The Washington Post (2/26/10) had an article about the Hurt Locker - the headline was "Some Iraq, Afghanistan war veterans criticize movie 'Hurt Locker' as inaccurate'" were not happy or in agreement with the film. 'Some' - as in, maybe 10 or 15, what is SOME anyway? What if the headline read: Iraqi War Vets Critical of Hurt Locker. Does that headline sound / read differently than 'Some Iraqi War Vets Upset with Hurt Locker'?
What if we had a headline six years ago - "A few people were protesting the Iraq War" - when the number was about 10-20,000. Versus those who supported the action, even though they opposed the fact we were laboring too long in the desert. The headlines never read 'a few' ... they were always 'Protestors' or 'Thousands Gather ...' Does it matter? Most certainly it matters - the bias cannot be mistaken, and to rearrange the boxes to suit your purposes - so you might argue that no one cares, is really quite stupid. The entire point of protests over the war - so Bush could hear and see the masses of people who wanted it stopped or ended or ... so Bush could LEARN from the events. Yet it seems that those who write these biased columns fail to learn - the American people are simply not interested in your alternate reality. That point has been made time and again and again and again.
So why has The Hurt Locker done so well --- please don't mistake one thing for another, for you will not only be stupid, but ignorant as well. Hollywood votes for the award, not the American people, and Hollywood has opposed the war since February 2003 (that is, BEFORE it ever began). Of course they would nominate it, and support it. It is NOT a runaway popular film. It has barely made back its costs. It is not a great film, and even if people buy the DVD, does not mean they agree with it nor like it - they buy the DVD because they buy movies - good and bad movies. That percentage may be small - 5-6%, but when the movie sits on a fence costing $15 million to make and earning just that much back, deduct the 5% and it is still losing money. In no way does it suggest even a minimal support for the film around the country. The foreign funds will save it from being a flop, but then again, most foreign movie goers regard Americans as reckless and this film proves it.
For Tom Hanks to make such an asinine statement - of course he is entitled to his personal opinion, for the time being, while it is still a right to express idiotic statements, BUT the headline should not read - Hanks angers CONSERVATIVES over his comparison of WWII and Iraq ... Hanks should offend every living veteran of World War II, every veteran from Iraq and Afghanistan, every enlisted man in the military today, every family members of any veteran from any war .... and that is not an exclusively conservative bunch.
Tom Hanks Angers Conservatives, Comparing 'The Pacific' in World War II to Iraq
Hanks and Matt Damon's 'Green Zone' Under Fire From Conservatives for Stances on Iraq War
By LUCHINA FISHER
ABC News
March 17, 2010—
It's no surprise that some conservatives love to hate Hollywood.
Michael Moore and Sean Penn are perennial favorites. But Tom Hanks?
The star of such flag-waving films as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Apollo 13" and producer of the World War II miniseries "Band of Brothers" has come under fire recently for remarks he made while promoting his current project, "The Pacific."
In an interview with Time magazine, Hanks, who is producing the HBO miniseries, compared the World War II conflict in the Pacific with the current one in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The Pacific" began airing March 14.
"Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods," Hanks told Time. "They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"
Richard Pearle, former secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, told ABCNews.com that Hanks has got it wrong.
"What he is suggesting, that the coalition forces are acting out of racist motives, is preposterous," Pearle said. "We're there at the request of the Iraqi government, which is trying to put together a democracy, and we've lost Americans trying to help them do that. I'm not at all clear what Mr. Hanks has in mind.
"He's an actor. He ought to go back to 'Saving Private Ryan,'" Pearle said. "I think if personalities that have a big megaphone by virtue of their acting talent are going to make political statements, they ought to be careful."
Hanks an 'Ignoramus'
Hanks' remarks lit up the conservative blogosphere. Pajamas Media's Victor Davis Hanson did not hold back: "Hanks' comments were sadly infantile pop philosophizing offered by, well, an ignoramus."
Brad Schaeffer, writing on Frum Forum, took Hanks to task for making the comparison to the current war on terror. "To make the claim that we are waging war on Islamofascists because, presumably, we view Muslims as 'different' not only is an insult to the nation but betrays a stunning ignorance of contemporary history."
Tom Hanks Draws Conservative Fire
Hanks did not stop with his comments to Time. In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," he said the Pacific battle against the Japanese represented a war of "racism and terror," where the only way to complete the battle was to "kill them all."
"Does that sound familiar to what we might be going through today?" Hanks said.
When questioned about his comments by a journalist from conservative CNS News, Hanks clarified his remarks, substituting the word "ignorance" for "racism."
"His first statement was absurd," Pearle said. "The fact that he's trying to back out of that indicates how ignorant the first statement was."
It appears there's no backtracking when Hollywood and politics meet.
Bill O'Reilly has taken swipes at Hanks on three different occasions. In one, he said Hanks has "gone off the rails." In another, two nights ago, Karl Rove, who was promoting his new book, joined in.
Rove told O'Reilly, "I didn't write this book with the expectation that it would be picked up by Tom Hanks and Danny Glover and Sean Penn as part of their book club. He is impervious to rational discussion. He has no intellectual curiosity."
It remains to be seen how Hanks' new series will do in light of his comments. Viewers have shown they can be fickle about war films.
The success of "The Hurt Locker" at the box office and the Academy Awards was a first for films about the Iraq conflict, although conservatives have largely championed that film as apolitical. The dismal box office showing of "The Green Zone," the Iraq war film helmed by Matt Damon, has been more typical of the response to films about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Success of HURT LOCKER? The Success? The film cost $15 million to produce and it has brought in $15 million. THAT is NOT success. If it brings in $20 you are looking at something less than a miserable failure. ANyone knows that to be considered a success you need to make back a portion of the cost plus the cost. Who is trying to alter history here? ABC News Entertainment?
Conservatives have implied that politics are sinking "The Green Zone," since the film, directed by "United 93" director Paul Greengrass, focuses on the touchy area of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Politics and Hollywood
In the New York Times, conservative columnist Ross Douthat said "The Green Zone" refuses to "stare real tragedy in the face, preferring the comforts of a 'Bush lied, people died.'"
"Throw politics into the mix, and there seems to be no escaping the cliches and simplifications that mar Greengrass's movie," Douthat said.
Clearly, politics and Hollywood are a combination guaranteed to cause controversy.
Iraq
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments