Posted on 08/15/2007 5:08:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
"[C]onscience," agonizes Hamlet in Act III, Scene I, "does make cowards of us all; / And thus the native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, / And enterprises of great pith and moment / With this regard their currents turn awry, / And lose the name of action."
The tragedy of Hamlet is the tragedy of overweening self-criticism. "If Hamlet is sick," writes theater critic Walter Kerr in his masterpiece, "Tragedy and Comedy," "he is sick with a passion for perfection." Hamlet waits for the perfect moment to kill Claudius, says Kerr, and so misses his opportunity. He wants all women perfect, and so abandons Ophelia to her fate. He wants all friends as trustworthy as Horatio, and so leaves himself vulnerable to Claudius and Laertes, losing his life and his throne.
Self-criticism is valuable and necessary. Without it, we could not correct the mistakes of the past. But reflexive and exclusive self-criticism -- obsession with purity of heart and purity of act at the expense of right action -- is dangerous. While we purify ourselves, our enemies plot against us. Mortal offense cannot be met with self-reflection.
The American left refuses to acknowledge this basic truth. So does its propaganda arm in Hollywood.
Since the Vietnam War, Hollywood has unleashed a torrent of films targeting the American government. Hollywood believes, to quote cartoonist Walt Kelly, that we have met the enemy and he is us. That sentiment has gained renewed momentum since the advent of the war in Iraq.
The latest incarnation of this view is "The Bourne Ultimatum," featuring Matt Damon in the title role. The movie is tremendously entertaining -- the action sequences are some of the best ever filmed -- but the message is familiar: The CIA is corrupt and evil. CIA higher-ups, played by character actors like Scott Glenn and David Strathairn, pontificate about the need for more authority while blithely ordering the murder of the rogue hero. Bourne, meanwhile, tries to contact the good apple in the bad barrel, Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), in order to discover his own background. In order for Bourne to succeed, he will have to take down much of the bankrupt CIA infrastructure.
It's great popcorn entertainment, but bad politics. It's also part of a broader pattern of recent anti-American claptrap. 2007 brought us "Shooter," directed by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Antoine Fuqua, an inane Mark Wahlberg vehicle in which a Dick Cheney caricature (Ned Beatty) -- the character is a tubby, balding six-term senator from Montana who fancies hunting, remarks casually that democracy is problematic, and laughs maniacally that the war in Iraq is about oil -- organizes the slaughter of an African village and the assassination of an Ethiopian archbishop in order to secure the building of an oil pipeline. The film's dialogue is atrocious -- one of the villains, played by Danny Glover, growls at one point that he can't be found guilty for his actions because "this is the land of the free and the home of the brave."
"Shooter" received plaudits for its politics from the movie reviewers. Richard Corliss of Time magazine lamented that there wasn't a real hero to face down the "monstrously real problems" and "plausible" conspiracy theories addressed by "Shooter." Manohla Dargis of The New York Times saw the film, remarkably enough, as a combination of "live-free-or-die vibe [and] deep-fried gun-and-flag fetishism."
"Shooter" and "Bourne" are just the beginning. Later this year, Hollywood will release "Lions for Lambs" (Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep), in all likelihood an anti-war on terror screed; "Grace is Gone" (John Cusack), an anti-war flick about the husband of an American soldier killed in the war on terror; "Rendition" (Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal), another "the CIA is so evil, they're torturing my husband" piece; and "The Torturer," sloganned "In a post-9/11 world, no one can hear you scream."
America should scrutinize her own policies. There is a difference, however, between self-scrutiny and self-flagellation designed to cripple the will to action. Hollywood recognizes no such distinction.
For Hollywood, self-criticism is heroism. Hamlet is a hero while he vacillates, a villain once he acts. The only heroes worth their salt, according to Hollywood, are those who resist the government's war on terror; those who fight terror simply aren't self-reflective enough.
There's only one problem: When it comes to destroying America, the self-reflective anti-heroes of Hollywood and Islamic terrorists join hands. Terrorists will take allies wherever they can find them. And Hollywood is certainly a convenient ally.
“For Hollywood, self-criticism is heroism.”
Unless it’s criticism of Hollywood; then it’s unforgivable apostasy.
Oh, ferchrisakes, it’s just a movie, and a damned entertaining one at that. The plot of the “evil” CIA attempting to kill Bourne is entirely consistent with the original book (these three movies really only roughly covering the plot of the book “The Bourne Identity”) and the first two movies. OK, maybe it is played up a little bit more than necessary, for dramatic effect, but I hardly think it is making a serious political statement or that anyone is likely to take it as such. Sometimes a movie is just a harmless piece of entertainment.
which is why hollyweird does not get american dollars.
Claims of “its just a movie” are just the viral justifacation of paid spokesmen for hollyweird. It is not “just a movie” it is a message.
Exactly...
You could also make the political argument that the CIA is populated with Socialist scum like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and of course a Jason Bourne character would be a protagonist in such a situation.
Actually, the CIA, or at least part of it, does appear to be corrupt and evil, but not in the way Hollywood believes. The CIA, which is packed with liberals, appears to constantly leak classified information about our national security to the likes of Seymour Hersh and Walter Pincus and other members of the press. They appear to have their own foreign policy and undermine the policies of our elected leaders without consequence, and the one guy, Porter Goss, who tried to clean the place up, got run off. Instead of people like Jason Bourne, the CIA actually relies on people like Valerie Lame and Joe Wilson.
Tell that to Bill O'Reilly. LOL
http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=21662
If someone, say Mel Gibson, makes a movie depicting the crucifixion, then they all get worried that it will inspire anti-Semitic rioting around the world! Two-faced b*st*rds!
Harmless? I wonder.
Undoubtedly you or I would see it as merely harmless entertainment. But I am not so sure how foreign audiences are affected by it. (And increasingly, these films are being made with foreign audiences in mind.) Anti-American films could have a strong negative influence on those who have no other frame of reference regarding the United States.
For that matter, I have encountered far too many Americans whose world view is based on what they see in the entertainment media. Consequently, much of what they think they know is false—and some of them vote.
Very true. Just a bunch of spoiled lib bureaucrats with an unlimited budget, secure as tenured professors in their jobs.... What was the last thing they got right? The collapse of the Soviet Union? Oops, missed that one! Hussein invading Kuwait? Oops again. Stopping OBL and maybe preventing 9/11? Sorry - missed that one too!
Years ago, someone told me that the CIA was full of would-be academics who couldn't get jobs in the universities. It seems that he was right.
Well, then, one could also look a little closer and see that the “evil” CIA depicted in the movie is actually a rogue element acting outside gov’t approvals or even normal CIA channels, and that at the end of the movie the rogue elements have been exposed and are being investigated.
Seriously, I think only slightly paranoid “conservatives” who are always on the lookout for something to get offended by will take the movie that way. But, whatever, I enjoyed it a lot, anyway, and would happily recommend it to anyone else who enjoys a good, intelligent action flick (as opposed to another rehashed comic book hero movie).
I am sure, and can tell you from personal experience that many people in foreign countries hold the most absurd anti-American notions as true, and that their impressions are generally formed from two sources: news filtered through biased anti-American media, and the endless ridiculous anti-American plots and messages packed into Hollywood entertainment in movies as well as television programming syndicated to foreign networks. Many people hold these views despite personally knowing Americans and even despite visiting the U.S. This really does hurt us out there in the real world.
As conservatives we do not advocate censorship, but it is right for Americans to be calling Hollywood on this as often and loudly as possible. Strangely, some people seem to be of the view that more entertaining a movie is, the less important are the underlying anti-American messages that it may contain.
The following paragraphs are taken from "Damon was born to be Jason Bourne" (registration required), Barry Koltnow's Chicago Tribune interview with Matt Damon:
In "The Bourne Identity," the CIA-trained killer suffers from amnesia and tries to assemble the pieces of his life. In the first sequel "The Bourne Supremacy," Bourne seeks revenge against the people who killed his girlfriend. Now, in "The Bourne Ultimatum," Bourne is again the target of rogue CIA agents, but this time he returns to New York to find those responsible for making him into a monster.All three films are based on the late Robert Ludlum's best-selling Cold War novels.
"Both the novels and the films are products of their respective times," Damon said. "Doug [Limon] always said that he was turning what is basically a Republican book into a Democratic movie."
Enough said.
Yes, that is my experience also.
I think of it this way: We are in a war, and have been for years. In war, the opposing sides use propaganda to influence the hearts and minds of people, both at home and abroad. In this particular war, Hollywood serves as the propaganda arm of our enemies.
As conservatives we do not advocate censorship, but it is right for Americans to be calling Hollywood on this as often and loudly as possible. Strangely, some people seem to be of the view that more entertaining a movie is, the less important are the underlying anti-American messages that it may contain.
No, censorship is not the answer, even if it were feasible. We have to do something more.
I have long thought that despite our political successes, conservatives have been losing the culture wars. Until we can take back the culture, our political and economic gains will ultimately amount to nothing.
Muslims must be good because they're never featured as 'bad guys' in Hollyweird releases.
Note to Ben: “The CIA is corrupt and evil.”
I saw this moron on the Actors Studio where he took a cheap shot at President Bush, (as if he really knew George Bush,) insinuating that GWB was stupid. He then proceeded to tell how everyone in Boston used the slang word for fornication (i.e. F*C*) in so many creative ways. Brilliant.
I turned it off.
So what exactly is the problem there?
“So what exactly is the problem there?”
During Democrat administrations we get movies where the president flies jets and fights terrorists, leads a fighter squadron to destroy alien invaders, and warms our hearts with his affection for a cute little lobbyist.
During Republican administrations we get movies where the government is pure evil.
There’s the problem.
Isn't the rogue element plot design getting a little thin? That idea was already done in "Six Days Of the Condor" with Robert Redford (naturally). "No Way Out" with Kevin Costner was another one. Rogue elements in the government going around killing innocent people has been done to death (no pun intended) by Hollyweird. The plot sounds more absurd and risable rather than something to become paranoid over.
Oh no!! Someone dares to criticize the government!! Whatever will we do? Oh that's right, the government is not the nation. So I really don't care.
Sounds like a good movie. I sort of liked the second one but never saw the first one. If the author of this piece doesn't believe there's corruption in government (and not just 'dern liberals') he's fooling himself.
“Oh, ferchrisakes, it’s just a movie, and a damned entertaining one at that.”
Which should be a dead giveaway that the “Bourne” movies are based on *books*, written by Robert Ludlum, a long time ago (sorry, the books are packed for a move so I can’t give the publication dates) Suffice it to say, “The Bourne Identity” is old enough that the *original* movie starred Richard Chamberlain and, I think, Jacklyn Smith. ;)
Ah, but that’s a different story.
The article only talks about Hollywood casting the government as a villain since the Vietnam war.
I’m still wondering what the problem is with that.
“I’m still wondering what the problem is with that.”
Well, first, it’s not accurate. The government is quite often the hero, as I pointed out. It’s just not the hero when Republicans are in the white house.
Then your argument is with the writer of the article, not with me.
Your issue is with the factual basis. I took exception to the conclusion he drew from those facts....
BUMP!
I think it acts like background music or background noise. It influences you without your thinking about it.
But on the popcorn level, there is something about these movies that leaves me very cold. It could be that Bourne seems like a robot more than a person. Or maybe it's the fact that very few of the characters are developed at all. The other characters function as either cannon fodder or scene fodder. I have to admit, the action sequences are fun to watch. But deep down, the movies feel soulless.
When liberals make movies, the movies will have liberal slants. When liberals sing songs, the lyrics will have a liberal message.
I’ll still enjoy the movie I imagine and have oten been impressed by the musical abilities of sworn left wingers.
For politics I’ll still listen to RUSH , read the WSJ/NY Post editorial pages, and watch FOX.
Michael Medved said it best some time ago. Before and during WWII, Hollywood producers loved America and encouraged millions around the world to love it, too, through their movies. Today, Hollywood producers tend to hate American and that, too, shows, encouraging millions around the world to follow their lead.
Overdone? Cliched? Possibly so. Like I said though, the movie does reflect the plot of the original book it was based on.
For one thing, Hollywood tends to depict our government much more harshly than our real enemies in the world.
Consider: How many times are monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hönecker, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Castro or Guevara depicted as villains in the movies? How about Saddam Hussein, bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Ahmajinidad, or Mugabe?
Hollywood's refusal to deal seriously with America's communist enemies is discussed very well in this article. It would appear that not much has changed.
If you are referring to The Bourne Identity, no that is not correct.
Key changes were made from the book to the movie to make the plot much more anti-American.
In the book, Jason Bourne is part of CIA unit sent to go after a leftwing terrorist, Carlos the Jackal. He poses as a fellow assassin in order to entrap Carlos, in the course of which he gets wounded, loses his memory, finds his way to Zurich, etc. The CIA mistakenly thinks Bourne has turned and joined the enemy.
The CIA going after dangerous leftwing terrorists like Carlos the Jackal? No, no that is far too pro-American and right-wing a plot for Hollywood.
Instead, the movie posits the existence of an out-of-control CIA assassination unit (note the point - the US government has no control over its spy agency), and instead of going after a terrorist like Carlos the Jackal, the assignment given to Jason Bourne is to kill an African politician of color who has announced he is planning to write a book exposing the history of the CIA's misdeeds in Africa (note the implication - a bookful of such misdeeds exists and people in the CIA would kill to hush them up). Bourne has second thoughts in the course of carrying out the attempted assassination of the CIA critic, is wounded, loses his memory, makes his way to Zurich, etc.
Quite a difference in the plot in my opinion.
Sorry, but I just don’t feel the outrage. These are popcorn action movies. They have to have villains, and it’s not easy coming up with plausible villains because most conspiracies don’t make any sense and would never hold together. Having a rogue black-ops department is SOP in the villian-manufacturing business.
The fun part of this genre is watching the reluctant hero out-wit and out-fight the villians, even when he or she is heavily outnumbered and outgunned. Jason Bourne just wanted to be left alone, until they killed his woman in the second movie. Mark Wahlberg in The Shooter was minding his own business until he was conned into trying to prevent an assassination and then framed. Geena Davis in The Long Kiss Goodnight was an amnesiac living the happy suburban SUV-mom life until sucked back into her former spy world.
In each case the hero or heroine calls upon their special combat skills to defeat enormous odds and give the villains their just desserts. I look at it as a celebration of individualism and competence and morality.
If other people want to view every movie and every actor through a political lense, and critique it on political grounds, that’s their problem. As for me, I’m going to pop a DVD in the player, fire up my new 52” LCD TV, and get another bowl of popcorn.
Well, I’ll give you that. I have read all the books, by the way, more than once in fact. Of cours,e Carlos the Jackal is no longer relevant today, and while they could have reworked the plot to posit a contemporary analog to him, I think that would have made the plot much too complex for the type of movie they were trying to produce. Note how successful this series of movies has been compared to the previous attempt to dramatize “The Bourne Identity”. Maybe I’ve just become inured to Hollywood portrayals of the CIA and NSA as all-seeing, all-knowing agencies with nefarious goals, but I didn’t give it a second thought when watching these movies, and just accepted it as part of a fictional movie plot.
I’m with you, and I look forward to watching all of these movies again in high-def, once the prices on Blu-ray and/or HD-DVD players come down.
“Rogue elements in the government going around killing innocent people has been done to death “
Think the Clintons in Arkansas. Stuff like that can happen.
bttt
Damon is the classic example of a movie star as opposed to an actor. He is charismatic and popular and basically plays Matt Damon in every movie, regardless of the role. This was painfully on display in "The Departed" where he was surrounded by a quailty cast which did a great job of creating memorable characters while Matt Damon, once again, played Matt Damon.
So because the movie is based on a book, it therefore can’t be intended to carry a political message?
Please explain. I want to see how this argument works.
IIRC, the original book had Bourne in danger from the CIA because they believed HE was a rogue agent who might murder innocent folks instead of killing a terrorist. In that scenario, the CIA is trying to protect innocent people - they just don’t know Bourne is OK.
Very different from the movies.
The latest incarnation of this view is "The Bourne Ultimatum," featuring Matt Damon in the title role. The movie is tremendously entertaining -- the action sequences are some of the best ever filmed -- but the message is familiar: The CIA government is corrupt and evil
There fixed it...
I guess I'm just carping about the general trend of the movie industry to depict everyone if government as evil creeps who go around murdering anyone who doesn't like them. I realize that the industry is made up a very paranoid, liberal morons, but it would be nice to see a movie where government agents are actually the good guys. Apart from Clint Eastwood who makes movies like that? Another flick about rogue elements in the CIA just doesn't do it for me. Now a movie about the CIA or the FBI trying to stop crazy leftists from accomodating radical Islamic terrorists, now that might be an interesting flick.
I look forward to seeing The Bourne Ultimatum. The first two Bourne movies were great.
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.