided support to terrorists and will continue to do so until his death or the destruction of his enemies. It's a kill or be killed situation - to think otherwise is to be naive at best and incredibly stupid at worst.
3. I'm all for cheaper oil, drilling ANWAR, whatever. I'm also for creating new sources of energy altogether. But the reality is, right now we need oil and we need it at a reasonable price to avoid serious economic consequences. If we bomb out Saddam and take over the Iraqi oil fields, that's fine by me. At least I know we will share it and Americans will benefit from it.
4. Freedom isn't free, it isn't even cheap. If men didn't risk and give their lives to create and protect this country, where would we be today? The voices of cowardice I read on this thread are pathetic. What quality of life is there for your families if we live in fear of Saddam acquiring WMD? Take him out, problem solved, life goes on and lessons learned.
There, now I'm done. I love JRRT's books and PJ's adaptation of them so far. Some ninny with a funny name won't stop me from enjoying what I love.
I mean, I'm a big Tolkien fan (as my screen name would suggest) and I saw the first movie , Fellowship of the Ring, now I'm waiting to see The Two Towers on Dec. 18th
But dose this mean I can't go see it and forget the political beliefs of the actors in this movie?
I assumed, but hadn't heard it called "Battle of the Black Sea" by anyone yet - my first thought at reading that was Crimea! :)
GHWB dumped in 20,000+ marines to protect aid workers distributing food from warring clans. He was goaded into the whole mess by the press showing starving people (not new to Africa, or dozens of other warring, oppressive regimes). Clinton tried to turn it into a 'nation building exercise', but decided the U.S. would do it with both of the big arms Reagan had procurred for us tied behind our back, and of course no stomach for casualties. Once two dozen guys got killed we realized there wasn't anything in that sh*thole actually worth a single American life and we bugged out. The shame is that GHWB got us in there in the first place. We get involved in ONE of the dozens of 'aggressions' and do we even get a thank you? Let'em rot. I don't pay taxes for an M-1A2 to leave it parked in Germany while Americans get pinned down in AFRICA by a huge pack of hooligans. I'm having a hard time fitting defense of the U.S. Constitution into that scenario...
Sadly, AMEN to that.
However, I believe Saddam and his proxies are a clear and present danger to the lives and safety of Americans everywhere, and we need to take him and his ilk out for our own sake.
Would I orphan my children to do this?
No. But I am willing to risk orphaning my children to insure the world they inherit is one they can survive in. One where my daughter is not sexually mutilated and enslaved to her husband. One where my son doesn't risk beheading every time he opens his mouth and speaks the truth.
Some things are worth more than life itself...
Viggo... Viggo... wasn't he the bad guy in Ghostbusters 2?
HEY!!! That's MY daughter you're talkin' about! (She looks good in blue hair BTW, it really brings out the blue in her eyes)...
They weren't Iraqis, either.
It's not the oil. It's what he'd do with it.
It is much older than Lincoln, according to Bartlett's:
Publius Syrus (42 B.C.) Maxim 914. "Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage."
Another Publius Syrus maxim I like: "Fortune is not satisfied with inflicting one calamity." - Maxim 274. When it rains, it pours?
True, but they seem to think that it's a right and not a privilege.
People who are very artistic by nature also tend to be quite unorthodox in their politics.
And for some reason they tend toward a liberal (in the freedom sense of the word) morality. Male artists always seem to have mistresses; Toulouse-Lautrec liked hanging out with showgirls; Hollywood marriages seem flickering, fickle, and prone to philandering. Though it isn't always the case, it's a prominent pattern. Is it a function of being artistic, or are the artists conforming to a societal view of what artists are supposed to be like? (I guess we could call it "Bohemian", if that word is still usable.)
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.