George Clooney in "Syriana."
By Govindini Murty. This is a great moment for America. Osama bin Laden has been killed by American special forces in Pakistan, and justice has finally been done. Almost ten years after September 11, 2001, the evil mastermind of those terrible attacks has finally been destroyed, and the great psychic burden that has lain on the American people all these years can begin to lift.
We all remember where we were on that shocking day on September 11th when the planes hit the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan, and the Pentagon in Washington, and a green field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. In the dark years that followed, when it became apparent that the American cultural establishment was not going to play any role in rallying the nation to the cause of freedom, nor in comforting America in its time of sorrow – but would rather use the War on Terror to score partisan political points, and cast moral equivalencies between free democracies like America and terrorist conspiracies like Al Qaeda – I truly began to fear for our country.
I never doubted that our military would be brave in defending America, or that our intelligence services would intensify their efforts to prevent future attacks, nor that American citizens would be resolute in rebuilding after the crisis. Yet I did fear for the psychic health of our country when it became apparent that our cultural representatives were completely unable to condemn the terrorists who carried out 9/11 – or celebrate America and its democratic freedoms on-screen.
For two and a half years after 9/11, not one movie was made even depicting 9/11 or the ensuing War on Terror. When America needed it most, when movies and TV shows and stories depicting those terrible events would’ve helped our nation to artistically deal with the tragedy of 9/11 and experience the emotional catharsis that would have allowed us to heal, we instead got … nothing. After the Pearl Harbor attack of Dec. 7th 1941, Hollywood rushed to make movies supporting America in the war effort. The resulting films played a crucial role in rallying America and the Allies to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. In the wake of 9/11, what we got instead out of our American filmmaking establishment was two and a half years of evasion, followed then in June of 2004 by the the first movie released by a Hollywood movie studio to address 9/11: Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. We all know the details of that ugly and mendacious screed and its attempt to reverse the meaning of 9/11 by painting America as the source of an evil conspiracy that was truly responsible for that tragic event.
Natalie Portman in "V for Vendetta."
That reprehensible film opened the floodgates to a wave of movies that seemed designed to reverse every objective truth we had witnessed with our own eyes on September 11th. Films like the 2004 remake of The Manchurian Candidate painted the American government and American corporations as the real villains in sinister conspiracies out to destroy democracy. The 2005 film Syriana, starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, depicted a wicked American government killing a democracy-minded prince in the Middle East in order to protect American oil profits. This was followed by V for Vendetta, starring Natalie Portman, which depicted terrorists as heroes and featured as its rousing finale the blowing up of the British Houses of Parliament. There was also Steven Spielberg’s hand-wringing Munich, in which the Mossad agents who hunted down the Islamic terrorists who massacred the Israeli Olympic athletes were depicted as somehow equivalent to the terrorists themselves. Also released to critical plaudits on American screens in 2005 was the British-made Death of a President, in which President Bush was depicted being assassinated on-screen by the angry father of an Iraq War vet – and the British-made Road to Guantanamo, about allegedly innocent Islamic men captured on a battlefield and incarcerated at Guantanamo.
In 2005 Hollywood also finally made two movies that depicted 9/11 on screen: Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center, which bizarrely made no mention whatsoever of the fact that 9/11 had been carried out by Islamic terrorists (treating the event almost like an abstract natural disaster – an earthquake or tornado, thus evading any acknowledgment of the ideology that caused it), and the sober, grim United 93, which finally had the decency to acknowledge on-screen that it was Islamic terrorists who carried out the attacks.
If we thought a few years’ worth of time would cause the anti-American self-loathing to cool down within the American filmmaking establishment, we were wrong. They were simply getting started. In 2007 another spate of films hit American movie screens condemning America in the War on Terror. Films like In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Rendition, and Lions for Lambs devoted their energy to depicting American troops and the American government as unregenerate murderers, rapists, torturers, and sadists who were actually more dangerous than the Islamic terrorists themselves. No similar level of outrage could apparently be brought to bear in the cinema on condemning the Islamic terrorists who were targeting innocent civilians around the world and seeking to destroy democracy itself.
James Cameron romanticizing anti-American insurgency "Avatar."
This genre reached its apotheosis in James Cameron’s $200 million screed Avatar – a film that used cutting-edge special effects and 3D technology to dramatize an anti-Iraq War allegory in which evil American military contractors bring war and destruction to peaceful, happy blue aliens in a fight over natural resources. (This was a variation on the familiar “it’s all about oil” meme about our wars in the Middle East.) Pro-terrorist, anti-Western messages were even inflicted on us in big-budget 2010 films like Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood and the vile remake of Clash of the Titans (see here), which featured ‘heroic,’ pseudo-Islamic suicide bombers known as the ‘Djinn’ who help the hero Perseus capture Medusa.
But just when one thought that American culture was completely lost to the forces of nihilism, things began to turn around in 2010. Some moral clarity and intellectual honesty finally began making its way into the American and European filmmaking scene. Right now this trend is confined mostly to smaller, indie ‘art house’ films, but it may begin to spread to larger films as well.
In early 2010 the Sundance Film Festival screened a brave, brilliant British film called Four Lions that mercilessly satirized Islamic terrorism. Four Lions went on to win the Audience Favorite Award at the 2010 LA Film Festival and to be theatrically released in the fall of 2010 to outstanding reviews (Time Magazine named it one of the Ten Best Films of the Year). In the spring of 2010 the Tribeca Film Festival screened The Infidel, a quirky comedy that satirized radical Islam by telling the story of a Muslim man who finds out he was actually born Jewish – just as he also discovers that his son is about to marry into the family of a fanatical Islamic cleric. This too was a festival favorite that was theatrically released to positive reviews. Then later in 2010, a film called The Taqwacores was released that told a story of moderate Muslim-American youths who turn away from fundamentalism and toward Western-style freedom by embracing Western rock music (the movie was heavily promoted on MTV). Then in January of 2011 a bold and exciting film called The Devil’s Double screened at Sundance and was immediately picked up for distribution by Lionsgate. The Devil’s Double is an uncompromising depiction of the violent and sadistic Uday Hussein, Saddam Hussein’s son, and the look-alike who is hired to be his double. This openly anti-Saddam film will be released theatrically in July, and is already receiving widespread buzz online.
Poster for "The Devil's Double" (2011).
It seems almost prescient that just six months to a year after these films were screened or released, Islamic nations in North Africa and the Middle East would suddenly rise up in a series of democratic revolutions against their tyrannical masters. To those of us who study the cinema and the popular culture for clues about unconscious leanings in the human psyche that manifest themselves in social, intellectual, and political action, it seemed almost uncanny how a series of modestly-budgeted films denouncing repressive Islamist ideologies and regimes would be followed by a wholesale rejection of those regimes by their own citizens finally demanding democracy.
I’m not suggesting that films like Four Lions or The Infidel directly inspired these democratic uprisings, but I do feel that there was some sort of uncanny coincidence – a long-gestating worldwide rejection of radical Islam and all of its backwardness and repression – that subconsciously expressed itself in these films in advance of these revolutions. (And I should mention a recent wave of similarly prescient European films that also condemned radical Islam – from Shahada, The Class, and Skirt Day starring Isabel Adjani, to the French thriller The Assault that just screened at the 2011 Tribeca Film Festival.)
And now we have the killing of Osama bin Laden, in another amazing piece of timing in the midst of these game-changing cultural and political developments.
Sanity and normal human values have also returned to the screen in a new group of sci-fi films replete with 9/11 metaphors. The recent film Battle: Los Angeles depicted a group of aggressive aliens from a water-deprived planet who attack LA but are fought back by brave Marines and plucky American citizens, and the new Transformers: Dark of the Moon appears to feature a 9/11-style attack on downtown Chicago that destroys a tall office tower, as the American military fights back. Even J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek film of two years ago depicted a Romulan terrorist bringing destruction to a peaceful, Israeli-style planet Vulcan – with the terrorist ultimately being defeated by the Federation.
We could finally be seeing a turnaround here, by which people who believe in democracy and in America are finally emerging to make films with pro-freedom narratives.
We all suffered for almost ten years after 9/11 as America sought to bring the perpetrators of those attacks to justice. The families of the victims of 9/11 and the families of our brave men and women who sacrificed their lives fighting overseas suffered the worst pain of all. But it seemed to me that we in the creative professions here in America also had our own special kind of suffering, a psychological and emotional one that related to the trampling of our highest artistic ideals during the 9/11 attacks. The murderers who carried out 9/11 wanted to destroy America, to take away our democratic rights and freedoms, to subjugate women, to eradicate our culture with all of its deep roots in thousands of years of Western art, literature, history, and knowledge. Everything good and idealistic in us wanted to express what we felt as a result of those attacks – to create stories and works of art that would make clear our renewed commitment to America, to make manifest our support for freedom and democracy and all the humanistic ideals we believe in – but our cultural mandarins forbade us from doing so.
Aaron Eckhart in "Battle: Los Angeles."
So as a result, as the years passed, we were never able to see depicted in the movies the truth about 9/11 and the War on Terror: that this was an epic confrontation between civilization and barbarism, an overwhelming event that should have been open to depiction by our artists with the truth and complexity it deserved. Instead we were treated to almost ten years of cinematic evasion, lies, and obfuscation. There were some projects on the small screen that truthfully depicted radical Islam: well-made TV shows such as 24 and the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, but 24 took an anti-American turn within a few years and The Path to 9/11 was suppressed from ever being released on DVD – even though it had over 29 million viewers when it aired in September of 2006. Both projects, as their producers have confirmed publicly, were the victims of political censorship within Hollywood. As a result of all this, I thought we would never see the story of 9/11 or the War on Terror truthfully depicted on the big screen, with an acknowledgment of the value of America and of democratic civilization. I worried that all that would prevail would be the endless lie, that though we lived in a free, just, and good society like America, we would have to persuade ourselves that actually we were living in a tyranny and that our government was worse than Al Qaeda or Hezbollah.
That lie was just too much for most of us to swallow. Most of us simply could not carry out the Orwellian doublethink, the self-delusion necessary to persuade ourselves that a good country like America was really a pit of evil. The result was that many Americans who believed in freedom simply dropped out of the popular culture in the early 2000s, while a small number decided to make a stand and fight to do something about it. Jason and I were in the latter camp.
It was as a result of 9/11 and Hollywood’s inaction that Jason and I decided to start the Liberty Film Festival and Libertas. Jason had just finished film school in December of 2001 – just three months after 9/11. 9/11 indelibly affected his whole attitude to filmmaking, and mine as well. Neither of us thought we could just sit back and do nothing – especially when we saw the American filmmaking establishment’s shocking silence after the attacks. We started the Liberty Film Festival in July of 2004, and our original Libertas blog in January of 2005, and spent the next several years screening and promoting dozens of anti-terrorism films – scrappy, independent productions like Obsession, Suicide Killers, Relentless, The Making of a Martyr, Decryptage, and The Road to Jenin – that bravely told the truth about radical Islam. We also made our own indie film Kalifornistan, an anti-terrorism satire that screened as the Opening Night Film of the 2010 Freethinking Film Festival. But these were all low-budgeted independent productions that were made outside of the Hollywood system, and we despaired that anything on a bigger-budget scale would ever be made that would finally depict the truth regarding 9/11 or the War on Terror.
Celebrating the demise of a terrorist.
Things are finally starting to change, however – and in an extraordinary confluence of events, the change in the cinema is being accompanied by changes in the world-wide attitude toward Islamic terror and repressive Islamic regimes, manifested in such major events as the democratic revolutions in the Muslim world and in the long-overdue killing of Osama bin Laden. The jubilation of the crowds who gathered in front of the White House and at Ground Zero in New York when the news broke out late Sunday night, showed that the American public was far from blase in wanting to see justice brought to the instigator of 9/11. I was worried that the public had forgotten about 9/11 and had been propagandized into thinking that we really shouldn’t be going after terrorists. Apparently not. The spontaneous celebrations that have broken out show what an emotional issue this still is for Americans – and how the American public still very much cared about seeing the vile bin Laden finally brought to justice. What a shame Hollywood couldn’t have given the American public more films over the years to represent their viewpoint. I was also heartened to see so many students and young people celebrating – apparently they hadn’t bought the anti-American propaganda, either – that America itself was to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Their healthy and sane celebration of the killing of Osama bin Laden is a sign of hope for the future of our country.
And in a final piece of appropriate timing, bin Laden was killed on May 1 – Holocaust Remembrance Day. How appropriate that the criminal who wished to bring about a second Holocaust against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Muslims, would himself be killed on Holocaust Remembrance Day. This must bring a special and poignant relief to the Jewish people worldwide, and especially to the people of Israel, who have themselves suffered so much at the hands of these fanatical terrorists. I hope that this further accelerates the rejection of radical Islamic ideology, as the democratic peoples of the world fight back to assert their human rights.
This was not only a crucial step to bringing closure to the families of the victims of 9/11, many of whom I watched with tears in my eyes being interviewed on TV these past two days, their calm stoicism a testament to their courage and fortitude. It was also a crucial step toward affirming the victory of the principle of justice, in broadcasting to the world that America is undaunted in defending freedom and destroying evil – however long it may take. It shows that the dark night of nihilism and moral equivalency is passing, and that perhaps now the light of humanism and moral clarity can start to enter our culture.
I hope a good film can be made about these momentous events, and I hope that the American filmmaking establishment has the decency to tell this story straight, without partisan pot-shots or moral equivalencies. We all saw the events of 9/11 happen with our own eyes, and we all know what the killing of bin Laden means. The American public deserves a work of cinematic art that will finally serve freedom and tell this objective truth.
Posted on May 3rd, 2011 at 3:16pm.
Honestly, one of my thoughts on Sunday night was ‘oh, I wonder if they will release Path to 9/11 now that Osama was killed by a Democrat.’ Said to say that such a great American moment had even one reflection of a political nature but such is what the liberals in Hollywood have reduced our culture to. It’s kind of a sad moment, but I think it also might be a turning point. The movement of conservatives sticking their necks into the culture seems to be converging with a desire to see a more patriotic turn in films as well as less resistance from the liberals in the industry now. Seems that even anti-American leftists can find their red, white and blue painted hearts, so long as a Democrat is in office, of course. To paraphrase Newsweek, we’re all Patriots now.
Thanks for the comment Shinsnake. Yes, I’m glad that now it’s OK for Democrats to be patriotic, and I’m glad that Obama was decisive here and gave them that example. Maybe this will make it clear to them that they don’t have to be reflexively anti-war, but can rationally study the situation and realize that sometimes force is necessary to defend freedom and democracy againt barbarism. I would be happy if we would go back to a situation where the Democrats were more in the Roosevelt or Kennedy mold, in terms of believing in strong defense and in the importance of vigorously defending democracy around the world.
I definitely hope that this is a turning point in the culture as well. I think the Baby Boomers retiring is also helping matters, since a younger, less radical group of people is now able to rise and run the culture without all the baggage of the ’60s. I’m amazed and very heartened by these new pro-freedom films being made and I think things may be changing.
Hear, hear! Well said.
Thank you Mike.
You missed one film the 2007 “The Kingdom” which was well made and acted and clearly identified the terrorists as muslims and evil.
Harold – I didn’t miss anything. “The Kingdom” very clearly ends with a coda painting a moral equivalency between the CIA agents and the terrorists, making it appear as if they are simply opposite sides of the same coin perpetuating a cycle of violence. I suggest you take another look at the ending of the film.
By the way, if I’d wanted to make this not an essay but an exhaustive catalogue of every single film that addressed terrorism in the past nine and a half years, I could have also mentioned films like the Ryan Philippe anti-War on Terror film “Stop Loss,” the John Cusack anti-War on Terror film “Grace is Gone,” the anti-War on Terror pro-Islamic film “The Chronicles of Riddick,” and the obvious anti-Iraq War plot in “The Prince of Persia.” There was also the Matt Damon anti-Iraq War film “Green Zone,” and one could even say the “Bourne” films had numerous anti-War on Terror messages – as did the last “Mission Impossible” film. One could also mention “The Cell,” which was a show on TV that had War on Terror themes, and countless anti-War on Terror documentaries from “The Power of Nightmares” to Eugene Jareckis ugly “Why We Fight” remake.
The point still stands that there has only been one major Hollywood film that has openly addressed 9/11 or the War on Terror without making moral equivalencies or evading the true nature of radical Islamic terrorism, and that was ‘United 93,” as I mentioned above. “World Trade Center” depicted 9/11, but did not mention that the people who did it were Islamic terrorists. “The Kingdom” depicted Islamic terrorism (though the religion was downplayed), but made a moral equivalency between the terrorists and the CIA. Then there was the reediting of “Black Hawk Down” in the fall of 2001 to remove a coda that referenced Bin Laden, and even the decision to change the terrorists in “The Sum of All Fears” from Islamists to white Neo-Nazis. There are countless examples one can give, but my goal was to write an essay, not an encyclopedia.
It was the FBI in The Kingdom. I think you are slightly misremembering the ending, too: the idea was that the FBI agents were like the terrorists, but that their experiences had shown them the error of that viewpoint. However, that still means that the writers assumed that there was moral equivalency between the agents wanting revenge on the terrorists who killed their colleague and scores of civilians and first responders, and the terrorists wanting to kill anybody who tries to stop them forcing their evil on the world. So, not quite as bad as you remember, but still pretty obnoxious.
Govindini, that is THE monument to the era and the flash-genre of post-9/11 films. It was a pure pleasure to read.
If I may add, and I know the film or its creators are not popular here, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Screenwriter David Goyer (and I wish I could cite this) has stated that the first film was an allegory to 9/11, which was why the central building in Gotham was the target. He even went as far as to say Ra’s Al Guhl was chosen in part because his name had the same rhythmic pattern as Usama Bin Laden.
He then stated that he advanced the theme in The Dark Knight: The central theme was now the war on terror, and that fighting the enemies of civilization is a dirty business. Self preservation HAS to be a factor in our decisions.
Another film — this one a leftist tale — deserves credit for portraying the situation with a great deal of intellectual honesty. That was Body of Lies, which opened with the best summary of Islamization I have ever seen in a film. The problem, as we’ve DEFINITELY learned over the weekend, is that enhanced interrogations work, and the film’s central thesis is simply wrong.
I must respectfully disagree with a couple of your opinions. First, I don’t think Munich created a moral equivalence — in my opinion, Spielberg doesn’t have it in him to editorialize like that. To me, the film threw the arguments of both sides on screen, and knew the Israeli side would naturally win. Golda Meir’s speech, the conversation in the staircase, and a couple other scenes were clearly the intellectually superior arguments. And let’s face it, Islamists seek to hit us where they know we’re vulnerable: at our (classical) liberal sensibilities. I thought Munich showed the toll it takes fighting people who don’t care to share the world with us — like Meir said in the picture.
Second was The Kingdom. True, the film glossed over the ideology, but I didn’t see the moral equivalence. When the Muslim man told his grandson “we’re going to kill them all,” and then it was revealed that Jamie Fox’s character said the same thing was a profound ending. It sounds harsh, but I wish our Justice Department thought that way. Unfortunately, Islam is the entity that believes that (Koran 9:5), not Eric Holder. I think the film merely set out to portray this as a clash of civilizations … one that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams BOTH predicted.
We may not be at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with the West.
Well said! I hope Hollywood does not ruin this moment of jubilation. If Katheryn Bigelow goes ahead with her film, I hope she portrays the SEALS who accomplished this miraculous raid as heroes, not neurotics, like in Hurt Locker.
Great article that clearly shows why this website exists. I would reference it whenever someone needs an explanation for Libertas.
Hollywood has conducted itself these past ten years in such a despicable fashion that it harkens back to Stalin’s photo retouching of political allies that became opponents. It’s a blatant attempt to manipulate American public opinion by creating a narrative that literally belies the facts of this war. There’s been some cinematic exceptions, however I’m not optimist in the long run. I believe that Hollywood is too far gone to ever accurately portray the events of the past ten years. When you have Michael Moore serving on the Oscar board it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what’s going to happen to movies that do not toe the prevailing political narrative of Hollywood or run counter to that narrative. Freedom to Hollywood is thinking their way, which of course is not freedom at all. Stalin understood the power of cinema to manipulate the masses and Hollywood seems to have adopted those lessons well.
Brava! Another excellent essay from Ms. Govindi that should be required reading for Hollywood, media and government elites.
As an American, a moral person and a movie buff, I was heartsick and enraged that Hollywood did not depict the American reality and our hopes and dreams and desires regarding the attack and aftermath of 9/11 on screen. You summed it up best: “For two and a half years after 9/11, not one movie was made even depicting 9/11 or the ensuing War on Terror. When America needed it most, when movies and TV shows and stories depicting those terrible events would’ve helped our nation to artistically deal with the tragedy of 9/11 and experience the emotional catharsis that would have allowed us to heal, we instead got … nothing.”
Again, Brava!
Ms. Murty, your essay was an enlightening read, and based on that I would like to make two posts. the first is an examination of your statement on the show 24. It is my guess that you are referring to seasons 7 and 8 (the seasons without Joel Surnow) as the ones that you are referring to. If so, i would like to take some time to address those particular seasons:
A. Season 7 definitely moves away from the more conservative thoughts of the previous seasons (Season 5 excepted). These are notes from older post of mine on a different website regarding seasons 7 . With season 7, I can definitely see some pandering, but I can also see where that was avoided. Allow me to explain: WARNING SPOILERS
1. The President, Allison Taylor is portrayed as a well meaning, honorable leader, who is determined to stop a dictator from further causing harm to his people. What makes it interesting is that it is implied that Taylor is a Republican (something that is mentioned by TV Guide) President who chose to do this, While former President Daniels (Democrat supposedly) did not want to deal with the situation and comes off as less sympathetic.
2. The reason for the initial terrorist attack is not because the United States did anything wrong, but because the U.S is taking direct action to stop the African General/Dictator (General Juma) from further terrorizing his country and its people. This goes the “its America’s fault” reasoning. In addition, Jack does get additional help form Navy SEALs to fight some of the villains this season.
3. The very beginning has Jack Bauer defending the torture of a Middle Eastern terrorist. During this scene, the audience’s sympathies are with Jack. The more liberal minded Senator (played by Kurtwood Smith) is portrayed less sympathetically. This senator begins to gain from support from the audience, when he eventually decides to aid Jack Bauer. In addition, the audience finds out that member/s of this Senator’s staff (not some “neocon” politician) who are involved with the terrorists.
4. Finally, in the end, Jack explains that while part of him understands that torture is wrong, he feels it is worse for people (especially him) to let innocent people die when they could have done something to stop it. ____Therefore, while season 7 definitely does have some liberal leanings (the Starkwood villains working General Juma, the framing of a Muslim for terrorist activities by Starkwood, and Jack Bauer confessing to an Imam), there are areas that go against the liberal Hollywood thinking that keep it from being Anti-American.
As for Season 8 (again from older post of mine from a different site):
1. 1. The portrayal of the Middle Eastern terrorists is not sympathetic and the equivalency card is never played. The Kamistani terrorists (24’s version of Iran) commit such acts as : attempting to blow up a hospital, violently killing a protagonist on video and then downloading it on the web, torturing characters, seducing and using innocent young ladies and then setting them up to die, using a housing complex as a base of operations where they keep their kids in close proximity, and attempting to detonate a dirty bomb in New York City. The show makes it clear that this is never done in retaliation for “injustices”committed by the United States (ala “The Siege”) or because they are fighting evil with evil (ala “Body of Lies”) or because of US persecution. The Kamistani terrorists are doing this because the nation of Kamistan (24’s Iran) is on the verge of peace with the United States and the terrorists cannot let this happen. They wish to dismantle the peace process by attacking America, killing the Pro-US leaders of their country, and propping up a more radical Anti-American government in Kamistan that will continue the cycle of violence.
2. This season shows that the United States does not deserve this wave of violence. CTU (which according to some sites is a special domestic division of the CIA) is shown as doing whatever is necessary to stop the terrorists and the audience is rooting for them. This season makes the argument that terrorism (The Kamistani terrorists) and enemy governments (The Russian government who has secretly been in league with the terrorists because they fear that a peace deal between America and Kamistan would further shift the balance of power to the West/ United States) must be confronted and held accountable for their actions even if the results are not pretty ones. Capitulating to the demands of terrorists and appeasing enemy governments in order to expedite government policies is viewed negatively in this season and never an option (hint hint present administration).
- I can go into further details with an analysis of President Taylor and Hassan vs. Logan and Subarov, but i will save for another time.
Thank you for taking the time to read this this. I always look forward to reading the articles and posts on this site.
Yes, the reason I had so much pent-up aggression was because of the massive anti-american culture that quite frankly in it’s early years was somewhat tame, but after 2005, Oh, my f***ing God! The anti-american culture completely exploded. You could not go to the movies, you could not watch a stand-up comedy, you could not even watch cartoons without someone somewhere making a comment that’s out of place or just palin insulting.
I watched a lot of host shows with Conan O Brian, The Daily Show and Jay Leno. I honestly, couldn’t take anymore “this is why the world hates us” jokes over and over and over again.
I stopped watching the Oscars, because every actor in those shows felt the need to give out their unsolicited opinion and just never shut up. I also stopped watching those press junkets, because every director felt the need to shove down our throats on why they hated Bush even if nobody asked them.
It was also a time of extreme pettiness, if a murderer and rapist walked out of jail and said that Bush was evil, there would be people who wanted go out of their way to clear his name. Roman Polanski, is the prime example of hatred for Bush.
The funny thing is, is that whoever was asked to tone their rhetoric down, would be met with reprisals all too swiftly.
It was the time of “dissent being the highest form of patrotism”.
But back to movies, even with stuff that had nothing to do with 9/11, there was some stuff that was just bizarre. Like Rush Hour 3, which features a ranting french Taxi driver who never shuts up about how evil America is.
A random War on Terror jab in the Max Payne movie, Even The Expandables throws in a CIA rouge.
And Babel further solidified the anti-american culture in which everything is Bush and to some extent America’s fault.
Even a friggin monster movie like The Host is nothing more than a USA = Nazi Germany metaphor.
To put it mildy, my post-Bush era internal bleeding is starting to slow down.
Hello I am on my break and I would like to take a moment to make a shout out to certain films. Ms. Murty was highly correct about the politics of most films and shows that came out during the years that President Bush (the second Bush) was in office. For that reason i would like to call out (positively) films that went against those politics (be it directly linked to the War on Terror or mildly so) and therefore the “black sheeps” of the Hollywood family during the Bush years.
A. Direct Call outs:
1. Iron Man: patriotic capitalist who becomes a superhero that wipes out terrorists in the Middle East. The military is portrayed honorably, one or tow big shots of the American flag (in sincerity), no disrespect shown towards the War on terror or the Bush Administration. (the one businessman villain is not the head of the company, but a rogue playing the board of directors and CEO against each other for personal reasons, not financial ones; which you get form his killing the golden goose line.
2. Transformers: Pro-military(EVEN SHOWN PERFORMING HEROICALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST), pro-freedom film. Here the allegory for the War on Terror is apparent. While there is a mild joke on Bush, his administration is shown as performing admirably (and we are told directly that he is giving the orders) with members cooperating, supporting, and even fighting alongside the military.
3. Vantage Point: Honorable US President, heroic Americans, evil terrorists (members of the Mujhadeen Brigade based out of Morocco). Also, one of the first victims of the terrorists’ attacks is liberal media reporter who remarks that the US may bear some responsibility for the terrorists actions.
4. 300: An allegory for the War on Terror (and its not subtle about it at all). Heroic Westerners (Spartans) face evil Persian hordes who want submission or death. Heroic King who fights back when various politicians accuse him of warmongering.
5. NCIS (television show): a year or two ago it went more liberal (when Obama took the white house). Before that, numerous episodes with Jihadists as villains. The military is viewed with admiration (even in episodes where you have a rogue element acting as an antagonist and then he/she is shown as not worthy of not wearing the uniform). Soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are consistently called “heroes”, and the Bush administration is not bad mouthed (until much later, first noticed it after Obama took office).
6. 24: Pro-America (even seasons 7 and 8. Season 5 a little more questionable), pro-military, pro taking out terrorists and defending America by any means. Jihadists as bad guys many times (many argue that they answer to a “white” villain. However Habib Marwan (season 4) answered to no one, Abu Fayed (season 6) answers to General Omar Habib, not Dimitry Gridenko (who Fayed almost kills at one point), and Samir (season
is funded by the Russian government, but does not take orders from them.) Unsavory and Savory political figures from both sides of the aisle.
7. The Nolan Batman series: another not subtle allegory for the War on terror. Terrorist leader in Batman Begins uses an Arabic name (Ra’s al Ghoul), Joker is classified as a terrorist. Evil (in the forms of organized crime and terrorism) must be fought even if you are vilified for it later.
8. Tears of the Sun: Heroic Navy SEALs protect christian villagers (the EBO) from being slaughtered clearly define Muslim militants (The Fulani) in Nigeria.
B. Honorable mentions:
1. Chuck (television): villains are more of the Bond variety (one or two middle eastern villains). However, pro-CIA/NSA show. The CIA and NSA are shown as a force for good that is constantly saving the US and the world. Bush administration never bad mouthed, though some comments made about both the Clintons and Obama (courtesy of the Great conservative hero, John Casey). The hero wants to be part of this world in order to make a difference for the better and does.
2. The Lord of the rings series: not jihadists. Beings led by “men of the west” must come together to fight off an evil that will enslave them all and does not share power. Constantly shown how you must must be willing to fight off evil and cannot ignore it for it will not ignore you.
3. The Narnia series: films that show you must be willing to embrace faith and be willing to go to war in order fight evil.
4. Rambo (#4): Again not jihadists. However, the Burmese military is BRUTALLY targeting Christians (the villagers and missionaries). We are told and shown that the only way to deal with such violence is to meet it with greater violence (negotiation solves nothing in such matters)
5. We Were Soldiers: pro-faith/pro-military film. These Vietnam war soldiers are portrayed as good/honorable men that deserve our gratitude. While not as harsh on the North Vietnamese as it could have been, our side is viewed with love and respect in the heat of battle. The faith angle is never downplayed or disrespected.
6. The Great Raid: Another pro-military/pro-faith film. Japanese military is completely unsympathetic. The American military is portrayed heroically, those of faith are shown as heroic as well. Definitely pro-American in every way.
C. On a side note:
1. The National Treasure films: movies that emulate America and its history and shows reverence for those who fought/sacrificed to keep it safe (the first film) and unified (the second film). In addition, you have the President (who bears some resemblance to Bush) portrayed as an honorable and likable man who is both respected and admired by the hero.
2. The Guardian: while it deals with the Coast Guard Rescue divers and not a combat unit, it does show respect and admiration for this branch of the military (they are called the military on one or two occasions). It shows the dedication, honor, and sacrifice required to save the lives of many civilians and the film hold them in esteem for it. Also, the Bush administration is not bad mouthed at all.
again, these are nods of approval i wish to give to films that came out during the Bush years and did tow the liberal line.
* One could make a case for Live Free or Die Hard: True, the terrorists are not jihadists, but European/Asian/ American mercenaries (;ed by a disgruntled government employee). However, the attitude is one of stop terrorism at all costs (and any excuse terrorists give for their actions is usually B.S). America might be imperfect, but the country and its people are good and not deserving of terrorist attacks. Liberal talking points are shut down hard (the corporate America rant and the it would be cool to shut down the system line for example) and bureaucrats who are not willing to face the issues of terrorism seriously are part of the problem, while those who fight head on are to be respected.
There should also be a mention of Team America: World Police, and Cloverfield. Team America: World Police was really the first film to address the issue at all. And that is so ironic that I really want to make sure everyone remembers it!
There was also that good 7 or 8 minutes in War of the Worlds. You know, the 7 or 8 minutes where the film was good.
And thanks to everyone who forgot that An American Carol existed. I wish I could.
Omar, you left out The Unit. Some of its episodes have jihadists as the bad guys and are dealt with decisively, often through guile and deception.
Navy SEAL: “So you’re Osama Bin Laden. I’ve heard of you.”
OBL: “What have you heard, Infidel?”
Navy SEAL: “I’ve heard that you’re a low-down terrorist liar.”
OBL: “Prove it!.
Navy SEAL: Blam-Blam-Blam
To Mr./Ms Arminus: You are correct about Team America. Thank you for reminding me and I apologize for forgetting about that film.
Mr/Ms. VW : Thank you for mentioning The Unit. Unfortunately i had only seen two episodes (though i honestly feel guilty for not following that particular program) and therefore did not feel comfortable talking about it. However thank you for the back-up. Based on your comments I intend to start renting the seasons in order to enjoy what you have stated.
* Thank you all for taking the time to read my posts, and i am flattered that you took the time to respond to it
Omar:
Great posts, man. We even said the same think about Batman Begins. And you’re right … you HAVE to jump into The Unit. There was an amazing two-parter where the team secretly went into Syria, and another incredible one where the team actually goes to Israel to learn how to fight terror tactics — it’s gut-wrenching television.
I also don’t think the Rambo film can be discounted — you just don’t see films that are that thematically rich, and elegant and brutal at the same time. I may be reaching, but I always said if Sam Peckinpah or John Ford made a modern film, it would be like Rambo.
The same goes for Tears of the Sun — an extremely important film of the last decade.
And while I’m thinking about it, the Battlestar Galactica had its thought-provoking moments on 9/11, and the war on terror. The creators were open leftists, but to their credit, they said they sought to directly challenge their ideas, which is why many episodes were pro-war on terror, and even pro-life.
What also deserves mention is Star Trek Voyager. The show depicted a 9/11 style event on Earth, and the subsequent season was about the crew waging a war on terrorism. It even showed military aspects of Starfleet, which is kind of rare for the mythos. If I remember correctly, it was made by 24’s Manny Coto. Even if you’re not a Trek fan, it was intense TV. There was never even a hint of relativism — just the challenges of bringing evil beings to justice … brilliant writing.
HEAR! HEAR! THE MAN!