Posted on 07/27/2004 6:38:11 AM PDT by jalisco555
Forget "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Disney, which didn't want to release the controversial nonfiction film because it deemed it too partisan, has another political movie about to be released.
In fact, M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" could turn out to be more anti-Bush and more controversial than "Fahrenheit" simply on an artistic level.
snip
In the case of "The Village," when the cover-up is suggested, it's all you can do not to laugh out knowingly, because the message of the film seems so clear. It's almost as if Shyamalan is saying that the woods — called the "Coventry Woods" here — are the red states.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Anti-Bush? It takes place in the 1800's for cripes sake!
Good point. It jives with the village sheeple covering up the "bad" color of red. Just more Hollyweird vomit to ignore.
I am so sick of the left-wing Hollywood Cult.
My guess is that this guy has politics on the brain and is reading a lot into a little.
I was pondering M. Night Shyamalan's politics the other night as I watched the 2nd movie he made w/ Bruce Willis, and of course, he made a movie with Mel Gibson. Both Willis and Gibson are conservatives, and it got me to wondering.
I think this may be reaching a little.
I really don't think M. Night is trying to do anything but scare the pants off people.
I'm disappointed, as I was looking forward to this movie.
You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I hope you're right. I'd like to see this film and just enjoy it without having to hunt for a not-so-hidden agenda.
isn't Red a constant theme in his movies? I remember a behind the scenes show about the sixth scene where everytime you saw the color Red something was going to happen.
You sound like one of those conspircacy lunies over at DU...
I think it's rather a stretch to say that any movie or story dealing with deception or a cover-up would be implying Bush...
Good grief.
Better yet, have you seen the movie yourself? It's so easy to critique what you haven't even seen.
I usually complain about "needless" excerpting, but you did us all a favor.
Let's not jump to conclusions here. The author doesn't really make the case for his assertion (at least not that I saw, quickly scanning through the acres of superstar name dropping).
Think about the actors he's chosen to star in his films, Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson, and I think those guys are on our side.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
Ping!
I agree. Red is the color of blood, hence of war, revolution and . . . communism. It should be noted that Republicans did not choose the color for the "red states".
Where I come from, "red" is the colour of communists.
Yeah and I bet it's racist too. Probably no 'people of color' in it and if there are any they probably play slaves or something. /Sarcasm
Don't blame the poster, it is the WaPost that is playing the Freudian games.
Oh, come on. Not every movie is some kind of insidious left wing shot at Bush. These movies should be taken at face value. Gripes about The Manchurian Candidate are legit - but this is more than a stretch.
I agree, in the SIGNS movie, everyone was trying to explain away the dangers. Then they were in the fight for their lives. I suppose Signs could be the metaphor for the Clinton Administration. As far as this review trying to make a connection between the Bush admin and the premise, must not be watching the Dum Convention. They are the ones crying about leaving the boundries of the U.S.
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.