An extremely interesting piece on war movies then and now.
Having seen some previews of the upcoming films on the war against Islamo-fascism, I can attest that Hollywood is doing a fine job of rallying the troops.
Not our troops, of course.
[HT: Instapundit ]
6 comments:
Ah - another "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops" meme. No, I don't support terrorists or terrorism either - but the fact that I see the current "situation" in Iraq and Afghanistan as a huge vacuum sucking up finite resources and lives with little or no "success" does not make me less of a patriot.
The difference in the world of WW II and now is what you write about daily - leadership. There is none - on either side of the political aisle. And that is reflected in the current showing of confidence in our President and in our Congress here in the US.
I realize we don't live in a vacuum and politics bleeds into every area, but I don't think that this belongs on your blog.
But that's just my opinion. At least I believe you'll let me have that.
Jeff,
Thanks for your post. You are accusing me of saying things that I did not say. It's possible to oppose the war and support the troops and there are many thoughtful and patriotic people who believe that our resources could be better used in the war on the terrorists. Just as the president should have considered the impact of the term "crusades" - a term he wisely dropped - Hollywood should consider the impact of some of its products. I may strongly oppose a particular president or Congress but there will be times when I'll consider how my criticisms will be used and interpreted lest they have an effect that I did not intend.
Michael -
Maybe it was the "hat tip" to Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) that sent me down this road considering that he's always - and still does - beat the drum for war and this abysmal current administration. But then again, you can now probably guess my politics even if I hadn't given a "hat tip" to Daily Kos for instance.
As far as Hollywood goes and that they should "consider the impact of some of its products" - that also smacks of Ari Fleischer's comment "all Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do" - the implication is that there is only one side of the line to be on. Anything less is treasonous.
Jeff,
We'll have to differ on this one. I believe it is possible to advocate considering the impact of statements and actions without implicitly accusing people of treason or repression.
Yes, it is possible if it were done in a political vacuum and without considering the context.
I would have thought it might have been an impartial review - until your last comments in the original post:
"I can attest that Hollywood is doing a fine job of rallying the troops.
Not our troops, of course."
It is about treason and repression.
Implicit accusation - no. I found it very direct.
Not an accusation of treason at all. The person who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater does not intend to cause a riot but should understand the impact of the words. You've just said it is important to consider context. We can agree on that. Just as administration officials should consider context, so should Hollywood.
Post a Comment