Posted by
David Smith on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:56:27 AM
Let's talk military movies! I am absolutely enthralled at the idea that Hollywood doesn't actually make any money on its movies--I mean, how can that be???
Imagine if everything General Electric touched turned to doo-doo--they wouldn't be in business very long, huh? Or Google. Imagine if every search you did turned up the first page of everything in the porn universe having to do with your search parameters. Oops...stock gets de-listed due to unprofitability.
So the thought, to this "MBA," of an industry where soooo many people "pay their dues" waiting tables, etc for a shot at the "big show," where seemingly the only people who make any money are those one-tenth of one-tenth of one percent who alternate between A-list and each others' beds at about the same rate, that industry not even turning a profit just baffles me.
Then you start considering the prevalence of sex, anti-military themes, anti-religious symbolism, etc and you ask--are you just trying to miff off 50% of your potential clients???
Yikes!
So we go with the ever-popular cinematic thematic material surrounding war and the military. Now, you have your garden variety "The Kingdom" and "Syriana," which are pretty solidly anti-US, anti-military, and anti-war. Then you have your "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking-when-they-made-that" examples like the one where the Arab man married to a US woman is "abducted" by the CIA, or maybe it was TSA, upon entering the country legally after a business trip to Europe or some such, and is tortured, denied contact with his wife or legal counsel, etc. I mean, these films are so bad their names totally escape my memory. It should offend every American that such crap even makes its way to the screen.
But they do! As if Hollywood expects us to buy their line of crap. I mean, its one thing with a single line is inserted into a film that has anti-whatever themes. But to blatantly write an entire script with such garbage? Please.
Now let us turn our attention to such great examples of war movies of the modern era as "Saving Private Ryan," "U-549," or whatever the number was, the absolutely fabulous "Band of Brothers" series from HBO, and Bruce Willis' Seal Team thriller, "Tears of the Sun."
"Saving Private Ryan" was simply spectacular--nuff said! It did all those men who landed at Normandy and took "Fortress Europe" great honor and was masterful acting, scripting, film-making--heck, even the supporting cast was superb! One would think that this should be the model for the war movie, not the crap listed a couple of paragraphs ago.
And Director Steven Spielberg obviously thought so, too! For his work with Tom Hanks as co-Directors of "Band of Brothers" was exceptional film-making, perhaps even exceeding "SPR." Simply masterful. The personal aspect of having the men of the 101st Airborne giving personal testimonies before each episode, discussing their experiences, their leaders, their memories and the men who portrayed them in the series was poignant and all things good that men are supposed to be about!
And that is my point--these movies that are exceptional are manly. The rest of the crap that Hollywood sells us as being cinema are so "pussified," pardon my vulgarity, that they lose the true war-like aspect of their thematic material in trying to pander to some 1990's-like political correctness that tells us that men are bad, soldiers are worse, and women can do everything that men can.
I'll take Bruce Willis any day! Here's a guy whose movies are, and almost always have been about machismo and manliness. Perhaps at times portraying the bad side of men, as with certain aspects of his character in the "Die Hard" series. But always heroic, manly, masculine, protecting women and children and fighting evil! "Tears of the Sun" was almost epic--wow!! More of these, please. Plus, my daddy was a SEAL, so I'm a little biased.
Actually, one of the greatest war movies I have ever seen was "U-549." I know I'm getting the number wrong, but wow!!--what a thrill-a-second! I think that the thing about this film that I noticed right from the start was the almost complete lack of female presence in the cast. There's the dance that takes place immediately before they go out on mission at the beginning of the movie, but after that I believe that there are zero females in the film--and I never missed them for a second!!
Here is a cast of all men with short buzz-cuts, typical of the US Navy, on a submarine that takes over a U-boat during WW II. Men everywhere! Men on the US submarine. Men on the German U-boat. Men on the German destroyer. Just a totally masculine, manly movie!
Definitely two thumbs enthusiastically way up! And that's my point...contrast that with how the men in Iraq are being portrayed. Contrast General David Petraeus' portrayal in the press with, say, General "Blood and Guts" George S. Patton. Or Dwight Eisenhower. These men are roundly revered and even celebrated! Douglas MacArthur. These were "kick butt and don't worry about taking names" generals, and their forces were pretty well the same.
I won't make a statement that today's military and its leaders are better than those of the WW II era, but I certainly won't agree to their being worse! The level of training, the tactics deployed, the equipment, the regimen--every bit as good today as it ever was, and probably tons better in certain areas.
So for Hollywood and the media to take on the portrayal of our military and its leaders as cowards, traitors or anything less than the amazing, manly, masculine, heroic men (and in some cases, women!) that they are, is simply reprehensible.
And as a case-in-point, I offer the following photo to accentuate my point. In my opinion, this photo will define this particular man's career in acting when history is written and he is in the ground. Somewhat appropriate attire, don't you think???
Personally, I hope they stick to history and execute the **censored**! Only unfortunate thing is that it has been yanked and will now be released on President's Day--hardly appropriate considering the theme.