| Author |
 Topic  |
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
 Posted - 01/31/2008 : 08:47:02 AM
|
Can left and right come together and agree that this seems like a very bad idea:
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117979833&categoryid=13
Bush supporters are going to think – probably accurately given Stone’s politics – that it’s nothing but a hit piece and stay away. Bush detractors are so sick of the man after 8 years that they’re deliriously happy at the thought of him leaving office. Why in the world would they want to watch some bio-pic rehashing the man’s life when they’re giddily counting the days until he’s pretty much gone for good? Who in the world does Stone think is going to watch this movie? |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 08:56:10 AM
|
"Bush detractors are so sick of the man after 8 years that they’re deliriously happy at the thought of him leaving office"
Tell me about it. I can't stand the guy but anti-Bush hysteria is pointless now. It's not like there is anyone running on a "stay the course" platform.
Regarding the movie, while I'm not a fan of Stone's paranoid political fantasies (I'm not hot on him as a filmaker either) I have to say that in Nixon he protrayed the former president in a suprisingly sympathetic light. Nixon certainly fared better than LBJ did in JFK where Stone pretty much accused Johnson of arranging the Kennedy assasination.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
 |
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 3:14:00 PM
|
As much as hate to say it, yeah, some of us Bush detractor are sick and tired of the whole thing. It was interesting at first to see the filmmakers speaking up, and even daring, but once the industry noticed movies critical with the present administration were profitable and they started producing them in bigger numbers the whole thing became just a big f*cking cliché.
To be fair, some of the films in this recent trend of liberal movies are good enough, but I'm talking about the likes of The good shepperd and In the valley of Ellah, which do their homework and have bigger aspirations than becoming propaganda. There are many others, like Syriana or Redacted which are utter crap. And if they look like utter crap to a person like me, I can't even imagine what they would look like to a conservative.
As for this movie in particular, it looks to me like Stone is trying to regain form by returning to known ground. His latest movies have seen him try to adopt different styles and themes than before in his career, but the results have been far from perfect. Alexander was a stinker, and his 9/11 film, World Trade Center, was a mixed bag.
Could this turn out as a good film? Who knows. Bush has been on the center of so many crisis and taken so many controversial decissions that Stone shouldn't need to invent anything to spice things up. Josh Brolin could make a great Bush, unless the film reduces him to an unidimensional villain. But Stone is not anymore on his prime, and he'll probably write the script too, so... |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 11:27:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville
It was interesting at first to see the filmmakers speaking up, and even daring...
Gimme a break. Daring? This isn't Poland in 1980. A Hollywood filmmaker unleashing an anti-Iraq war screed risks nothing. Nada. Zippo.
Hollywood is overwhelming lefty, so no bridges burnt there. Most of these films were shot on a shoestring (Redacted probably cost less than Julia Roberts' daily supply of Evian) so no one's risking their career here.
And the public? They stayed away in droves, so it's unlikely these films will elicit much of a backlash since nobody saw them in the first place. (America still hearts Reese Witherspoon, Rendition be darned.)
Daring would be for a Hollywood filmmaker to skewer the Church of Scientology or its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. Or doing a movie expose of Anthony Pellicano, the goon for hire-cum-private eye who many Hollywood honchos hired to do their dirty work (and I mean dirty work). Or a movie about the Venona Files, or what have you.
From the perspective of a Hollywood executive or director or screenwriter, embracing any of these suggestions would be like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded Westwood theater. But a movie like Lions for Lambs? In Hollywood, that's like yelling "Fire!" on Guy Fawkes Day. |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 02/01/2008 11:28:36 AM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 2:01:03 PM
|
Believe me, from this side of the ocean Hollywood doesn't look half as liberal as you say. It always amazes to me how some of you react when a film includes political subtexts, even of issues that should be non controversial at all these days, such as respect for human rights.
If you only could read how the media here treats stuff like Rendition or Lions for lambs... Expressions like "tame", "simplistic" or "it says nothing any sensible person shouldn't already know by now" are common.
And there's another issue here. From what I've been seeing these years in the theatres, films from the 90s onwards seem to be designed more as "global" products than as "for American-only" audiences. There's a big difference. I can't speak for Asia or Australia, but generally speaking Europe is far more liberal than the U.S. Adopting a different political view is not only a simptom of Hollywood "going liberal", it's also a market decission. Sure, there are outspoken liberals in Hollywood. They don't hide, we all know who they are. But there are also Republicans and libertarians, it's only that they are not that outspoken, or that they are clever enough to know pro-Bush films won't sell well outside of America. Hollywood has always been, is and will be a huge business machine. Many of these people you call liberals are just producing what they know it will sell well. Want to know who are the real liberals in Hollywood? Wait until the trend is completely exausted, when producing liberal fare is actually throwing your money out of the window. Then see who is still producing it. See that couple? Those are.
And yes, I think making a movie criticising key policies while the country is at war is daring. Or at least it was at first, before the whole thing lost its edge. I don't need to mention how some of these people have been used for target practice by some media, who has labeled them as traitors and even gone as far as claiming they would be to blame for American losses in Iraq. Playing with that sort of controversy may be almost career-safe these days, but the people who started were actually putting their jobs and careers on the line. If that's not daring, well... |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 4:02:27 PM
|
Neville, your entire third paragraph negates your argument that these films are "daring".
quote:
... but the people who started were actually putting their jobs and careers on the line.
Yeah, right. Dennis Kucinich's political career sure went down in flames, didn't it? He's now an assistant manager at iHop. Ditto Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, John Edwards...
Sean Penn's career was so badly crippled by speaking out now he's performing in a road company version of Mummenchanz aboard the Princess Cruise Line. Barbra Streisand makes sneakers in India. George Clooney recycles plastic bottles and old newspaper to make the rent. Michael Moore was sent to Siberia. Keith Olbermann is now my mailman.
Frightening times to be an American... it's like the French reign of terror all over again. |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 10:52:03 PM
|
I think Stone is fixing to make a big mistake.
Anyone remember Can't Stop the Music?
That was the movie about "The Village People" starring Steve Gutenberg and was choked full of great disco wholesomeness!
Only problem was that it took so long to produce that by the time it got released nobody was into disco and nobody was listening to The Village People anymore. It was a tremendous debacle.
I think Stone is about to make the same mistake.
Call it a kind of movie radar most of us probably have built in.
First, we can recognize movie ideas we would want to see and that we also know large sections of the public would want to see. Second, there are movies we don't want to see, but know that the public will flock to in droves. Third are movie ideas that we don't want to see and that we know the public will reject even more resolutely than we will.
This movie sounds like the third category. |
Edited by - Citizen Carrier on 02/01/2008 10:55:29 PM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 04:21:01 AM
|
About me negating myself: I probably didn't explain myself right. My whole point is not that these movies are daring now, but that they were when the trend started. The likes of Clooney, Penn and Moore put their jobs on the line. Their bet turned out a good one, but the whole thing could have exploded in their faces.
But to do a film like Lions for lambs now is a joke and the whole trend has lost its edge, not to mention become tiresome. |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 05:43:58 AM
|
Oh, I remember Clooney talking about how "brave" and "risky" it was for him to make Good Night and Good Luck in "today's political climate".
I also remember thinking he was rather stupid for saying such things in public.
The only thing he risked was perhaps not realizing a big enough profit to justify making the movie in the first place.
He was making it sound as if we are currently living through a second "Red Scare" and he was running the risk of being blacklisted from Hollywood and having to continue his directing career under an assumed name. He sounded like a smug, sanctimonious jerk.
This isn't Iran or North Korea. Protestors and filmakers risk NOTHING of consequence here in the free world. The "courage" they ascribe to themselves is laughable.
That guy in China who stood in front of those tanks back during Tianamen Square? That was courage. |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 11:56:34 AM
|
Neville, you're living in a fantasy world. No one is going to be blacklisted for making an anti-Iraq war film in today's Hollywood. It wasn't true in 2003. It isn't true now. Nope. Uh uh. Ain't gonna happen.
Audience backlash? Sure, but not to the degree where anyone is going to actually lose their careers over it. Even a political lightning rod like the Dixie Chicks continued to perform to sellout crowds even as early as 2003. They didn't lose their recording contracts or their corporate sponsorships. And to top it all off, their first post-Iraq war album went gold in a week and swept the Grammies. If that's an example of a career in shambles, sign me up for the next blacklist.
As for the films themselves and the messages they convey, c'mon, let's be honest: how can these movies be considered "daring" when all they do is regurgitate the same anti-war propaganda that the mainstream American news media and the Democrat Party have been diseminating for the past five years?
A movie condemning US interrogation techniques of WOT prisoners?
In case you haven't heard, CBS and the New York Times broke the Abu Ghraib story in 2003. The waterboarding story was broken by Newsweek in 2004. For all intents and purposes, a movie like Rendition would have been as passe then as it is now.
A movie challenging the rationale for going to war?
Is there anyone alive now who has not heard a newscaster or commentator utter the dread catch phrases "Big Oil" or "House of Sahd" or even (brrrrr!) "Halliburton"?!! We've heard all the conspiracy theories from the left courstesy of our nightly news. "It was Unocal, it was the Israeli lobby, it was Bush getting even for his daddy, yak, yak yak." With that kind of political cover courtesy of the MSM, the only risk entailed by shooting Lions for Lambs was that Redford and Cruise had to postpone their Maui vacations for a few weeks.
As for Moore (snicker), how could Fahrenheit 9/11 be a risk to his carrer when his anti-American, anti-corporate, anti-war schtick is precisely what got him into Hollwyood in the first place? That's like saying Jenna Jameson would be risking her career if she posed for Playboy.
A movie documenting alleged war atrocities committed by Americans?
This just in: we were bombarded with lurid tales from Hamindiah and Haditha and elsewhere long before Brian DePalma ever decided to go out and rent a digital camera. When in 2004 a stressed-out US marine shot a wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque (claiming the injured was an insurgent faking injury) that video ended up on every nightly newscast for weeks.
Has any Hollywood filmmaker risked his career the past five or so years? Yeah, I can think of one. Mel Gibson. The Passion of the Christ did more to damage his standing with his fellow Tinselheads than a hundred Lions for Lambs could ever do to the likes of Redford, Cruise, Moore, Jones, Sarandon... |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 02/02/2008 12:15:06 PM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 2:25:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zombiewhacker
Neville, you're living in a fantasy world.
I'd appreciate if you tried to keep things civil here. I'm certainly doing my best.
As for the rest of your answer, don't put words in my mouth I didn't say. All I wanted to share about the issue is above this answer as clearly as I can put it. Here it goes again:
I've never said these people (liberal actors / directors / singers / whatever who spoke out against Bush) risked deportation / death at the hands of stalkers / being tar and feathered by angry republicans / declared commies and enemies of the state by a senate commitee / burn at the stake / whipped in public then having their wounds splashed with vinegar, salt or mayonnaisse / beheaded / disembowelled or anything like that. What I've said, and this is a third, is that when the first of them did it they didn't know how it could affect their careers. Hollywood careers have been ruined over the years for reasons far more stupid than that, so yes, I think they were taking chances.
You disagree? Fine. But don't accuse those who don't agree with you to live in a world of fantasy. That's rude to say the least. |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 5:44:07 PM
|
| My apologies. I never meant to be offensive. |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 03:57:58 AM
|
| Apologies accepted. |
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 2:30:22 PM
|
I agree with the above. People who hate Bush and people who like him (like me) are just sick of the whole deal. I smell a bad business decision.
Pip
"These five fingers: individually they're nothing, but when I curl them together like this into a single unit, they form a weapon that is terrible to behold!" - Lucy Van Pelt |
|
|
|
BradH812
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1294 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 2:40:03 PM
|
Here's my own take on Hollywood and politics, particularly in bashing the President. It's not the ONLY reason for the animus toward Bush, but I'd bet real money it's a big part of it:
These guys are throwing a three-year-long temper tantrum.
A couple of weeks ago, I saw a columnist on TV, I think it was Bernard Goldberg, giving his take on why Scientology has a big hold on celebrities. His opinion, which I think is pretty close, is that the Hollywood community is incredibly narcissistic, and Scientology, by pandering to celebs, caters to that narcissism.
So it is with politics. For eight years, Clinton was President, and Hollywood was all smiles. After all, Clinton hobnobbed with celebs, got all chummy. So, Hollywood (yes, I'm generalizing a LOT, but you get the idea) was thinking "Now one of OUR guys is in power! We were right all along! We DO know better than everyone else."
That all ended in 2000, when George W. Bush was elected. Now, a lot of people ranted about a "stolen" election, showing their ignorance as to how government operates (we've had at least one instance before where a President was elected while losing the popular vote, and while the electoral process isn't perfect, it's good enough that we would be wiser to accept it warts and all than try and change it be rewriting the whole Constitution). The more leftist people in Hollywood started going ballistic, thinking they could influence people enough to sway the next election. I'd say the most notable example was a little "documentary" made by our good friend Michael Moore.
If anything, that may have helped Bush get re-elected. I wonder how many people were pushed into his camp because they were turned off by the antics of Michael Moore et al.
So, Bush was re-elected, and no one could even use the popular-vote argument anymore (though Janeane Garofalo tried). Hollywood became very shrill at this point, and it was here that the likes of Syriana and Lions for Lambs and Redacted started to come into play. Basically, Hollywood was telling people in flyover country to go screw ourselves... without letting themselves realize that "flyover country" has a lot more people in it than Hollywood.
Maybe this is over-simplifying things (then again, maybe it's not). But I suspect that a lot of the Bush-bashing isn't done out of principle (which I can understand, as long as those doing the bashing have done their homework). It's lashing out at people who told them, forcefully, that Hollywood is not the wisest group of people in the world.
By the way, Zombie, that's why we're unlikely to see Hollywood give L. Ron Hubbard a well-deserved no-holds-barred frying. If they did, a lot of people would have to admit they'd spent a hell of a lot of time and money supporting a fraud and hurting a lot of "little people" along the way. |
|
|
|
thewarden
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2008 : 08:07:43 AM
|
I think this movie is a bad idea... not necessarily due to Stone's politics. I think the movie is a bad idea because, well, let's face it there is nothing particularly interesting about GWB. Of all the post-WW2 presidents, he competes with Ford and Carter for the personally least interesting.
Truman... atomic bomb, Truman doctrine, start of Cold War.
Eisenhower is a great story. WW2, early cold war, McCarthyism, etc.
Kennedy was a was hero and glamorous. You also had the womanizing thing if you want to make a story about it.
Johnson was a tragic, conflicted figure. You could make a great movie about him.
Nixon... hoo boy... tons of material. You could make 3 movies about Nixon. Stone's movie was self-indulgent and flawed, but an interesting attempt.
Ford... pass.
Carter... blah. Nothing there really.
Reagan... historic individual. Historic times. Still waiting for a decent movie about him.
Bush 41... not much to work with there. But still, he's flying off carriers as an 18 y/o in WW2. Diverse career. The ultimate Washington insider. The unlikely center of a political dynasty. You could image an interesting movie with him at the core.
Clinton... sprawling, undisciplined, charismatic, surrounded by scandal. Again, you could make a good movie here. Primary Colors wasn't bad actually.
Bush 43... blah. If not for 9/11, he's completely forgettable. He seems like a decent person. But I just don't see a movie. He just isn't personally that interesting. Plus, he's overshadowed by his supporting cast. A movie about Dick Cheney as VP would be intriguing. Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon could be a setting for a decent pic. But what do you do about a man who is like Bush -- confident, comfortable in his own skin, personally stable.... I mean, he's neither heroic enough personally nor flawed enough psychologically to make a compelling main character.
my $0.02.
--TW |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked