Anti-war movies hurt America - and debase the art of film

[sirblob2@hotmail.com]

On 1 nov, 20:30, Joe Gillis <FloatingInTheP...@hotmail.com> wrote:


why is joe gillis such a fascist troll? oh yeah, because 'democrats'
respond.

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:40:22 -0700, Jerry Kraus
<jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 1, 3:23 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> iwantthisn...@gmail.com (wantthis) wrote innews:1193948363.588636.184500@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 1, 12:55 pm, George Peatty <peattyg47-1...@copper.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 1 Nov 2007 12:30:35 -0700, Joe Gillis
>> >> <FloatingInTheP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >That all changed when the Baby Boomers took over Hollywood in the
>> >> >1970s and weaved a new cinematic narrative of anti-American self-
>> >> >loathing. This narrative is now being applied to the post-9/11
>> >> >world - and dissenting conservative voices are being
>> >> >systematically excluded.
>>
>> > actually if we didnt do so much stuff that makes ME LOATH OURSELVES
>> > maybe just maybe these movies wouldnt be popular. HoWEVER THEY ARE
>> > POPULAR BECAUSE truth hurts....
>>
>> Popular?
>>
>> So, the post's statement "Is it any wonder that recent anti-war films
>> like "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" have bombed at the box
>> office?" isn't true?
>>
>> --
>> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | b...@iphouse.com
>
>Bert, some films make money, others don't. How long can Hollywood
>Studios stay in business if their films don't make money? How likely
>are they to make films if they don't think they will make money? What
>possibility is there that they are not simply trying to accomodate
>popular preferences in film? And popular political views?
>
>Look, these guys in Hollywood are rich and part of the status quo.
>They themselves may not particularly support the views presented in
>these films. But, obviously, this is what they think will sell. Why
>else would they make them?

George Clooney makes the big budget movies - Ocean's 11 (and the
others) so he can make movies that mean something - Michael Clayton,
Good Night and Good Luck. That's why he makes some movies and puts his
money up to back them.

WB Yeats

 

[Steven L.]

Bert Hyman wrote:
> iwantthisname@gmail.com (wantthis) wrote in
> news:1193948363.588636.184500@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 1, 12:55 pm, George Peatty <peattyg47-1...@copper.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 1 Nov 2007 12:30:35 -0700, Joe Gillis
>>> <FloatingInTheP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That all changed when the Baby Boomers took over Hollywood in the
>>>> 1970s and weaved a new cinematic narrative of anti-American self-
>>>> loathing. This narrative is now being applied to the post-9/11
>>>> world - and dissenting conservative voices are being
>>>> systematically excluded.
>> actually if we didnt do so much stuff that makes ME LOATH OURSELVES
>> maybe just maybe these movies wouldnt be popular. HoWEVER THEY ARE
>> POPULAR BECAUSE truth hurts....
>
> Popular?
>
> So, the post's statement "Is it any wonder that recent anti-war films
> like "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" have bombed at the box
> office?" isn't true?

I'll bet those movies won't bomb overseas.

Much of Hollywood's revenue comes from overseas sales. The
anti-Christian, pro-Muslim movie "Kingdom of Heaven" bombed in the U.S.
but played to packed houses in the Middle East.

Hollywood is increasingly producing movies for a global audience. And
let's face it, the global audience often cheers when they see Uncle Sam
getting poked in the eye.

In a way, we should be proud of ourselves. It's America that has done
so much to help create a peaceful, prosperous world that can now afford
to purchase anti-American entertainment.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

 

[snide sneering Leftwing Jew Soderb]

On Nov 1, 2:30 pm, Joe Gillis <FloatingInTheP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/11/01/2007-11-01_antiwar_mov...
>
> If Tokyo Rose were alive today, she wouldn't get jail time - she'd get
> a three-picture deal.

no, no, no. not in her case. WWII was a war against fascism and far
right(among whom anti-jewish Nazis were big players). for that reason,
WWII is sacrosanct for liberals. that was one time liberals LOVED
war. if vietnam war had been US helping communist vietnamese against
far right vietnamese, most liberal and leftwing jews would have
supported the war.
liberals and leftwing jews are not necessarily pacifist. it depends
on who the enemy and which side in america is calling for war.
liberals were warmongerers against the nazis.
during the Cold War, they were pacifists because they loved the USSR.

 

[snide sneering Leftwing Jew Soderb]

On Nov 1, 4:16 pm, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Joe Gillis" <FloatingInTheP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193931069.957752.150710@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/11/01/2007-11-01_antiwar_mov...
>
> > If Tokyo Rose were alive today, she wouldn't get jail time - she'd get
> > a three-picture deal.
>
> > Throwing all caution and fiscal sanity to the winds, the Hollywood
> > establishment is releasing a slate of anti-war films that do violence
> > to the cause of American victory - and to the art form of film.
>
> > Art is best served by an open competition of ideas. When only the anti-
> > war left is allowed to make films in Hollywood and pro-American voices
> > are excluded, the result is movies that are ideologically rigid,
> > morally shallow and creatively sterile. Is it any wonder that recent
> > anti-war films like "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" have
> > bombed at the box office?
>
> > Hollywood's enforced ideological conformity is obvious: "Elah," the
> > Tommy Lee Jones vehicle now in theaters, and "Redacted," directed by
> > Brian DePalma and set for release later this month, both depict
> > American troops in Iraq as murderers and psychopaths.
>
> Wow, here's a bulletin--there are a lot of murderers and psychopaths in any
> armed forces, especially a volunteer force. And since the US armed forces
> have been required to lower standards (since most sane people do not want to
> commit their fates, or those of their children, to the sociopaths in the
> White House), we probably have more than ever--shocking! Despite ample
> training and clear rules to the contrary, there have been enough disclosed
> atrocities to make the point beyond dispute.

that is not true. there are NOT a lot of psychos in the military. but
there are some. and a few are all you need to end up with awful
atrocities. but, there are NOT a lot.
but, the pertinent question is why is hollywood making movies NOW
about this particular war?
why is hollywood so selective? why were there so many movies about
psychos and war crimes in relation to the vietnam war and almost no
such about WWII--when in fact, american soldiers far more atrocities
in WWII.
and read the recent article in NY Review of Books. american treatment
of german prisoners was 100x worse than its treatments of gooks or
ragheads. yet, why did'n't hollywood makes movies about the dark side
of WWII?

you know the reason. it's because iraq war is seen as bush's war. and
liberals are out to get bush.
do you really think hollywood will make a movie about how american
military personnel tortured 1000s of german prisoners? or, a movie
about how israeli soldiers tortured and killed alot of innocent arab
civlians?
when will hollywood make a movie about what israel did to lebanon a
few yrs back?

of course, all armies have psychos. all wars have war crimes. but,
hollywood selectively sheds negative light on certain wars while
romanticizing other wars for POLITICAL purposes.
and how come hollywood isn't making movies about what hussein did to
kurds? or how iraqi soldiers raped and slaughtered many kuwaitis and
other folks? such things would justify the current war.
now, there is much to be criticized and even condemned about the war.
but, hollywood is not being truthful here.
they are trying to undermine the war because they wanna totally
disgrace bush and discredit republicans. now, that's good political
strategy, and republicans like to play dirty too. but, the media is
mostly in the hands of jewish liberals and like to play dirty in favor
of dems.

> >"Rendition,"
> > released last month, asserts that the American government allows
> > innocent Muslim civilians to be tortured.
>
> I hate to dsiturb this rant with something called "facts", but that has
> happened, exactly.

they were not tortured. they were just harassed and brutalized to
squeeze some facts out of.
frat party hazing stuff.

>
> >"Lions for Lambs," featuring
> > Robert Redford and Tom Cruise, depicts a venal Republican senator
> > risking the lives of American troops in order to advance his political
> > career.
>
> And that is not credible how? Most politicians would set their mother on
> fire to get an extra vote. It has always been thus.

true. but, why not make movies about democratic creeps? why is it
always republican creeps? now, the answer is simple. it's DUH, cuz
hollywood is liberal and favor dems. and conservatives should stop
bitching and set up their own movie industry.
i don't understand why conservatives leave it up to liberals to run
the movie business and then complain that libs don't make conservative
movies. that would be like wondering why catholic church doesn't
support abortion.

>
> >"Stop Loss," starring Ryan Phillippe, posits that the only
> > noble American soldier is the one who refuses to serve.
>
> > Even the relatively tame "The Kingdom" concludes with a coda that
> > draws a moral equivalency between American CIA agents and Saudi
> > terrorists.
>
> > These films and others are the crescendo of three years' worth of anti-
> > war films. Even our sacred memories of World War II have been
> > tarnished in recent years by films like "The Good German" (a ghastly,
> > morally confused remake of "Casablanca").
>
> When somebody starts talking about "sacred memories" generally, I know they
> are an idiot. When invoke address this moronic phrase to reference a
> conflict that resulted in 50 million dead, I know they are nuts, too.

it's sacred to people who were there and fought againt a great evil.
i was there, you weren't. for guys like me, it's sacred cuz we fought
for a great cause. it's something we would never bullshit about.

>
> > This proliferation of anti-war cinema in the midst of a war is
> > unprecedented. In World Wars I and II, Hollywood filmmakers - both
> > conservative and liberal - rushed to support the war effort regardless
> > of which administration was leading it.
>
> > During the Great War, conservative stars like Mary Pickford and
> > Douglas Fairbanks worked with liberals like Charlie Chaplin to raise
> > millions of dollars through Liberty Loan drives.
>
> And they were ****ing morons. WWI was the stupidest conflict in history, and
> the US had no business getting involved in it.

i agree with you. and brits should have stayed out too. germans should
have won and become the dominant power in europe. war would have ended
much sooner. no communism, no nazism. just german dominated europe...
like we have US dominated north america.


>
> > During the Second World War, Hollywood's Republican studio heads -
> > patriots like Louis B. Mayer, Jack Warner and Darryl F. Zanuck - did
> > not hesitate to make films supporting the war effort when Democrat
> > Franklin Roosevelt asked for their help. Great pro-war films like
> > "Casablanca," "To Have and Have Not," "Sergeant York" and the "Why We
> > Fight" series were the result.
>
> The problem with WW2 it is the exceptional war, although everyone tries to
> make it the rulebook--the need was clearcut (Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, Nazis
> declare war on the US in the same week) and the adversaries were completely
> hideous (of course so was the main ally, but that is another story). This
> moral clarity, such as it was (let's forget the mass murdering ally for a
> minute), is comforting to little minds. But most wars lack just such
> clarity, which is something this idiotic commentator seems to be immune to
> understanding.\

but germans declared war on US cuz FDR had already declared defacto
war on germany on the high seas. US was already supplying war
material to UK.
also, moral clarity of WWII wasn't so clear. stalin wasn't much better
than hitler.
and UK and france were imperialist powers who did to most of the world
what germans did to most of europe.
and USA had been created thru conquest, genocide, and slavery.

 

[steve]

On 2-Nov-2007, "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Hollywood is increasingly producing movies for a global audience. And
> let's face it, the global audience often cheers when they see Uncle Sam
> getting poked in the eye.

Who was it that said (approximately) "Capitalists will sell you the rope you
hang them with." ?
--
"False face must hide what the false heart doth know."
Macbeth

 

[Kingo Gondo]

> it's sacred to people who were there and fought againt a great evil.
> i was there, you weren't. for guys like me, it's sacred cuz we fought
> for a great cause. it's something we would never bullshit about.


Gaza, this is some of your funniest **** yet.

 

[tomcervo]

On Nov 2, 1:22?pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Much of Hollywood's revenue comes from overseas sales. The
> anti-Christian, pro-Muslim movie "Kingdom of Heaven" bombed in the U.S.
> but played to packed houses in the Middle East.


You never saw it, did you? Stop getting your impressions from Medved,
etal. It owed more to Kipling ("East is east", etc.) than the Koran.

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:37:41 -0700, sirblob2@hotmail.com wrote:

>On 1 nov, 20:30, Joe Gillis <FloatingInTheP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>why is joe gillis such a fascist troll? oh yeah, because 'democrats'
>respond.

Joe Gillis was Holden's part in Sunset Blvd. The Gillis is more like
the dead orang - or maybe Dobie.

WB Yeats

 

[George Peatty]

In article <_xqWi.46293$8G5.42925@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Frank Arthur says...

>A decline in the USA if free people are not free to express their
>point of view
>whether it supports the government in power or not. An American
>decline took
>place during the Bush administration where protections and guarantees
>under
>the Bill of Rights are taken away from us by secret government
>snooping and
>imprisoning people indefinately without lawful recourse.


Yeah, and saddest of all, we gave those rights away willignly, cheering as the
legislature enacted the law, in the name of security. Some famous quote to the
effect that people who do that deserve neither freedom nor security ..