Klavan on the Lack of Films About the War on Terror
Andrew Klavan is back in the L.A. Times. He decries the lack of films depicting the war on terror in a positive light:
In all fairness, moviemakers have a legitimately baffling problem with the nature of the war itself. In order to honestly dramatize the simple truth about this existential struggle, you have to depict right-minded Americans — some of whom may be white and male and Christian — hunting down and killing dark-skinned villains of a false and wicked creed. That’s what’s happening, on a good day anyway, so that’s what you’d have to show.
Moviemakers are reluctant to do that because, even though it’s the truth, on screen it might appear bigoted and jingoistic. You can call that political correctness or multiculturalism gone mad — and sure, there’s a lot of that going around. But despite what you might have heard, there are sensible, patriotic people in the movie business too. And even they, I suspect, falter before the prospect of presenting such a scenario.
You’d think that moviemakers would see the success of a show like “24” and be eager to produce a movie along those lines. Klavan says it isn’t happening and explains why.
Read it all.
Klavan also writes sometimes at Libertas, the conservative movie site.
Patricia (824fa1) — 1/26/2007 @ 8:56 amI can’t get the links to work….
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/
Patricia (824fa1) — 1/26/2007 @ 8:56 amThe root of the problem is right there on Pennsylvania Avenue for all to see. The Bush Administration is the least articulate since Coolidge and should be a lesson to all of us forever and ever of the folly of electing a bozo who cannot communicate. Clinton, like him or hate him, had a team of explainers ready for anything and everything; we all knew his position on everything–“standing, penis in someone’s mouth, but never exhaling semen.” I honestly doubt if the Republicans will be in power again for twenty years unless the democrats do something horrible, like….. Right now they are a party in name only standing for nothing in particular and doing nothing but complain.
Duke (2d4db0) — 1/26/2007 @ 9:05 amBush met with the Hollywood bigwigs prior to the military campaigns, a meeting that was portrayed at the time as a plea for pro-American propaganda but which was in fact a plea that they not make movies that depict Muslims in a negative light because he planned on winning their hearts and minds.
Bush was preaching to the pc choir, for the most part, but if a patriotic movie maker wanted to make a positive movie, he’d probably end up on Bush’s shit-list.
J Curtis (d21251) — 1/26/2007 @ 10:05 amJ Curtis,
President Bush is not the obstacle to patriotic films about the war on terrorism being made, rather, the “blame America” Democrat machine within Hollywood is the obstacle.
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 1/26/2007 @ 12:08 pmMoviemakers are reluctant to do that because…
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 1/26/2007 @ 12:39 pmThey don’t have the guts to stand up to a bunch of rioting Muslims in Pakistan who threaten to behead them for “insulting” Islam. Instead they show their “bravery” by attacking George Bush and America.
’24’ portrays fighting terror in a totally “anachronistic” Kerryesque way, i.e. seeing terror as a “law-enforcement problem”. Hollywood had made quite a lot of movies with “scary Muslims”, so unless it’s a special request from Bush, political correctness should not be a problem. It’s just a fact the the old Bruce Willis/Schwarzenegger model for the “counter-terrorism movie” is no longer relevant, while the new one is not yet invented.
NN (d035f8) — 1/26/2007 @ 3:43 pmBesides this, the GWOT fought in Iraq has very little to do with terrorism per se. You can make a war movie about Iraq, that’s all — and I don’t believe it could be engaging without stressing all the political difficulties there, which would mean offending the supposed “good guys”.
Dude,
Thats a quote from Frank Miller. His graphic novel “The Dark Night Returns” is considered to be a modern masterpiece.
Max Power (1ff727) — 1/26/2007 @ 5:33 pmHonestly, that guy’s analysis is stupid. It isn’t that the enemy is brown; it’s that the process of undercover infiltration or, worse, close attention to detail in some bureaucratic office in a basement somewhere in Virginia is just boring. It’s just as important as WWII, but magnitudes less adoptable to the silver screen.
He should ditch the knee jerk “it’s the liberals’ fault!” crap and honestly look at the subject.
jpe (70ef10) — 1/26/2007 @ 8:30 pmActually, it’s true, the Hollywood lefties simply aren’t inspired to make films which could might be construed as showing support for the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism.
Many of the ‘decision-makers’ in this town are more afraid of Sean Hannity than they are Hezbollah.
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 1/26/2007 @ 11:41 pmThere cant be movies about the war on terror since the Bush administration is not fighting a war on terror. The other day five Muslims from PAKISTAN with ties to Al Quida went on trial in England. Now Sadam Hussein and Al Quida were bitter enemies, so tell me again the BS about how Bush war is really a war on terror in Iraq?
All sixteen US intelligence agencies say the war is spreading terrorism and no wonder. If the shoe were on the other foot and US soldiers and civilians were being forced to masturbate in some foreigners prison and have menstral blood thrown on them and the Bible flushed down the drain, you would be rightfully furious but in this case fat liars like Rush Limbaugh tell us its just a frat like prank! Talk about myopic views!
Wake up and smell the roses Bush bots! Bush is the greatest gift to Iran and Al Quida ever! When, and if the war is over, the Sheites in Iraq will thank us and then link up with their brothers in Iraq. There will be no democracy and no WMDs found and no terrorism thwarted. That is what this moron of a President will have accomplished not to mention the bankrupting of this country and the loss of thousands of lives both American and Iraqi. But dont let the facts hit you in the ass you when its so much more comfortable to ignore them and slam the nasty anti American liberals ( liberal=anyone that opposes the Supreme Decider in Chief)
Charlie (55cd2b) — 1/27/2007 @ 8:08 am