#Oh, those wacky liberal Hollywood elites!
Zepp the Weasel
WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War in Afghanistan
Hollywood enlists in Bush’s war drive
By David Walsh
19 November 2001
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/holl-n19.shtml
“Samuel Johnson’s saying that patriotism is the last refuge of
scoundrels has some truth in it but not nearly enough. Patriotism, in
truth, is the great nursery of scoundrels, and its annual output is
probably greater than that of even religion. Its chief glories are the
demagogue, the military bully, and the spreaders of libels and false
history. Its philosophy rests firmly on the doctrine that the end
justifies the means—that any blow, whether above or below the belt, is
fair against dissenters from its wholesale
denial of plain facts.”—H. L. Mencken
On November 11 more than forty top Hollywood executives met for two
hours with Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s chief political advisor, to
discuss ways in which the film industry could contribute to the “war
on terrorism.” Here truly was a meeting of great minds!
Present were some of the most powerful figures in the motion picture
industry and corporate figures whose holdings include entertainment
companies, such as billionaire Sumner Redstone of Viacom Inc. (which
owns Paramount, CBS and UPN). All the major studios were
represented—Warner Bros., Twentieth Century Fox, Columbia Pictures,
Universal Studios, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and DreamWorks SKG—as were the
US television networks—ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, UPN and WB—and the film
industry unions.
Rove is a right-wing ideologue and dirty trickster, one of those who
played a key role in Bush’s hijacking of the presidential election
last year. The film executives, most of them Democratic Party
loyalists, are extravagantly paid mediocrities, in large part
responsible for a seemingly endless supply of banal and vulgar
products. Studio films in recent years have scrapped most traces of
oppositional sentiment, except of the most anti-social and retrograde
variety, and reveled in militarism, chauvinism and general reverence
for all the institutions—police, church, business—of American
capitalism. To ask more of Hollywood seems a daunting challenge! What
further contribution could it make to the cause of conformism and
political reaction?
During the two-hour meeting at the lavish Peninsula Hotel in Beverly
Hills, Rove reportedly outlined seven themes: that the US campaign in
Afghanistan is a war against terrorism, not Islam; the government’s
call for “community service” should be publicized; US troops and their
families need to be supported; the September 11 attacks were global
attacks requiring a global response; the US campaign is a “war on
evil”; the government and the film industry have the responsibility to
reassure children of their safety; propaganda should be avoided.
After the meeting, following up on the last point, everyone involved
hastened to assert that the Bush administration was not attempting to
dictate in any fashion the content of Hollywood’s films. “The industry
decides what it will do and when it will do it,” Rove told reporters.
Apparently lost on the media commentators was the obvious redundancy
of reassurances that the government would not impose its views in an
arena where its policies find absolutely no opposition.
Rove did not elaborate on how filmmakers should grapple with the
problem of a “war on evil.” He left that task to the creative minds at
the film studios’ disposal. Nor did he explain how children (or anyone
else) were to be made to feel safe when the government promises to
conduct a war of indefinite length and scope using the entire lethal
arsenal of modern weaponry against enemies it defines as it goes
along.
Jack Valenti, the long-time president of the Motion Picture
Association of America and an attendee at the November 11 gathering,
suggested that Hollywood’s contribution could begin with a series of
public service announcements, to be broadcast in the US and abroad,
making “clear to the millions of Muslims in the world that this is not
an attack on Muslims—this is an attack on people who murder innocent
people.”
After a previous meeting on October 17 between lower-level Bush
administration figures and Hollywood executives, right-wing producer
Lionel Chetwynd commented, “There was a feeling around the table that
something is wrong if half the world thinks we’re the Great Satan, and
we want to make that right. There’s a genuine feeling that we as
Americans are failing to get our message across to the world.” That
the US is seen as an oppressor by “half the world” is a remarkable
admission and a reality that is not likely to be cleared up by a round
of public service announcements.
The film studio executives assembled on November 11 responded
enthusiastically to Rove’s appeal. Sherry Lansing, Paramount Pictures
chairwoman, told the media following the meeting, “All of us have this
incredible need, this incredible urge to do something.”
The “incredible need” and “incredible urge” to go along with the Bush
administration’s campaign of lies and propaganda has apparently been
felt by virtually the entire film industry. Not a single leading
figure has been capable of condemning the terror attacks in New York
and Washington and at the same time opposing the slaughter in
Afghanistan and the sweeping assault on democratic rights in the US.
The universal response among Hollywood’s “left” (i.e., tepid liberal
Democrats) has been to drop all criticism of George W. Bush and throw
in their lot with the war drive. Not one of these stalwarts can
apparently find it in himself or herself to resist the tide of
media-driven right-wing opinion. There is nothing so terrifying for an
American “celebrity” as the thought of being excluded from the
limelight and facing even temporary isolation. There is a certain
logic to these fears: how much would be left of most of these people
if the element of celebrity were removed?
From the point of view of the film studio executives, as Jon Friedman
of CBS.MarketWatch.com put it, the “big challenge now is figuring out
how it can look like a do-gooder [i.e., toe the Bush line politically]
while it actually focuses on its ongoing obsession: making money.” Tom
Pollock, former vice chairman of MCA, bluntly told a panel at the
recent New York Film Festival: “We live in a capitalist society, and
what motivates the studios is making money.”
Hollywood has been notoriously poor in recent years at predicting
popular tastes. It has managed to satisfy or please almost no one with
its increasingly bland and bombastic works. Whichever direction, or
combination of directions, the studios choose to take—ever lighter
fare, patriotic and nationalistic rubbish, moral uplift—the further
degeneration of their products is virtually guaranteed.
(It should be noted, along these lines, that the inimitable Sylvester
Stallone, whose last film success no one can or probably wants to
remember, has reportedly been considering reviving his Rambo persona
and taking on the Taliban in a new film, skydiving into Afghanistan to
challenge terrorism. This could have unfortunate consequences as it
might stir up memories of Rambo III (1988), in which Stallone’s
one-man army fought against the Soviet army in Afghanistan alongside
the Mujaheddin, described as “freedom fighters”—in other words, as an
ally of Osama bin Laden—in a work generally described as
unintentionally hilarious.)
Films made under the conditions Rove and his friends in the film
industry envision, more or less on orders from a warmongering ruling
elite out for world domination, cannot possibly have serious artistic
or human value. Meaningful works will increasingly be those that are
made in the teeth of official disapproval and on the basis of a
thought-out criticism of the entire social order, including its
ideology, its morals and its art.
The attempt to align Hollywood more closely with the political and
ideological needs of the American ruling elite did not begin on
September 11, despite the claims of various superficial observers. For
example, Bernard Weinraub in the New York Times (“The Moods They Are
A’Changing In Films; Terrorism Is Making Government Look Good”)
suggests that “For more than 30 years, a staple of popular culture in
movies, books and television has been the depiction of the government
as a hostile, corrupt, even evil force spinning elaborate conspiracies
to manipulate and suppress Americans. ... By every account, the
terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, and the war being waged against
Afghanistan, has changed the way the entertainment industry portrays
the government, at least for the moment.” Not to be outdone, Deborah
Solomon advanced the same notion in the Times in relation to the
visual arts in “Once Again, Patriotic Themes Ring True as Art.”
This claim, that “everything changed” on September 11, is belied by
Weinraub’s own account. He notes that several television series about
the CIA and other intelligence agencies were scheduled to air this
autumn, and that “Even before the terrorist attacks, entertainment
executives and academics had noted a new patriotism and support for
government in popular culture.” He refers to Steven Spielberg’s Saving
Private Ryan, the action films Air Force One and Independence Day, the
“Band of Brothers” television series and books by Stephen Ambrose and
Tom Brokaw, as well as “The West Wing,” about “a decent and liberal
president who serves as a sort of father figure to his staff members.”
The steady rightward movement of prominent filmmakers and others in
the arts and entertainment field is one aspect of a generalized
social trend: the lurch to the right by privileged layers of the upper
middle class, increasingly isolated from and hostile to the working
population. It is not for nothing that the policeman, in one guise or
another, has become an almost omnipresent protagonist on television
and cinema screens. Instinctively, film producers, writers and
directors seek to flatter and idealize one of the principal social
types to whom they entrust the task of defending their wealth and
position.
It was not always thus. As Weinraub indicates, “Throughout the 1960s
and 70s, the anti-government fervor accelerated. The Nixon presidency,
its collapse, and the end of the war in Indochina made it improbable,
if not unthinkable, to release films that depicted the government—or
the establishment—in positive ways.” He refers to such works as Bonnie
and Clyde, Three Days of the Condor, The Graduate, Dr. Strangelove,
Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown, The Godfather and A Clockwork Orange, and
at a later date, J.F.K. One might add All the President’s Men and The
Parallax View, as well as—for their warning about the threat
represented by the military high command—films like Seven Days in May
and Fail Safe. And there are many others, in a general
anti-establishment vein, including Robert Altman’s work in the 1970s,
the films of John Cassavetes and certain early films by Martin
Scorsese.
The above-mentioned films were hardly all works of genius, nor did
they necessarily demonstrate great social insight. Nonetheless they
sought, in one way or another, to examine American life in a critical
fashion. Weinraub makes the extraordinary comment: “With the exception
of The Godfather, such movies would probably not be made today because
they would be seen as too dark, too downbeat.” If Weinraub is correct
(and he probably is), what a devastating indictment of
the American film studios!
There has been some discussion in the press of the possibility or
advisability of reproducing “the kind of intensive collaboration
Hollywood had with Washington during World War II, when acclaimed
filmmakers such as Frank Capra created inspirational movies and
documentaries on the conflict” (Washington Post). Capra produced and
directed a seven-part film series, Why We Fight (1942-45), for
screening to US troops.
Capra’s series was unabashed propaganda, but it appealed to and played
upon the democratic instincts of those who had joined the military to
take up a struggle against fascism. It could, in other words, tell at
least a portion of the truth. For example, in Part 2—The Nazis
Strike—the filmmakers examined the growth and ambitions of the Nazi
movement, its military buildup and conquest of eastern Europe. The
Battle for Russia (Part 5) was obliged to pay tribute to the titanic
resistance of the Soviet people and the Red Army, which had “shattered
the whole legend of Nazi invincibility.”
How would Hollywood approach the same theme today? Perhaps Why We
Fight in Afghanistan could begin with the Unocal or Halliburton logo
flashed on the screen. In any event, a serious discussion of the
origins of the Taliban or the recent history of Afghanistan,
impossible without examining the role of the US in fomenting and
financing Islamic fundamentalism, would be entirely out of bounds. Any
film produced today on the conflict in Afghanistan would be nothing
but a tissue of lies and apologies for barbarism.
The basis for the sort of democratic-patriotic appeal made during
World War II has not simply been undercut by the openly predatory
character of American interventions overseas, but also by the
transformed social relations within the US. The creation of a deeply
polarized society, in which vast wealth is possessed by a brazen
handful, has undermined patriotic sentiment. The power of appeals to
the traditions of the American Revolution and the Civil War depended,
in the final analysis, on the ability of the population to improve its
living standards and the maintenance of what one might call a
generally democratic atmosphere, one that at least encouraged the
notion that the people had some say in political affairs. The open
consolidation of American oligarchic rule has put paid to all that.
Subsequent events will demonstrate how shallow the reserve of
patriotism has become in the US.
Even the New York Times’ Clyde Haberman was obliged to note that the
government’s manipulative conduct in regard to the war effort in
Afghanistan insured that “finding a latter-day Frank Capra may not be
easy. ... Essentially, all that the American public knows is what the
government wants it to know. Some critics ask if the line between
information and propaganda has been uncomfortably blurred.”
In the long run the result of the present rush by the film and music
industries to throw themselves at the feet of the imperialist
politicians in Washington, D.C. will be a salutary one. A great deal
of dead wood will be sorted out: overrated screen idols of both sexes,
rock and roll stars that no one cares about any more, a legion of hack
directors and writers, assorted hangers-on. Those who adopt the aims
and insatiable appetites of the US ruling elite as their own will
sooner or later become the objects of popular scorn and disgust. Their
appearance will coincide with their essence: human zeroes.
Kurt Nicklas
news:ca9332ae.01111...@posting.google.com:
> World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
>
>
> WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War in Afghanistan
>
> Hollywood enlists in Bush’s war drive
>
> By David Walsh
> 19 November 2001
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/holl-n19.shtml
Osama Bin Jamieson's love affair with the Trotskyite World Socialist
Website continues.
Give up on the Guardian, Bryan, or just taking a break with your homies
in the Fourth International?
<snicker>
--
Kurt Nicklas
-----------------------
"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible
resolve."
-- Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,Dec. 1941
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
Can it be long before Zepp finds Scientology?
--
What's the difference between a pacifist and a flagellant?
The flagellent only wants to punish himself.
Zepp the Weasel
> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp the Weasel) wrote in
> news:ca9332ae.01111...@posting.google.com:
>
> > World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
> >
> >
> > WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War in Afghanistan
> >
> > Hollywood enlists in Bush's war drive
> >
> > By David Walsh
> > 19 November 2001
> >
> > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/holl-n19.shtml
>
> Osama Bin Jamieson's love affair with the Trotskyite World Socialist
> Website continues.
>
> Give up on the Guardian, Bryan, or just taking a break with your homies
> in the Fourth International?
Gosh, Knickers, doesn't your knee hurt when you jerk it like that?
Of course, you are intellectually incompetent to address the contents
of the post, so I suppose this is the best we can expect from you.
BTW, Knickers, could you tell us what Trotsky and Osama bin Laden have
in common? I'm curious to see if you actually see a similarity, or
your lies and innuendoes have simply gotten that incoherent. Either
way, you've suddenly become amusing again, after months of sullen,
defensive snarls because your moral superiority collapsed with the
selection of Putsch the Fustercluck as your new leader.
>
> <snicker>
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas <knickla...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns915E71B2D...@198.99.146.12>...
>> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp the Weasel) wrote in
>> news:ca9332ae.01111...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
>> >
>> >
>> > WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War in Afghanistan
>> >
>> > Hollywood enlists in Bush's war drive
>> >
>> > By David Walsh
>> > 19 November 2001
>> >
>> > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/holl-n19.shtml
>>
>> Osama Bin Jamieson's love affair with the Trotskyite World Socialist
>> Website continues.
>>
>> Give up on the Guardian, Bryan, or just taking a break with your
>> homies in the Fourth International?
>
> Gosh, Knickers, doesn't your knee hurt when you jerk it like that?
I'd expect you could conduct a course on knee-jerk, Bryan, far better than
I could.
> Of course, you are intellectually incompetent to address the contents
> of the post, so I suppose this is the best we can expect from you.
Your posts don't need 'addressing', Bryan, just laughter. What makes you
think anyone outside of a far-left political group would want to 'address'
anything from a Trotskyite web page??
> BTW, Knickers, could you tell us what Trotsky and Osama bin Laden have
> in common?
That you hold views similar to both is a start, little man.
> I'm curious to see if you actually see a similarity, or
> your lies and innuendoes have simply gotten that incoherent.
Lies? Innuendoes? I've simply pointed out that you've been quoting from a
Trotskyite website - which is a fact that even YOU admit.
It shows just how far from the mainstream you've moved, Bryan.
You're just a subject of laughter, expect for those simpering sycophants in
your 'weasel' group.
<guffaw>
Brain Death
wrote:
>“Samuel Johnson’s saying that patriotism is the last refuge of
>scoundrels has some truth in it but not nearly enough. Patriotism, in
>truth, is the great nursery of scoundrels, and its annual output is
>probably greater than that of even religion.
Another one who gets this wrong. First of all, the quote is
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", not "scoundrels". The
meaning is not that patriots are scoundrels, but that scoundrels, when
caught, pretend to be patriots. Think of Billy Bob Clinton and his
aspirin factory, and you will get the idea.
BD
MH__
Ah, yes. I remember that. Clinton attacked
Bin Laden several times and the GOP did nothing
by criticize him for it. Then when Bin Laden attacks
the US those same conservatives claim that Clinton
didn't attack him *enough*.
There is just no pleasing some people.
Zepp the Weasel
> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp the Weasel) wrote in
> news:ca9332ae.01111...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Kurt Nicklas <knickla...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns915E71B2D...@198.99.146.12>...
> >> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp the Weasel) wrote in
> >> news:ca9332ae.01111...@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War in Afghanistan
> >> >
> >> > Hollywood enlists in Bush's war drive
> >> >
> >> > By David Walsh
> >> > 19 November 2001
> >> >
> >> > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/holl-n19.shtml
> >>
> >> Osama Bin Jamieson's love affair with the Trotskyite World Socialist
> >> Website continues.
> >>
> >> Give up on the Guardian, Bryan, or just taking a break with your
> >> homies in the Fourth International?
> >
> > Gosh, Knickers, doesn't your knee hurt when you jerk it like that?
>
> I'd expect you could conduct a course on knee-jerk, Bryan, far better than
> I could.
Really? You seem to be the one jumping up and down and shrieking in
panic over a couple of pieces taken from WSWS. Mind you, I don't
mind, since it makes people who aren't right-wing nutbags curious to
see what all the fuss is about.
>
> > Of course, you are intellectually incompetent to address the contents
> > of the post, so I suppose this is the best we can expect from you.
>
> Your posts don't need 'addressing', Bryan, just laughter. What makes you
> think anyone outside of a far-left political group would want to 'address'
> anything from a Trotskyite web page??
>
Apparently, you. Although you lack the intellectual equipment to
actually address any of the contents, so you shriek "Trotskyite" as if
that was a bad thing. You don't even know who Trotsky was, do you?
> > BTW, Knickers, could you tell us what Trotsky and Osama bin Laden have
> > in common?
>
> That you hold views similar to both is a start, little man.
OK, so you lost that one.
> > I'm curious to see if you actually see a similarity, or
> > your lies and innuendoes have simply gotten that incoherent.
>
> Lies? Innuendoes? I've simply pointed out that you've been quoting from a
> Trotskyite website - which is a fact that even YOU admit.
>
Actually, I haven't "admitted" to anything. I asked you what Trotsky,
who died in 1940, might have had to do with the website, and you got
even more confused. I haven't seen any quotes from Trotsky, and if I
did, they probably wouldn't have anything nice to say about your hero
Joseph Stalin.
> It shows just how far from the mainstream you've moved, Bryan.
This from a bozo who runs around claiming that an unsupported claim
from an obvious perjurer is sufficient to arrest a President for rape?
>
> You're just a subject of laughter, expect for those simpering sycophants in
> your 'weasel' group.
Well, go ahead and laugh, Knickers. I don't mind in the least. But
people are going to wonder why, if you're laughing, you are taking the
WSWS articles so seriously while simultaneously avoiding any of the
points they raise.
>
> <guffaw>
Zepp the Weasel
You really should try to learn to read before essaying grammar flames.
The writer referred to the quote, but didn't actually use the quote.
The quote itself applies to any number of scoundrels, and not just
one.
So tell me how firing a missile at Osama bin Laden and hiting a
chemical plant is bad, but firing missiles at Osama bin Laden and
blowing up Red Cross warehouses (twice) is good.
>
> BD