IT'S ONLY A MOVIE
Charles Krauthammer, former Carter Administration policy advisor, medical doctor, wheelchair-bound Fox News commentator with a knack for coming up with contrived, after the fact justifications for the Bush Administration's contrived, after-the-fact justifications of its despicable actions, has treated us, his nose pointed ever-upward as always, to his yearly Oscar commentary, which I shall interrupt periodically with some comments of my own:
"Anti-U.S. plot enough to make Osama proud" by Charles Krauthammer
Nothing tells you more about Hollywood (BTW, what exactly do conservatives mean by "Hollywood"? Everyone that makes a film? Independent studios? Foreign distributors? People who work only out of New York? Answer: whatever the occassion requires) than what it chooses to honor (this statement presupposes that "Hollywood" chooses to honor films because of their "messages", or conservatives' interpretation thereof, rather than because of their artistic qualities, a fact that has not been established; the statement also ignores the fact that many of the "honored" films, historically, such as "Forrest Gump," have been called quite conservative by conservatives. But never mind. The statement also ignores the fact that there is a high degree of self-selection with respect to people working in the arts; if there are too many "li-bruls" in the arts, conservatives are free to enter, and even do well - see "The Passion of the Christ," "Braveheart," and so on). (By the way, a lot tells you about "Hollywood," however defined, than what it chooses to honor - such as, for example, what it spends its money on. The five best picture nominees this year combined made less money than a documentary about birds that conservatives insisted was proof of intelligent design).
Nominated for Best Foreign Film is "Paradise Now," a sympathetic portrayal of two suicide bombers. Nominated for Best Picture is "Munich," a sympathetic portrayal of yesterday's (DRL's: today's as well) fashion in barbarism: homicide terrorism.
But until you see "Syriana," nominated for Best Screenplay (and George Clooney, for Best Supporting Actor) you have no idea how self-flagellation and self-loathing pass for complexity and moral seriousness in Hollywood (yes, this one film is illustrative of all of this, as Krathammer does (not) explain later on). (First, he says Hollywood honors movies because they are "li-brul," then, he says they are honored because they are "librul" AND complex/morally serious).
The "Syriana" script has, of course, the classic liberal tropes such as this stage direction: "The deputy national security adviser, MARILYN RICHARDS, 40s, sculpted hair, with the soul of a 70-year-old white, Republican male, is in charge" (Page 21). Krauthammer (K) assumes that the script was honored (the film in fact only received two nominations - K is using a thin reed upon which to make his point) for this stage direction specifically. This assumes that the voters 1)were given the stage directions; and 2)read them. Again, this hasn't been established.
Or this piece of over-the-top, Gordon Gekko Republican-speak, placed in the mouth of a Texas oilman: "Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. ... Corruption ... is how we win" (Page 93). (Naturally, K doesn't quote the whole speech, which, in full, has been found by many to be a fine example of pompous grandiloquence masquerading as originality of thought masquerading as humility. And speaking of stereotypes, what does it say about Krauthammer when he says "Gordon Gekko Republican-speak?" Guess he can use the li-brul tropes when HE wants).
But that's run-of-the-mill Hollywood. (Yes, every movie that features a character giving an extensive paean to corruption is nominated for Best Screenplay). The true distinction of the script is the near-incomprehensible plot (liberals, I guess, specialize in this too) - a muddled mix of story lines about a corrupt Kazakhstan oil deal, a succession struggle in an oil-rich Arab kingdom and a giant Texas oil company that pulls the strings at the CIA (all of this SMACKS of librul-ism) and, naturally, everywhere else - amid which, only two things are absolutely clear and coherent: the movie's one political hero and one pure soul. (Would it have matterd if ALL of the plot threads were black and white? K would still have attacked the film, in the same manner, for the same reasons. This is Chinese menu argumentation).
The political hero is the Arab prince (not George Clooney too? Apparently not. Conservatives can't make more than one reductive argument at a time) who wants to end corruption, inequality and oppression in his country. As he tells his tribal elders, he intends to (relatively speaking) modernize his country by bringing the rule of law, market efficiency, women's rights and democracy. (This, to Krauthammer, is a laudible goal. Our friends The Saudis, who have made no such attempts, are, to K, equally laudable, for being "allies in the war on terror." Well, when one considers the purposes of that war, maybe he has a point).
What do you think happens to him? He, his beautiful wife and beautiful children are murdered, incinerated, by a remote-controlled missile, fired from CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., no less - at the very moment that (this passes for subtle cross-cutting film editing) his evil younger brother, the corrupt rival to the throne and puppet of the oil company, is being hailed at a suitably garish "oilman of the year" celebration populated by fat and ugly Americans. (Now where would the filmmakers possibly have gotten the "garish celebration" idea from? From the video images of President Bush's tonguing Crown Prince Abdullah's balls amidst the White House lily fields as the two solidimouthified their oil ties to each other? Naaah. Is Dick Cheney fat? Ugly? Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, the oil executives that "testified" before Congress - fat? ugly? Has the U.S. ever been involved, directly or indirectly, in the assassination of a world leader or would-be world leader? Has it ever attempted to install a puppet regime to protect monetary or other interests? Has a (relatively) reform-minded individual who stands to inherit the leadership of a country such that our interests ever been threatened, mysteriously vanished, disappeared under inexplicable circumstances, or been murdered in a case still yet to be solved? For crying out loud, we're celebrating the rise of tyranny in Iraq and in Russia right now. Is it so hard to believe that a filmmaker may not be living in fantasyland when he suggests that we celebrate (through "subtle"cross-cutting) the demise of attempts to reduce it?)
What is grotesque about this moment of plot clarity is that the overwhelmingly obvious critique of actual U.S. policy in the real Middle East today is its excess of Wilsonian idealism in trying to find and promote - against a tide of tyranny, intolerance and fanaticism - local leaders like the Good Prince. (Actually, the excess of Wilsonian idealism comes from our trying to impose democracy at gunpoint, against high tides, low tides, and no tides).
Who in the greater Middle East is closest to the film's modernizing, democratizing paragon? Without a doubt, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, a man of exemplary - and quite nonfictional - personal integrity, physical courage and democratic temperament. Hundreds of brave American (and allied NATO) soldiers have died protecting him and the democratic system they established to allow him to govern. (Wait a second, K - don't you hate-o NATO? Also, just because Karzai, an ex-Taliban who recently fired his most visible reformer, happens to be less despicable than his recently defeated opponents, does not mean he is worthy of the description K gives him. Yes, refusing to elimiate poppy production for fear of losing warlord support certainly evinces a democratic temperament). On the very night the Oscars will be honoring "Syriana," (a fact not yet established) American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that "Syriana" shows America slaughtering. (the difference: Karzai does not control oil, whereas "The Good Prince" threatened to - gasp - make oil distrubution more equitable!)
It gets worse. The most pernicious element in the movie is the character who is at the moral heart of the film: the physically beautiful, modest, caring, generous Pakistani who becomes a beautiful, modest, caring, generous ... suicide bomber. In his final act, the Pure One, dressed in the purest white robes, takes his explosives-laden little motorboat headfirst into his target. It is a replay of the real-life boat that plunged into the U.S. destroyer Cole in 2000, killing 17 American sailors (Bill Clinton's fault!!!!) But in the "Syriana" version, the target is another symbol of American imperialism in the Persian Gulf - a newly opened liquefied natural gas terminal. (The terminal is obviously not a symbol of our chimperialism, for if it were, we would have, upon invasion of Iraq, chosen to guard only the Oil Ministries, our Deputy Defense Secretary, when asked why invasion of Iraq was warranted over that of North Korea, would have said, "Iraq is swimming in oil," 80% of Iraqis and over half of Americans and American troops would see us as occupiers trying to establish a permanent base there. Wait. All these things HAVE happened. Maybe I should get an easier job, say, like becoming Rush Limbaugh's fact checker).
The explosion, which would have the force of a nuclear bomb (why didn't it, then, K? If it did, your point would have been better-illustrated), constitutes the moral high point of the movie, the moment of climactic cleansing, as the Pure One clad in white merges with the great white mass of the huge terminal wall, at which point the screen goes pure white. And reverently silent. (I can just picture "Ave Maria" playing in the background, but, of course, the li-brul filmmkaers hate religion, so they had to let their reverence somehow mysteriously speak for itself).
In my naiveté, I used to think that Hollywood had achieved its nadir with Oliver Stone's "JFK," a film that taught a generation of Americans that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA and the FBI in collaboration with Lyndon Johnson (it taught no such thing; it speculated, theorized, teased, and cried in the dark. Only someone who can't review a film as a film would make such a trite conclusion). But at least it was for domestic consumption, an internal affair of only marginal interest to other countries (never mind that Stone is an internationaly renowned filmmaker and that the only "damage" done by JFK is that files regarding the assassination previously closed are now... open. To K, yes, this is damage). "Syriana," however, is meant for export, carrying the most vicious and pernicious mendacities about America to a receptive world. (Why is the world so receptive? Because every country other than the U.S. enjoys consumption of lies, especially when imported in the package of an American film? Because they're too ignorant to figure out the truth? Yes, that's what K would have us believe. That every other country in the world knows nothing about what we're really like, and that somehow, li-brul college professors have brainwashed these countries into thinking we are the enemy. Every other country is full of people so moronic that they cannot even see the simple light of day insofar as America's "true" nature is concerned - either that, or the citizens of these countries are so bigoted (unlike our country's citizens) that they passively accept whatever libel about the U.S. is fed to them without bothering to ascertain the truth. Gee, K, with that kind of attitude, no wonder the film will play to a "receptive" audience).
Most liberalism is angst- and guilt-ridden (where was the sense of guilt in the rest of this essay?), seeing moral equivalence everywhere (unlike "conservatism - ESPECIALLY in its criticism in Munich). "Syriana" is of a different species entirely - a pathological variety that burns with the certainty of its malign anti-Americanism. Osama Bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction. (Ann Coulter said that Fahrenheit 9/11 played like a "defense brief" for Saddam Hussein. How tired does it get).
Originally published on March 3, 2006
"Anti-U.S. plot enough to make Osama proud" by Charles Krauthammer
Nothing tells you more about Hollywood (BTW, what exactly do conservatives mean by "Hollywood"? Everyone that makes a film? Independent studios? Foreign distributors? People who work only out of New York? Answer: whatever the occassion requires) than what it chooses to honor (this statement presupposes that "Hollywood" chooses to honor films because of their "messages", or conservatives' interpretation thereof, rather than because of their artistic qualities, a fact that has not been established; the statement also ignores the fact that many of the "honored" films, historically, such as "Forrest Gump," have been called quite conservative by conservatives. But never mind. The statement also ignores the fact that there is a high degree of self-selection with respect to people working in the arts; if there are too many "li-bruls" in the arts, conservatives are free to enter, and even do well - see "The Passion of the Christ," "Braveheart," and so on). (By the way, a lot tells you about "Hollywood," however defined, than what it chooses to honor - such as, for example, what it spends its money on. The five best picture nominees this year combined made less money than a documentary about birds that conservatives insisted was proof of intelligent design).
Nominated for Best Foreign Film is "Paradise Now," a sympathetic portrayal of two suicide bombers. Nominated for Best Picture is "Munich," a sympathetic portrayal of yesterday's (DRL's: today's as well) fashion in barbarism: homicide terrorism.
But until you see "Syriana," nominated for Best Screenplay (and George Clooney, for Best Supporting Actor) you have no idea how self-flagellation and self-loathing pass for complexity and moral seriousness in Hollywood (yes, this one film is illustrative of all of this, as Krathammer does (not) explain later on). (First, he says Hollywood honors movies because they are "li-brul," then, he says they are honored because they are "librul" AND complex/morally serious).
The "Syriana" script has, of course, the classic liberal tropes such as this stage direction: "The deputy national security adviser, MARILYN RICHARDS, 40s, sculpted hair, with the soul of a 70-year-old white, Republican male, is in charge" (Page 21). Krauthammer (K) assumes that the script was honored (the film in fact only received two nominations - K is using a thin reed upon which to make his point) for this stage direction specifically. This assumes that the voters 1)were given the stage directions; and 2)read them. Again, this hasn't been established.
Or this piece of over-the-top, Gordon Gekko Republican-speak, placed in the mouth of a Texas oilman: "Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. ... Corruption ... is how we win" (Page 93). (Naturally, K doesn't quote the whole speech, which, in full, has been found by many to be a fine example of pompous grandiloquence masquerading as originality of thought masquerading as humility. And speaking of stereotypes, what does it say about Krauthammer when he says "Gordon Gekko Republican-speak?" Guess he can use the li-brul tropes when HE wants).
But that's run-of-the-mill Hollywood. (Yes, every movie that features a character giving an extensive paean to corruption is nominated for Best Screenplay). The true distinction of the script is the near-incomprehensible plot (liberals, I guess, specialize in this too) - a muddled mix of story lines about a corrupt Kazakhstan oil deal, a succession struggle in an oil-rich Arab kingdom and a giant Texas oil company that pulls the strings at the CIA (all of this SMACKS of librul-ism) and, naturally, everywhere else - amid which, only two things are absolutely clear and coherent: the movie's one political hero and one pure soul. (Would it have matterd if ALL of the plot threads were black and white? K would still have attacked the film, in the same manner, for the same reasons. This is Chinese menu argumentation).
The political hero is the Arab prince (not George Clooney too? Apparently not. Conservatives can't make more than one reductive argument at a time) who wants to end corruption, inequality and oppression in his country. As he tells his tribal elders, he intends to (relatively speaking) modernize his country by bringing the rule of law, market efficiency, women's rights and democracy. (This, to Krauthammer, is a laudible goal. Our friends The Saudis, who have made no such attempts, are, to K, equally laudable, for being "allies in the war on terror." Well, when one considers the purposes of that war, maybe he has a point).
What do you think happens to him? He, his beautiful wife and beautiful children are murdered, incinerated, by a remote-controlled missile, fired from CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., no less - at the very moment that (this passes for subtle cross-cutting film editing) his evil younger brother, the corrupt rival to the throne and puppet of the oil company, is being hailed at a suitably garish "oilman of the year" celebration populated by fat and ugly Americans. (Now where would the filmmakers possibly have gotten the "garish celebration" idea from? From the video images of President Bush's tonguing Crown Prince Abdullah's balls amidst the White House lily fields as the two solidimouthified their oil ties to each other? Naaah. Is Dick Cheney fat? Ugly? Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, the oil executives that "testified" before Congress - fat? ugly? Has the U.S. ever been involved, directly or indirectly, in the assassination of a world leader or would-be world leader? Has it ever attempted to install a puppet regime to protect monetary or other interests? Has a (relatively) reform-minded individual who stands to inherit the leadership of a country such that our interests ever been threatened, mysteriously vanished, disappeared under inexplicable circumstances, or been murdered in a case still yet to be solved? For crying out loud, we're celebrating the rise of tyranny in Iraq and in Russia right now. Is it so hard to believe that a filmmaker may not be living in fantasyland when he suggests that we celebrate (through "subtle"cross-cutting) the demise of attempts to reduce it?)
What is grotesque about this moment of plot clarity is that the overwhelmingly obvious critique of actual U.S. policy in the real Middle East today is its excess of Wilsonian idealism in trying to find and promote - against a tide of tyranny, intolerance and fanaticism - local leaders like the Good Prince. (Actually, the excess of Wilsonian idealism comes from our trying to impose democracy at gunpoint, against high tides, low tides, and no tides).
Who in the greater Middle East is closest to the film's modernizing, democratizing paragon? Without a doubt, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, a man of exemplary - and quite nonfictional - personal integrity, physical courage and democratic temperament. Hundreds of brave American (and allied NATO) soldiers have died protecting him and the democratic system they established to allow him to govern. (Wait a second, K - don't you hate-o NATO? Also, just because Karzai, an ex-Taliban who recently fired his most visible reformer, happens to be less despicable than his recently defeated opponents, does not mean he is worthy of the description K gives him. Yes, refusing to elimiate poppy production for fear of losing warlord support certainly evinces a democratic temperament). On the very night the Oscars will be honoring "Syriana," (a fact not yet established) American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that "Syriana" shows America slaughtering. (the difference: Karzai does not control oil, whereas "The Good Prince" threatened to - gasp - make oil distrubution more equitable!)
It gets worse. The most pernicious element in the movie is the character who is at the moral heart of the film: the physically beautiful, modest, caring, generous Pakistani who becomes a beautiful, modest, caring, generous ... suicide bomber. In his final act, the Pure One, dressed in the purest white robes, takes his explosives-laden little motorboat headfirst into his target. It is a replay of the real-life boat that plunged into the U.S. destroyer Cole in 2000, killing 17 American sailors (Bill Clinton's fault!!!!) But in the "Syriana" version, the target is another symbol of American imperialism in the Persian Gulf - a newly opened liquefied natural gas terminal. (The terminal is obviously not a symbol of our chimperialism, for if it were, we would have, upon invasion of Iraq, chosen to guard only the Oil Ministries, our Deputy Defense Secretary, when asked why invasion of Iraq was warranted over that of North Korea, would have said, "Iraq is swimming in oil," 80% of Iraqis and over half of Americans and American troops would see us as occupiers trying to establish a permanent base there. Wait. All these things HAVE happened. Maybe I should get an easier job, say, like becoming Rush Limbaugh's fact checker).
The explosion, which would have the force of a nuclear bomb (why didn't it, then, K? If it did, your point would have been better-illustrated), constitutes the moral high point of the movie, the moment of climactic cleansing, as the Pure One clad in white merges with the great white mass of the huge terminal wall, at which point the screen goes pure white. And reverently silent. (I can just picture "Ave Maria" playing in the background, but, of course, the li-brul filmmkaers hate religion, so they had to let their reverence somehow mysteriously speak for itself).
In my naiveté, I used to think that Hollywood had achieved its nadir with Oliver Stone's "JFK," a film that taught a generation of Americans that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA and the FBI in collaboration with Lyndon Johnson (it taught no such thing; it speculated, theorized, teased, and cried in the dark. Only someone who can't review a film as a film would make such a trite conclusion). But at least it was for domestic consumption, an internal affair of only marginal interest to other countries (never mind that Stone is an internationaly renowned filmmaker and that the only "damage" done by JFK is that files regarding the assassination previously closed are now... open. To K, yes, this is damage). "Syriana," however, is meant for export, carrying the most vicious and pernicious mendacities about America to a receptive world. (Why is the world so receptive? Because every country other than the U.S. enjoys consumption of lies, especially when imported in the package of an American film? Because they're too ignorant to figure out the truth? Yes, that's what K would have us believe. That every other country in the world knows nothing about what we're really like, and that somehow, li-brul college professors have brainwashed these countries into thinking we are the enemy. Every other country is full of people so moronic that they cannot even see the simple light of day insofar as America's "true" nature is concerned - either that, or the citizens of these countries are so bigoted (unlike our country's citizens) that they passively accept whatever libel about the U.S. is fed to them without bothering to ascertain the truth. Gee, K, with that kind of attitude, no wonder the film will play to a "receptive" audience).
Most liberalism is angst- and guilt-ridden (where was the sense of guilt in the rest of this essay?), seeing moral equivalence everywhere (unlike "conservatism - ESPECIALLY in its criticism in Munich). "Syriana" is of a different species entirely - a pathological variety that burns with the certainty of its malign anti-Americanism. Osama Bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction. (Ann Coulter said that Fahrenheit 9/11 played like a "defense brief" for Saddam Hussein. How tired does it get).
Originally published on March 3, 2006
posted by EnterCenter at 12:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home