Posted on 03/07/2003 4:27:26 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Tears of the Sun, Bruce Willis' new film, is opening on March 7. He plays Lt. A.K. Waters involved in a search and rescue mission for a doctor stationed in the jungles of Nigeria.
Uh-oh, the Republican actor is pissing in the pool of the Left again. The progressive elite in Hollywood still hasnt forgiven Willis for his heresy mouthed before the 2000 election: "If you guys vote for Al Gore, you're out of your minds
Gore's a knucklehead
just the lying and mendacity of the last eight years of the regime that Al Gore was a part and parcel of
Now you know why the Left hates Bruce Willis?
As a script writer and director, I have witnessed this reality personally for years. It disgusts my colleagues, all of whom are cutting-edge leftists, to watch his character running across the screen in a blood-stained undershirt, blasting bullets into the bad anti-American guys. Such images are simply just anathema to the Left.
No wonder all the leftists I know in the industry have obsessed for years with Willis so-called "power-couple" marriage with Demi Moore. I have listened to myriad conversations that savaged both of the actors during their separation.
Willis chance at achieving any kind of redemption in the eyes of the progressive left hit ground zero when President W. Bush named him as Spokesperson for Children in Foster Care. Then, Willis really broke the radical Party line with his quote: "As a dad, I know how important it is for children to be raised in a loving home." Somewhere here, Willis was implying that a child needed a stable nuclear family in which to be raised. This violated more than just one sacred tenet of the radical agenda.
While Bruce Willis proudly stands shoulder to shoulder with President Bush and the First Lady, unabashedly discussing the needs to nurture American children, his Hollywood peers are foaming at the mouth. The rambling actor Ed Harris reflected the disposition toward Willis well by stating, of our president: "
we've got this guy in the White House who thinks he's a man
and he's a good old boy, and he used to drink and he knows how to shoot a gun
that's not the definition of a man God dammit!
Indeed, shooting a gun, let alone having one, and possessing muscles is definitely not the definition of a man. And using your gun and your muscles to defend America absolutely violates the leftist definition of manhood. Manhood, for the left, is represented more by the likes of a Michael Moore an obese slob who doesnt look like he could run more than 10 metres without collapsing into exhaustion or maintain the sexual interest of a woman who looked anything close to Demi Moore for more than 3 ½ seconds. Moore is the definition of man, you see, because he violates the patriarchys social construction of the definition of masculinity; better yet, if Saddam Hussein led a massive invasion of America with the whole Arab worlds might behind him, Moore would immediately don Arab-style clothing, start taking lessons in Arabic, and walk around sporting a Koran for everyone to see.
But not Bruce Willis. One of the strongest supporters of the Republican Party (minus a short period when he was warring with Bob Dole), he simply cant be a "real man" according to the Left, and that is why he has had a large X on his back for years.
Is it really any surprise, therefore, that the left-leaning media consistently fire cheap shots at him? Indeed, how could they even possibly forgive him for failing, unlike every progressive in Hollywood, to grab a microphone at every opportunity to spout off about his latest cause regarding "social justice"? That is why the media continues to drag his character through the mud, criticizing his skills as an actor -- not because of the skills, but because of the political beliefs that underlie them. Bartcop.com comments: "(Bruce Willis) can't act. To be a good actor, you have to surrender yourself into a role
You have to be able to become that person and conservatives don't have heart or any compassion, so they can't act their way out of a paper bag.
And so guess what this is all about?
It is about that Bruce Willis, more than any of his contemporaries, has defined the modern American hero: an average everyman who has undying love for his family; a flawed man who struggles with his weaknesses; a man whose heart is large and instincts strong; a man who exudes masculinity and a competitive spirit that assist him in eventually conquering the "bad" guys; the guys that leftists fantasize about prostrating themselves in front of.
The progressive elites would rather see their heroes in torn jeans and sneakers, ranting and raving about the injustices and oppressiveness of the U.S. government; they want to see a hero who is always angry about the "inequality" bred by capitalism and who proceeds to write a poem about it; a hero who does not own a shred of furniture in his apartment; a hero who is never seen without his bongo drums; the type of person that Bruce Willis can knock over with one punch, let alone one smirk.
The progressive elite is also traumatized by the amount of money Willis is able to garner per film. This trauma has reached a pathological level. At Cynics Sanctuary, a leftist website, they have called the actor overpaid and went so far to make a few calculations: they have learned that it would take an "average Joe" six hundred and sixty-six (6-6-6, get it?) years and eight months to make what Bruce makes in an average film (US $20 million). Where is their outrage about the income of Barbra Streisand?
The truth pierces an eternal pain into the Lefts psyche, because the truth is the unchangeable fact that Bruce Willis generates the business to justify his salary. In other words, the people pay to see him. The same can't be said for a Susan Sarandon, a woman who rakes in millions from her salary from films that dont make any money because nobody watches them.
The numbers tell the truth and Sarandon is not worth the money she is paid - but there exists not a whisper from the Left on this issue. Perhaps this might be because no leftist wants to focus too much attention on the wealth of another leftist, since if too much attention comes about, it might become evident that Susan, like all of her radical peers, fails to redistribute her wealth in the manner the entire left demands that the capitalist system should do.
But Bruce Willis continues to garner success. And for all of the premature obituaries the Leftist media has written for the patriotic actor, his career has survived all of the set-backs the Left so voraciously relishes (see any review for Hudson Hawk, The Color of Night and Mercury Rising).
And now: Iraq.
Williss reaction to the impending Iraq attack was far from that of a confused and disoriented Sean Penn. According to the on-line version of The Evening Standard, "This is London," Willis reacted to his Hollywood peers with immense disgust. News has it that he called President Bush to offer his service to the military in any future invasion of Iraq. He reportedly said that he was "sick of the antiwar attitude" of Hollywood and wanted to place himself beside the men and women who protect the values of the United States. He was informed, however, that at age forty- seven, he was too old to be enlisted.
But Willis is not too old to take his message to the American publicly via the movie screen. Just as America is making a strong case to go to war, Mr. Willis will be playing yet another America hero totting a gun in Tears of the Sun, where he plays a loyal veteran officer of a Navy S.E.A.L unit who is sent into the heart of Africa to rescue a U.S. citizen.
In anticipation of Willis rattling the nerves of the Left again, I happily say: Yipee-kai-aye.
By Steve Sailer
UPI National Correspondent
From the Life & Mind Desk
Published 3/6/2003 3:15 PM
LOS ANGELES, March 6 (UPI) -- For decades, Hollywood saw Africa as a sunny setting where white folks like Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn or Robert Redford and Meryl Streep could enjoy outdoor adventure and romance. As anti-colonialist sensitivities hardened, however, nostalgic portrayals of glamorous and benevolent settlers have become politically unacceptable.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the more the colonial era fades into the past, the worse the news from Africa gets. Massacres, corruption, famine, and now disease dominate the few column inches the newspapers devote to Africa.
Not surprisingly, filmmakers have responded, like most of us, by largely losing interest in Africa. Thus, it was surprising to see ads touting a new Bruce Willis action drama set in Nigeria.
"Tears of the Sun" begins with fictional but unfortunately believable CNN coverage of a coup by the northern Muslim Fulani tribe, followed by massacres of the southern Christian Ibos in the horrific tradition of Rwanda and Sierra Leone.
Willis plays the leader of a Navy SEAL commando unit sent to evacuate a beautiful lady mission doctor. After seeing the carnage first-hand, Willis violate his orders and help her Ibo refugees walk to the Cameroon border. The SEALS find Muslim soldiers ethnically cleansing an Ibo village and annihilate them. Then an elite Fulani force chases them through the jungle. At the end, there's a really big explosion.
And that's about it. "Tears of the Sun" has one of the most minimal scripts I've ever seen. About 80 minutes into the two-hour movie, for example, there's a plot development where we learn why they are being followed. It's not well crafted -- no attempt was made to prefigure it -- but I thought to myself, "Hey, at least it's a plot development. Something is better than nothing."
"Tears" resembles a slow, despondent remake of Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Predator." In that minor classic, a similar crew of commandos is also stalked through the tropical forest, but by a vacationing hunter from outer space who intends to mount Arnold's stuffed head over his interstellar fireplace. He's a genuine sportsman (sportsalien?) who at the end strips off his superweapons and honorably challenges Arnold to duke it out man-to-monster. Too bad "Tears" doesn't have any human characters as fleshed out as "Predator's" space monkey.
Remember when Bruce Willis was funny? In recent years, his underlying sadness seems to have been winning the battle with his wit. The once arrogant wisecracker has become ever more self-effacing onscreen. I don't know whether this stems from newfound moral wisdom or clinical depression, but I fear Gloomy Gus can't give too many more charisma-free performances like this one and remain a huge star.
The rest of the cast is also glum, with the most memorable performance turned in by a violently yawning baboon.
Reports from the set in Hawaii indicate that Willis and Antoine Fuqua, the director best known for 2001's powerful "Training Day" (for which Denzel Washington won the Oscar), were at loggerheads over script and tone. Fuqua and Willis seem to have compromised by simply eliminating everything that they couldn't agree upon.
Fuqua wanted a downbeat depiction of genocide demonstrating the need for Western interventions. The film ends with Edmund Burke's famous line, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." In contrast, Willis wanted it to be more entertaining.
Fuqua appears to have come out on top, since "Tears" is certainly not entertaining.
Still, Fuqua, who is black, is an interesting filmmaker because he ignores white Hollywood's stereotype that blacks are automatically more virtuous than whites. Fuqua's "Training Day" was refreshing because the corrupt policeman was black and the innocent one white (in contrast to the recent cop flop "Dark Blue").
Fuqua's dour film fails to convey the engaging cheerfulness and vivacity of Africans. By portraying the Ibos only as generic tragic victims, it doesn't help us care about them. Scenes of Fulanis slaughtering Ibos just made me want to think about something else. Only the most saintly of humanitarians can avoid falling into despair over Africa.
Instead, the continent's enduring appeal has been to more macho souls -- hunters, pilots, farmers, even mercenaries, many of whom can't seem to stay away from Africa.
"Tears" did not make me want to dispatch American boys into African wars. Yet, sometimes a little force can help humanity.
Consider the coming famine in Zimbabwe. A friend of mine with much experience organizing covert military operations says that, if given a moderate investment, he could put together a mercenary force to remove the catastrophe's main cause, racist President Robert Mugabe. My friend, though, would just wind up in the dock of the International Court in The Hague. So, he asks, why bother?
-0-
"Tears" is rated R for strong war violence, some brutality, and language.
. "...It is about that Bruce Willis, more than any of his contemporaries, has defined the modern American hero: an average everyman who has undying love for his family; a flawed man who struggles with his weaknesses; a man whose heart is large and instincts strong; a man who exudes masculinity and a competitive spirit that assist him in eventually conquering the "bad" guys; the guys that leftists fantasize about prostrating themselves in front of..." My favorite Bruce Willis movie is "Unbreakable". Where he is just an average Guy. But he has a purpose. And he discovers the purpose...that is to help his fellow man. |
We need Bruce for the post Blix wrap-up today.
AAAHHHNNNTTTT! Sorry Hans, wrong answer.
"Yipee-kai-aye"
Die Hard - The Ultimate Collection
You and my wife - she loves that movie. Personally - and don't take this as an attack on you - I thought that it sucked s*** faster than a shop vac in a septic tank.
On the other hand, I do like Bruce, and I'm more than happy to give him credit for the good movies he's made - "Unbreakable", "Sixth Sense", "12 Monkeys", "Pulp Fiction", and so forth. If we ever happen to stop by your place, by all means pull out "Hudson Hawk" - you'll make my wife happy, and you two can watch it while I go and kill myself ;)
WAAAAHHHHH! You don't agree with me! You're picking on me! I'll sue! I'll put the habeus on your grabbus!
WAAAHHHHH!
Now, on the other hand, you did have the good sense to marry your wife, obviously an intelligent and highly-sensitive woman.
And thereby follows in the footsteps of other Hollywood greats and honorable men Cary Grant, Bob Hope, Jimmy Stewart and many others.
WE DO need to support his movie. You can BET that Hollywood notices who is a box office star and who isn't. Don't think that your $8 won't make a difference- it will!! ESPECIALLY if accompanied by a quick email to the studios telling them why you did or, especially, did NOT see a film. George Clooney is feeling it- his last two movies BOMBED. Even O'Reilly suggested it might be because of his political stand.
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.