Posted on 03/07/2003 4:27:26 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Tears of the Sun, Bruce Willis' new film, is opening on March 7. He plays Lt. A.K. Waters involved in a search and rescue mission for a doctor stationed in the jungles of Nigeria.
Uh-oh, the Republican actor is pissing in the pool of the Left again. The progressive elite in Hollywood still hasn’t forgiven Willis for his heresy mouthed before the 2000 election: "If you guys vote for Al Gore, you're out of your minds… Gore's a knucklehead… just the lying and mendacity of the last eight years of the regime that Al Gore was a part and parcel of…
Now you know why the Left hates Bruce Willis?
As a script writer and director, I have witnessed this reality personally for years. It disgusts my colleagues, all of whom are cutting-edge leftists, to watch his character running across the screen in a blood-stained undershirt, blasting bullets into the bad anti-American guys. Such images are simply just anathema to the Left.
No wonder all the leftists I know in the industry have obsessed for years with Willis’ so-called "power-couple" marriage with Demi Moore. I have listened to myriad conversations that savaged both of the actors during their separation.
Willis’ chance at achieving any kind of redemption in the eyes of the progressive left hit ground zero when President W. Bush named him as Spokesperson for Children in Foster Care. Then, Willis really broke the radical Party line with his quote: "As a dad, I know how important it is for children to be raised in a loving home." Somewhere here, Willis was implying that a child needed a stable nuclear family in which to be raised. This violated more than just one sacred tenet of the radical agenda.
While Bruce Willis proudly stands shoulder to shoulder with President Bush and the First Lady, unabashedly discussing the needs to nurture American children, his Hollywood peers are foaming at the mouth. The rambling actor Ed Harris reflected the disposition toward Willis well by stating, of our president: "…we've got this guy in the White House who thinks he's a man… and he's a good old boy, and he used to drink and he knows how to shoot a gun… that's not the definition of a man God dammit!
Indeed, shooting a gun, let alone having one, and possessing muscles is definitely not the definition of a man. And using your gun and your muscles to defend America absolutely violates the leftist definition of manhood. Manhood, for the left, is represented more by the likes of a Michael Moore – an obese slob who doesn’t look like he could run more than 10 metres without collapsing into exhaustion or maintain the sexual interest of a woman who looked anything close to Demi Moore for more than 3 ½ seconds. Moore is the definition of man, you see, because he violates the patriarchy’s social construction of the definition of masculinity; better yet, if Saddam Hussein led a massive invasion of America with the whole Arab world’s might behind him, Moore would immediately don Arab-style clothing, start taking lessons in Arabic, and walk around sporting a Koran for everyone to see.
But not Bruce Willis. One of the strongest supporters of the Republican Party (minus a short period when he was warring with Bob Dole), he simply can’t be a "real man" according to the Left, and that is why he has had a large X on his back for years.
Is it really any surprise, therefore, that the left-leaning media consistently fire cheap shots at him? Indeed, how could they even possibly forgive him for failing, unlike every progressive in Hollywood, to grab a microphone at every opportunity to spout off about his latest cause regarding "social justice"? That is why the media continues to drag his character through the mud, criticizing his skills as an actor -- not because of the skills, but because of the political beliefs that underlie them. Bartcop.com comments: "(Bruce Willis) can't act. To be a good actor, you have to surrender yourself into a role… You have to be able to become that person and conservatives don't have heart or any compassion, so they can't act their way out of a paper bag.
And so guess what this is all about?
It is about that Bruce Willis, more than any of his contemporaries, has defined the modern American hero: an average everyman who has undying love for his family; a flawed man who struggles with his weaknesses; a man whose heart is large and instincts strong; a man who exudes masculinity and a competitive spirit that assist him in eventually conquering the "bad" guys; the guys that leftists fantasize about prostrating themselves in front of.
The progressive elites would rather see their heroes in torn jeans and sneakers, ranting and raving about the injustices and oppressiveness of the U.S. government; they want to see a hero who is always angry about the "inequality" bred by capitalism and who proceeds to write a poem about it; a hero who does not own a shred of furniture in his apartment; a hero who is never seen without his bongo drums; the type of person that Bruce Willis can knock over with one punch, let alone one smirk.
The progressive elite is also traumatized by the amount of money Willis is able to garner per film. This trauma has reached a pathological level. At Cynics Sanctuary, a leftist website, they have called the actor overpaid and went so far to make a few calculations: they have learned that it would take an "average Joe" six hundred and sixty-six (6-6-6, get it?) years and eight months to make what Bruce makes in an average film (US $20 million). Where is their outrage about the income of Barbra Streisand?
The truth pierces an eternal pain into the Left’s psyche, because the truth is the unchangeable fact that Bruce Willis generates the business to justify his salary. In other words, the people pay to see him. The same can't be said for a Susan Sarandon, a woman who rakes in millions from her salary from films that don’t make any money because nobody watches them.
The numbers tell the truth and Sarandon is not worth the money she is paid - but there exists not a whisper from the Left on this issue. Perhaps this might be because no leftist wants to focus too much attention on the wealth of another leftist, since if too much attention comes about, it might become evident that Susan, like all of her radical peers, fails to redistribute her wealth in the manner the entire left demands that the capitalist system should do.
But Bruce Willis continues to garner success. And for all of the premature obituaries the Leftist media has written for the patriotic actor, his career has survived all of the set-backs the Left so voraciously relishes (see any review for Hudson Hawk, The Color of Night and Mercury Rising).
And now: Iraq.
Willis’s reaction to the impending Iraq attack was far from that of a confused and disoriented Sean Penn. According to the on-line version of The Evening Standard, "This is London," Willis reacted to his Hollywood peers with immense disgust. News has it that he called President Bush to offer his service to the military in any future invasion of Iraq. He reportedly said that he was "sick of the antiwar attitude" of Hollywood and wanted to place himself beside the men and women who protect the values of the United States. He was informed, however, that at age forty- seven, he was too old to be enlisted.
But Willis is not too old to take his message to the American publicly via the movie screen. Just as America is making a strong case to go to war, Mr. Willis will be playing yet another America hero totting a gun in Tears of the Sun, where he plays a loyal veteran officer of a Navy S.E.A.L unit who is sent into the heart of Africa to rescue a U.S. citizen.
In anticipation of Willis rattling the nerves of the Left again, I happily say: Yipee-kai-aye.
However, I don't think boycotting these boneheaded Hollywood types is effective, because they don't mind losing money making boring movies... as is seen here, they'll be giving these tedious hasbeens more roles "just because". .
Who says there no originality in the film industry?
Rock on, Bruce.
Personally, I thought that Hudson Hawk was one of the funniest movies that I've ever seen, a sheer nonsensical movie of the Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, Marx Brothers type of films.
It's also about the only time that I've been able to stand Sandra Berhard, who plays Minerva Mayflower. In this role, she fits the mold of the character perfectly. Richard E. Grant, as her power-mad husband Darwin Mayflower, is probably better known for his portrayal of the Scarlet Pimpernel on A&E, but he also does a hysterically funny over-the-top villain. James Coburn spoofs himself (going back to the "Our Man Flint" spy movies) as the CIA agent leading a pack of "new kids on the block" code-named after candy bars.
I don't care what anyone says ... much as I enjoyed the animated roto-scoped version of "Lord of the Rings", the roto-scoped animated "Wizards", and all of my Three Stooges, Marx Brothers, Abbott and Costello, and Laurel and Hardy movies, "Hudson Hawk" is a movie that I re-watch at least once a month.
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.