Fumento: Hollywood’s War On The War On Terror
Critics have labeled the new movie “Rendition” a “political thriller.” Whether it thrills or not is subjective. But “political”? Absolutely. It’s merely the latest in an unbroken series of major films about the war on terror that range from those seeking to assure us that Islamist terrorism isn’t the threat we might think, to those depicting the terrorists as no worse than those who fight them — and by implication the American people as a whole.
In 1942, Hollywood went to war. It began pumping out countless movies designed both to entertain the public and bolster its will to fight. A lot of them were cheap, hokey, or both. But even in a nation that seemingly needed little reminder of the dastardly attack on Pearl Harbor or the evils of the Nazis, they kept drilling home the message that we must persevere no matter the costs or the duration.
Well that they did. President Franklin Roosevelt lived in constant fear that the public would turn against the war. Indeed a Gallup Poll taken just five months before Germany’s collapse and long after the American public began learning of the horrors of the Holocaust, showed about one-fourth did not want to drive on to unconditional surrender.
Fast forward that reel to the post-9/11 era. Just how many Hollywood movies (not documentaries) have been made in which the bad guys are Islamist terrorists that do not specifically concern the Sept. 11 attacks? If you have to guess, guess “none.”
Consider the film that came out this June, “Live Free or Die Hard.” Early on in the story the FBI believes a massive cyber-attack is the work of Islamists. But it’s the Department of Homeland Security that proves to be more or less responsible. Turns out, the agency had rejected an excellent idea from an employee who, in comic book style, becomes an insane evil genius complete with a beautiful kung-fu-expert sidekick.
In one of last year’s most critically acclaimed films, the severely disjointed “Babel,” what is treated as a terrorist shooting of an American tourist woman in Morocco proves to have been accidental. But the Moroccan police, fearful of losing tourist dollars, stage a desperate manhunt that ultimately leads only to the shooting of a cute little boy.
Consider, too, the odyssey of the conversion of Tom Clancy’s massive best-selling 1991 book, “The Sum of All Fears,” in which a nuclear bomb destroys an American city, into the 2002 film of the same name. In the book and the original script, the bad guys were Islamist terrorists. Little did Mr. Clancy know how realistic his choices of villains were: Federal court hearings in February 2001 revealed that as early as 1993, Osama bin Laden offered $1.5 million to buy uranium for a nuclear weapon.
But ultimately the Paramount movie depicted the bomber as yet another comic book character villain, an Austrian neo-Nazi. (Though at least he never says, “Vee haff vays uf making you talk!”)
Mr. Clancy, who unfortunately had no control over the process, took a swipe at director Phil Alden Robinson on the special features section of the DVD. Mr. Robinson, for his part, made the incredible claim on the DVD extra that the change was in the name of realism.
In reality, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) had lobbied to change the villains and won. “I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs,” Mr. Robinson wrote to them, “and I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination.” Paramount’s CEO at the time, Sherry Lansing, also suggested that she would steer clear of movies with Muslim villains.
Indeed, one of the few competent characters in “Live Free or Die Hard,” the Deputy FBI Director, looks Arab. In reality, he’s a New Zealander of Maori descent but indeed played an Arab in the film “Three Kings.”
Read Mike’s full article at his blog here.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Taken as whole with few exceptions, the Hollywood Jet Set competes with the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit as the most amoral, anti-American collection of scumbags in America.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:25 pmI was just reading a review of the new Hollywood propaganda movies. It wasn’t good. The last good war movie that Hollyweird made was the Great Raid. If Hollyweird had any sense they’d produce a similar movie on Iraq and make a ton of money instead of this “redacted” BS crud that they are producing. You would think with all the talent and the movie-making skills that Hollyweird has that they could do better.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pmNot to worry, Tom Cruise is this >-
October 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pmAnybody know if The Kingdom that’s in theaters is any good? I assume it falls somewhere in this catagory. I heard it was an anti-terrorist film though I’m skeptical.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pmQuantico Bound
It’s extremely good, and actually identifies Islam as the enemy. I shit you not.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmI want to see the kingdom-someone said it’s just jingonistic and xenophobic, so I get the feeling some of you may like it
as for rendition-i’ll wait until it’s on video, or get a cheap bootleg.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThe Kingdom was a very good movie. It does show wahabbism as an enemy, and the Saudi royal family in a difficult balancing act. I think more could be said about the relationship between the ruling family and the extremists, but over all it was a well done movie.
The only complaint I have is that they shot the car explosion scene on the freeway here in Phoenix right after the freeway had completed construction, and the explosion of the car in the scene caused some damage to the freeway. We had waited for them to open that freeway for 3 years, they open it and its pristene and new and then a month later it has ruts in the asphalt. Go figure.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pmI am pround to say that I have avoided most movies for over 5 years. The only movies I watch (well actually my daughter watches them, I just load them into the DVD) are made by Pixar or Dreamworks. Most of them have a good meaning behind them, some, not so much.
Does anyone know who bought the rights to “Lone Survivor” by Marcus Luttrell? If some lefty asshole is going to try to spin that movie and fuck it all up I am going to be pissed.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:13 pmsome rich left wing fuck prolly bought the wrights to it just to can the film and not turn it into a pic
October 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pm