Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: Phoney Baloney - (What George Clooney and the rest of the Oscar crowd have served up)
National Review ^ | Feebruary 27, 2005 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 02/10/2006 11:14:39 AM PST by UnklGene

Phoney Baloney -

That’s what George Clooney and the rest of the Oscar crowd have served up

MARK STEYN

In Heinrich Mann’s novel Der Untertan, written just before the Great War, the central character, Diederich, is asked by Buck, “You do not know whom history will designate as the representative type of this era?”

“The Emperor,” says Diederich.

“No,” replies Buck. “The actor.”

And how. George Clooney’s triple Oscar nominations for acting, writing, and directing are said to be a significant moment in the life of the nation, and not just by George Clooney, though his effusions on his own “bravery” certainly set a high mark. “We jumped in on our own,” he said, discussing Good Night, and Good Luck with Entertainment Weekly. “And there was no reason to think it was going to get any easier. But people in Hollywood do seem to be getting more comfortable with making these sorts of movies now. People are becoming braver.”

Wow. He was brave enough to make a movie about Islam’s treatment of women? Oh, no, wait. That was the Dutch director Theo van Gogh: He had his throat cut and half-a-dozen bullets pumped into him by an enraged Muslim who left an explanatory note pinned to the dagger he stuck in his chest. At last year’s Oscars, the Hollywood crowd were too busy championing the “right to dissent” in the Bushitler tyranny to find room even to namecheck Mr. van Gogh in the montage of the deceased. Bad karma. Good night, and good luck.

No, Mr. Clooney was the fellow “brave” enough to make a movie about — cue drumroll as I open the envelope for Most Predictable Direction — the McCarthy era!

How about that? I don’t know about you but I was getting so sick of the sycophantic Joe McCarthy biopics churned out year in year out — Nathan Lane in McCarthy! The Musical was the final straw — that thank God someone finally had the “bravery” to exercise his “right to dissent.” I only hope George Clooney isn’t found dead in the street at the hands of some crazed nonagenarian HUAC member.

He’s got some tough competition, of course. This year’s five Best Picture nominees are all “films that broach the tough issues,” as USA Today put it: “Brokeback and Capote for their portrayal of gay characters; Crash for its examination of racial tension; Night for its call for more watchdog journalism; and Munich for its take.” Whoops, my mistake. That should be “Munich for its take on terrorism.” In their combined take at the box office, these Best Picture nominees have the lowest grosses since 1986. That means very few people have seen them. Which in turn means these Oscars are likely to have the lowest audience ever. Okay, maybe not ever. In 1929, they handed them out to an audience of 270 in the Blossom Room at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, and no doubt by the time you add in overseas viewership from the many chapters of the Jon Stewart Fan Club this year’s audience will be up around 309.

The fact that hardly anybody has seen these films does not in and of itself mean that they’re not artistic masterpieces. That’s why the Oscars are important: They can shine a light on undeservedly neglected art-house jewels that might otherwise get overlooked. But you couldn’t exactly call Brokeback Mountain overlooked. It’s the Jungfrau, it’s the peak of cinematic achievement. It’s an Everest papered from base camp to summit in rave reviews. And in the week the Oscar nominations were announced the world’s most ballyhooed art-house obscurity added another 435 theaters to its outlets — and business declined 13 percent.

Maybe it’s because Americans are homophobes. Or maybe it’s because these films are not as “controversial” as Hollywood thinks. The more artful leftie websites have taken to complaining that the Religious Right deliberately killed Brokeback at the box office by declining to get mad about it. Look at Tinky-Winky in the Teletubbies: Those fundamentalist whack-jobs denounce him as an obvious fruit and the guy never looks back — he’s at his beach house in Malibu sipping margaritas and eyeing up the poolboy. But make a film that’s hailed as a gay masterpiece and Pat Robertson can’t even arrange a lousy multiplex in Dubuque that gets struck by lightning just for showing it.

TRUE ROMANCES Well, who knows? Perhaps next time they should make it two gay sheep herders in, say, Medina, or a gay Pashtun goatherd and a gay Uzbek warlord: The Mohammedans Go to the Mountain — that should light up the box office. Or perhaps they could make Broke Back Toutin’, a film about an American media utterly exhausted by its frantic efforts to flog these movies to a general audience. As it is, Hollywood’s new reputation for “serious” “challenging” “works” seems merely the dinner-theater production of the usual self-reinforcing Democrat-media bubble. A filmmaker makes a film about a courageous pressman and the pressmen hail him as a courageous filmmaker for doing so. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal have nothing on the romance between George Clooney and the world’s press. The “serious” press, that is, even though they sound like a cover story in Forty-Seventeen. Here’s the Observer in London:

“How a Heart-Throb Became the Voice of Liberal America: George Clooney was once famous for his party lifestyle and the beautiful women that he dated. Now it’s politics that increasingly sets his pulse racing.”

And evidently the reporter’s too. That ran not in the entertainment section but on the news pages. “I’m an old-time liberal and I don’t apologize for it,” Clooney told Newsweek.

Good for him. And certainly, regardless of how liberal he is, he’s undeniably “old-time.” I don’t mean in the sense that he has the gloss of an old-time movie star, the nearest our age comes to the sheen of Cary Grant in a Stanley Donen picture, but that his politics are blessedly undisturbed by any developments on the global scene since circa 1974. Clooney’s other Oscar movie, Syriana, in which he stars and exec-produces, reveals that behind a murky Middle East conspiracy lies . . . the CIA and Big Oil! In Good Night, and Good Luck, he’s produced a film set in the McCarthy era that could have been made in the Jimmy Carter era. That’s to say, it takes into account absolutely nothing that has come to light in the last quarter-century — not least the relevant KGB files on Soviet penetration of America. To take one example that could stand for Clooney’s entire approach to the subject, Good Night includes shocking scenes of Senator McCarthy accusing Annie Lee Moss, who worked in a highly sensitive decoding job in the Pentagon, of being a Communist, and the heroic Edward R. Murrow then denouncing McCarthy’s behavior.

But we now know, from the party’s own files, that Miss Moss was, indeed, a Communist. What should we conclude from the absence of this detail in the picture? That Clooney, who goes around boasting that every moment in the screenplay has been “double-sourced” for accuracy, simply doesn’t know she’s a Commie? Or that he does know but thinks it’s harmless? That she, like he and Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, is merely exercising her all-American “right to dissent,” in her case in the Pentagon Signal Corps’ code room? If so, that’s a subtly different argument than Murrow was making: It’s one thing to argue that it’s all a paranoid fantasy on the part of obsessed Red-baiters, quite another to shrug, hey, sure they were Commies, but what’s the big deal?

Or is it that Clooney doesn’t care either way? That what matters is the “meta-narrative” — the journalist as hero, “speaking truth to power,” no matter if the journalist is wrong and wields more power than most politicians. Even if one discounts the awkward fact that these days CBS News is better known for speaking twaddle to power — over the fake National Guard memos to which Dan Rather remains so attached — the reality is that the idea of the big media crusader simply doesn’t resonate with any section of the American public other than the big media themselves. Indeed, if you wanted to create a film designed to elicit rave reviews from the critics, you could hardly do better than a McCarthy-era story built around a Watergate-style heroic reporter, unless you made the reporter gay. The media seem to have fallen for it, with the splendid exception of Armond White in the New York Press who said Clooney was far more hagiographic of his subject than Mel Gibson was in The Passion of the Christ.

This is the Platonic reductio of political art. Say what you like about those Hollywood guys in the Thirties but they were serious about their leftism. Say what you like about those Hollywood guys in the Seventies but they were serious about their outrage at what was done to the lefties in the McCarthy era — though they might have been better directing their anger at the movie-industry muscle that enforced the blacklist. By comparison, Clooney’s is no more than a pose — he’s acting at activism, new Hollywood mimicking old Hollywood’s robust defense of even older Hollywood. He’s more taken by the idea of “speaking truth to power” than by the footling question of whether the truth he’s speaking to power is actually true.

That’s why Hollywood prefers to make “controversial” films about controversies that are settled, rousing itself to fight battles long won. Go back to USA Today’s approving list of Hollywood’s willingness to “broach the tough issues”: “Brokeback and Capote for their portrayal of gay characters; Crash for its examination of racial tension . . .” That might have been “bold” “courageous” movie-making half-a-century ago. Ever seen the Dirk Bogarde film Victim? He plays a respectable married barrister whose latest case threatens to expose his homosexuality. That was 1961, when homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom and Bogarde was the British movie industry’s matinee idol and every schoolgirl’s pinup: That’s brave. Doing it at a time when your typical conservative politician gets denounced as “homophobic” because he’s only in favor of civil unions is just an exercise in moral self-congratulation. And, unlike the media, most of the American people are savvy enough to conclude that by definition that doesn’t require their participation.

A KNOWN WOMAN These films are “transgressive” mostly in the sense that Transamerica is transsexual. I like Felicity Huffman and all, and I’m not up to speed with the latest strictures on identity-group casting, but isn’t it a bit condescending to get a lifelong woman (or whatever the expression is) to play a transsexual? If Hollywood announced Al Jolson would be playing Martin Luther King Jr., I’m sure Denzel Washington & Co. would have something to say about it. Were no transsexual actresses available for this role? I know at least one, personally, and there was a transsexual Bond girl in the late Roger Moore era who looked incredibly hot, albeit with a voice several octaves below Paul Robeson. What about that cutie with the very fetching Adam’s apple from The Crying Game? And, just as Transamerica’s allegedly unconventional woman is a perfectly conventional woman underneath, so the entire slate of Oscar nominees is, in a broader sense, a phalanx of Felicity Huffmans. That’s to say, they’re dressing up daringly and flouncing around as controversy, but underneath they’re simply the conventional wisdom. Indeed, “Transamerica” would make a good name for Hollywood’s view of its domestic market — a bizarro United States run by racists and homophobes and a poodle media in thrall to the administration.

You can certainly find new wrinkles on “racial tensions” — Abie’s Wahhabi Rose? — but Hollywood “controversy” seems more an evasion of controversy. If you want it in a single word, it’s the difference between the title of George Jonas’s original book — Vengeance — and the title of the film Steven Spielberg made of it — Munich. Vengeance is a point of view, Munich is a round of self-applause for the point of view that having no point of view is the most sophisticated point of view of all — a position whose empty smugness is most deftly summarized by the final shot of the movie, the Twin Towers on the New York skyline. For a serious film, it would be hard to end on a more fundamentally unserious note.

But then it’s hard to be serious when you’ve made a virtue of dodging the tough choices of the age. The BritLit blockbusters currently keeping Hollywood afloat — Harry Potter, Narnia, Lord of the Rings — may be ghastly multiplex crowd-pleasers unworthy of great artists like George Clooney but they’re not a retreat to the periphery in the way that Hollywood “seriousness” is. Spielberg’s lingering shot of the World Trade Center wasn’t even the most exquisitely framed banality of the year. That honor goes to The Constant Gardener, which may yet win Rachel Weisz an Oscar for her role as a passionate anti-globalization activist who dies in mysterious circumstances. At one point Ralph Fiennes is doing his signature stare, peering elliptically into the distance, when the camera pulls back to show him as a little stick figure dwarfed by the mega-multinational pharmaceutical company’s corporate headquarters he’s standing outside.

Oh, come off it. The Constant Gardener is distributed by Universal Pictures. Don’t they have a big office? If King Kong’s standing outside waiting to get past security to find out why his residuals check has bounced, then Universal might look like some little Mom ’n’ Pop operation. But stick any of the rest of us on the sidewalk and we’d be like Ralph Fiennes outside Big Pharma. That’s Hollywood: No one lavishes more care and expense on saying nothing.

Three months after 9/11, George Clooney was asked what he wanted for Christmas. “I want,” he said, “one day when nobody is getting shot at. Call a truce for a day.” Our own Jay Nordlinger remarked at the time that this was “a child’s response,” correctly noting “the implied moral randomness . . . People are just shooting at each other, you know, and shooting at each other is bad.” If you want stories about journalists, nobody was shooting on the day the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl had his head sawed off. If you want stories about “racial tensions,” nobody was shooting on the day British expat Ken Bigley was similarly decapitated. Hollywood’s “bravery” is an almost pathological retreat: It’s against segregated drinking fountains in Alabama and blacklisting writers on 1950s variety shows. It’s in danger of becoming an oldies station with only three records.

I noticed the other day that Nigeria now has the third biggest movie industry in the world, after Hollywood and Bollywood. In the showbiz capital of West Africa, you can make a feature for 40,000 bucks. What talk radio did to network news and the Internet is doing to monopoly newspapers, someone will eventually do to the big studios, and one day we may wind up with a Hollywood in which, as Clooney might say, nothing is getting shot. In the meantime, Danish cartoonists are in hiding for their lives but George Clooney will be televised around the world picking up an award for his bravery.

Mr. Steyn is NR’s back-page columnist, and a writer for many other publications. His website is www.MarkSteyn.com.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: hollywood; oscars; steyn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2006 11:14:42 AM PST by UnklGene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: UnklGene


2 posted on 02/10/2006 11:21:40 AM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Speaking twaddle to power. I'll have to remember that.


3 posted on 02/10/2006 11:23:11 AM PST by Daralundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Steyn bump


4 posted on 02/10/2006 11:27:55 AM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Brilliant!


5 posted on 02/10/2006 11:29:20 AM PST by Uncledave (It takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Mark Steyn should host the Academy Awards, not that metrosexual snot, Jon Stewart.


6 posted on 02/10/2006 11:29:37 AM PST by GianniV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
What more can one say about Steyn. I detect a bit of Dave Barry in him in some of this piece. Steyn is simply excellent, I wish he were my cousin, or uncle. He is able to shame, in a comic way, the Left, in a way I would have thought impossible. Believe it or not, this type of reasoning may be more effective on liberals (because they are all about FEELINGS..), than straight, rational prose.

And, just as Transamerica’s allegedly unconventional woman is a perfectly conventional woman underneath, so the entire slate of Oscar nominees is, in a broader sense, a phalanx of Felicity Huffmans. That’s to say, they’re dressing up daringly and flouncing around as controversy, but underneath they’re simply the conventional wisdom. Indeed, “Transamerica” would make a good name for Hollywood’s view of its domestic market — a bizarro United States run by racists and homophobes and a poodle media in thrall to the administration.

Hollywood IS a bunch of posers these days. It is embarrassing,

7 posted on 02/10/2006 11:31:11 AM PST by Paradox (Liberalism is Narcissism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Long piece, but right on the money.


8 posted on 02/10/2006 11:32:10 AM PST by vabeachrepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Hey George - join the friggin' Marines and get your ass over to Iraq and fight, you liberal coward.

You are not "brave." What a tool.


9 posted on 02/10/2006 11:33:19 AM PST by GianniV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GianniV
Can an artist even be brave strictly through their art?
10 posted on 02/10/2006 11:35:40 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball

Steyn is a treasure.


11 posted on 02/10/2006 11:36:47 AM PST by MarxSux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
LOL:

TRUE ROMANCES Well, who knows? Perhaps next time they should make it two gay sheep herders in, say, Medina, or a gay Pashtun goatherd and a gay Uzbek warlord: The Mohammedans Go to the Mountain — that should light up the box office. Or perhaps they could make Broke Back Toutin’, a film about an American media utterly exhausted by its frantic efforts to flog these movies to a general audience. As it is, Hollywood’s new reputation for “serious” “challenging” “works” seems merely the dinner-theater production of the usual self-reinforcing Democrat-media bubble.

12 posted on 02/10/2006 11:37:32 AM PST by GOPJ (Radical Muslims want women covered. Will cowardly newspapers drop lingerie ads?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

ping


13 posted on 02/10/2006 11:39:16 AM PST by eureka! (Hey Lefties and 'Rats: Over 3 more years of W. Hehehehe....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
“a child’s response”

That appears to be all the left is capable of. If true, and the left is unable to rise to the level of mature thought and discourse, then they need to be treated as children...and can not be allowed in power. You don't let a 5 year old drive a car.

14 posted on 02/10/2006 11:39:34 AM PST by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
What more can one say about Steyn.

I agree. I just hope he keeps on keepin' on. I try to make certain I do not stay in the office late on Thursdays so as not to miss any of Steyn's semi-regular appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show. Yesterday, Steyn even took Hewitt to task for his head-in-the-sand approach to the Muslim Cartoon riots. Steyn said the muslims in Europe are pushing the envelope over there, "like a prospective homeowner contemplating buying a new house, who wants the kitchen redone before he moves in". Steyn says these riots and such are the Muslims' way of "re-doing the kitchen before taking posession of their new home".

Great analogy.

15 posted on 02/10/2006 11:39:37 AM PST by Sans-Culotte (Meadows Place, TX-"Tom DeLay Country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Transportation to the Grammy's provided by, Oscar Mayer!
16 posted on 02/10/2006 11:42:27 AM PST by TheForceOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Steyn is a genius, there is no question about that. He's dead on about almost everything he chooses to comment on. He's funny and witty and ironic and satiric, but he cannot shame the left.

He can't shame the left anymore than a great chef can make an apple pie out of mud (and thanks to Robert Heinlein). They are incapable of being shamed. Like a rock is incapable of being shamed. They have no consciousness of shame. And the rock is easier to educate.
17 posted on 02/10/2006 11:44:27 AM PST by chesley (Liberals...what's not to loathe?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Steyn is awesome. Thanks for posting. I love that guy. :)


18 posted on 02/10/2006 11:44:31 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
It’s in danger of becoming an oldies station with only three records.

My favorite line of an excellent article.

19 posted on 02/10/2006 11:46:50 AM PST by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
In their combined take at the box office, these Best Picture nominees have the lowest grosses since 1986.

Of course. Americans don't take easily to propaganda, filth, and lies.

20 posted on 02/10/2006 11:47:05 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

As alswys Steyn nails it. Reading him is like enjoying a glass of fine wine.


21 posted on 02/10/2006 11:50:42 AM PST by blueknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Check out this from an article on Clooney in the Guardian today:

""Oh yeah," [Clooney] says, "they put me on the cover of a magazine with a banner across my chest that said 'traitor'. . . .

His response to the traitor incident was to put together a montage of prominent people on the anti-war side, including the pope, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela and Pat Buchanan (a hard-right commentator in the US) and drape the word "traitors" across them, too. "Then I made 800 fliers anonymously and sent them to everyone in the media. And I waited. And Dan Rather [CBS news anchor] called me and said, have you seen this flier that's going around? And I said, 'My quote would be, the Pope and I can take it, but don't pick on Pat Buchanan.'" [Clooney] grins."

He admits to anonymously doing something which without question was used as evidence of Republican scare tactics. That's a story if you ask me.


22 posted on 02/10/2006 11:51:12 AM PST by hoyaloya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
"If Hollywood announced Al Jolson would be playing Martin Luther King Jr., I’m sure Denzel Washington & Co. would have something to say about it."

Depends on whether Al Jolson was a Democrat or not. I didn't see Denzel & Co. getting upset when the role of 'First Black President' or 'Second Black President Wannabe' were played by white men.

23 posted on 02/10/2006 11:51:21 AM PST by Jaxter ("Vivit Post Funera Virtus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
And this exactly how shallow and transparent the Hollywood crowd is. Yet, they yearn for everyone to take them seriously, and not the mere clowns and jesters they are.
24 posted on 02/10/2006 11:52:50 AM PST by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarxSux

Mark Steyn is a teasure
along with ann coulter, thomas sowell and victor david hansen.
And the left has molly ivans.
Close call.


25 posted on 02/10/2006 11:55:20 AM PST by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Can an artist even be brave strictly through their art?

Sure they can. Steyn made this point himself in referring to Theo Van Gogh, though I'd argue that any film-maker willing to tackle the subject of Islam in the wake of Van Gogh's death is braver than Van Gogh himself was. It'd certainly take an act of bravery for Salman Rushdie to write "Satanic Verses II".
26 posted on 02/10/2006 12:04:38 PM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Now you've done it...
;O)
27 posted on 02/10/2006 12:05:55 PM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene; Pokey78
Greetings Pokey78......I have not been around as much as in the past, but it is my pleasure to ping you to a complete, unexcerpted Steyn article!!

Lando

28 posted on 02/10/2006 12:09:29 PM PST by Lando Lincoln (God bless Jared Linskens and his family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GianniV

How about Solzhenitsyn, De Sade, of Jean Genet?


29 posted on 02/10/2006 12:09:51 PM PST by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Darn it.....now I notice that someone has beat me to the punch. "sniff"

Lando

30 posted on 02/10/2006 12:11:22 PM PST by Lando Lincoln (God bless Jared Linskens and his family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
Follywood along with its left wing infestation, has rendered itself totally irrelevant.

It is nothing more then a mass of people standing in a huge circle, gratifying themselves. Using their left hand of course.

31 posted on 02/10/2006 12:11:30 PM PST by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

I'm not sure Van Gogh or Rushdie knew what they were getting themselves into.


32 posted on 02/10/2006 12:11:37 PM PST by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
Hollywood’s “bravery” is an almost pathological retreat: It’s against segregated drinking fountains in Alabama and blacklisting writers on 1950s variety shows. It’s in danger of becoming an oldies station with only three records.

That was a cutting and insightful read. “Bravery” is cheap in liberalland.


33 posted on 02/10/2006 12:14:54 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
How about that? I don’t know about you but I was getting so sick of the sycophantic Joe McCarthy biopics churned out year in year out — Nathan Lane in McCarthy! The Musical was the final straw — that thank God someone finally had the “bravery” to exercise his “right to dissent.” I only hope George Clooney isn’t found dead in the street at the hands of some crazed nonagenarian HUAC member.

Wow, ridicule really is an extremely powerful weapon.

34 posted on 02/10/2006 12:15:55 PM PST by untenured (http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stop_fascism
I'm not sure Van Gogh or Rushdie knew what they were getting themselves into.

Van Gogh certainly did. His movie was about what bloodthirsty psychos militant islamics are. They sure proved him wrong, huh?

35 posted on 02/10/2006 12:18:20 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
The end of Hollywood is nigh. Reduced to it's most regressed banality:

Gay Porn.

Hollywood is dead. long live hollywood!

36 posted on 02/10/2006 12:19:43 PM PST by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

Hence control of the levers of power: The Presidency, the senate, the congress, the governorships...


37 posted on 02/10/2006 12:20:44 PM PST by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
I'm so curious to see the Oscar numbers. I understand Fox is counter programming with Bad Boys II, a Will Smith movie.

I think this may be the year the Oscars take a huge hit.(I'm not sure that would be my choice for a counter program though)

38 posted on 02/10/2006 12:21:38 PM PST by lawnguy (Give me some of your tots!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

I thought the flick was about the way Muslims treat women. I'm sure he knew the film was going to upset some people, but did he know he was putting his life in jeodardy?


39 posted on 02/10/2006 12:27:21 PM PST by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Great piece. Too bad Clooney and the rest of the Hollywood limo-revolutionaries aren't smart enough to find, let alone understand, this column.


40 posted on 02/10/2006 12:31:05 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: genghis

I nominate Mike Adams in the treasure category. Got all the bite of Coulter....

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/contributors/mikeadams/archive/2006/


41 posted on 02/10/2006 12:31:06 PM PST by Belasarius (Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward. Job 5:2-7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy

I would love to hear Clooney's comments about this article - that is, if he could understand it.


42 posted on 02/10/2006 12:35:16 PM PST by ClancyJ (The New York Times is Aiding and Abetting the Enemy - They are Traitors and Put Our Families at Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
"This is the Platonic reductio of political art. Say what you like about those Hollywood guys in the Thirties but they were serious about their leftism. Say what you like about those Hollywood guys in the Seventies but they were serious about their outrage at what was done to the lefties in the McCarthy era — though they might have been better directing their anger at the movie-industry muscle that enforced the blacklist. By comparison, Clooney’s is no more than a pose — he’s acting at activism, new Hollywood mimicking old Hollywood’s robust defense of even older Hollywood. He’s more taken by the idea of “speaking truth to power” than by the footling question of whether the truth he’s speaking to power is actually true."

Mark Steyn Salute.

43 posted on 02/10/2006 1:05:35 PM PST by Countyline (God loves you ... He wants you to love Him back; and learn of Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Grotowski and Havel risked their lives doing theatre behind the Iron curtain.


44 posted on 02/10/2006 1:39:08 PM PST by wildcatf4f3 (I'm becoming a performance artist so i can crap on the koran in public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wildcatf4f3

Oh I agree with your assertion. I was really taking objection to the idea that an Artist is a de facto coward.


45 posted on 02/10/2006 1:43:31 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Countyline

It's Postmodern activism!


46 posted on 02/10/2006 1:44:56 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

I haven't watched the Academy Awards in years. Hollywood today is as irrelevant as George Clooney.


47 posted on 02/10/2006 1:51:21 PM PST by Palladin ("Governor Lynn Swann."...it has a nice ring to it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Man, this article deserves some award, somewhere!


48 posted on 02/10/2006 1:56:56 PM PST by roses of sharon ("I would rather men ask why I have no statue, than why I have one". ) (Cato the Elder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
He would have to read it at least 5 times, in between, hiring staff for is Italian Villa.
49 posted on 02/10/2006 1:58:38 PM PST by roses of sharon ("I would rather men ask why I have no statue, than why I have one". ) (Cato the Elder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

4 later read


50 posted on 02/10/2006 3:08:39 PM PST by I_be_tc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson