By Jason Apuzzo. • So the fantastic news from yesterday is that the Angelina Jolie anti-communist thriller Salt, which we loved here at LFM, is likely to get a sequel. Deadline broke the story yesterday that Sony is moving forward on the project, with Jolie returning to star and Kurt Wimmer returing to write the screenplay. It’s not clear at the moment whether Phillip Noyce will be returning to direct, which is a key issue in my opinion – as Noyce is an old pro who really guides such projects masterfully. But nonetheless this is fabulous news, as Hollywood currently now has its own full-fledged communist-hunting franchise up and running. What could be better?
As LFM readers will recall, we were very enthusiastic over this film last year, not because the film was a masterpiece, but because it represented a return to the classic, Cold War anti-communist ethos that has been missing not only from mainstream Hollywood cinema – but also from the broader culture. Salt as much as any film was the reason we began doing Cold War Updates! – although other projects like MGM’s new Red Dawn (which we’d privately seen, way in advance) or Mao’s Last Dancer contributed to this Cold War Update! series being created, as well.
As we know, the communist threat has very much shifted from West to East, with China and North Korea emerging as potent threats to America – but Salt dwells on what has always been a great subject for spy cinema, which is the threat of communist infiltration here at home. (Specifically, Salt deals with Russian communist sleeper agents here in America left over from the Cold War, who are ultimately intent on returning Russia to its Soviet past.) Nowadays one might well ask whether communists need to even bother hiding themselves, anymore … incidentally, have I ever mentioned to Libertas readers that Van Jones is an old acquaintance of mine, and of Libertas contributor David Ross? … but perhaps that’s a story for another day.
What’s even more remarkable about the Salt ‘franchise’ – if we can call it that now – is that it’s emerging without the help of Fox News, talk radio, or the conservative blogosphere, all of whom appear curiously unaware of this film – even though Jolie is easily the biggest female star in the world, besides being daughter to Jon Voight. What gives? I often hear conservatives complain about ‘films that Hollywood won’t talk about’ or films that Hollywood is somehow trying to ‘suppress’ – such as Atlas Shrugged or American Carol, or a seemingly endless parade of conserva-documentaries – but box office hits like Salt (nearly $300 million worldwide) or even superb indie dramas like Mao’s Last Dancer ($22 million worldwide) or Peter Weir’s The Way Back ($20 million worldwide) seem to now be the films conservatives themselves won’t talk about.
Why is that? Is it because they’re not made by the ‘right’ people?
• The next Bond film (James Bond #23) now has a UK release date of October 12th, 2012 (the U.S. release is Nov. 9th), and rumors are swirling that the next Bond girl may be Naomie Harris.
Just for fun, by the way, I’d like to float an idea out there: that with Michael Bay concluding his work on the Transformers series, that the Brocollis consider giving him the Bond franchise … and Michael Fassbender the role of 007. Wouldn’t this be great? Feel free to comment below on the idea. You never know, after all, who might be reading this site.
• A boffo new trailer for the Call of Duty 3: Modern Warfare game is out, a game that will continue the Call of Duty storyline of a Russian invasion of America … this time involving Russian sponsorship of worldwide terror-attacks. The trailer is really something – absolutely epic in the scope of the villains’ all-out assault on the Western world – so be sure to check it out above.
You can also read this highly spoilerific summary of the game’s storyline, and you can catch some great footage of gameplay. This thing just looks superb, and quite intense.
• Breaking news today has it that Steven Soderbergh may start shooting The Man from U.N.C.L.E. by early next year, and that it could be Soderbergh’s last film before ‘retiring.’ Whatever. Producer John Davis also says that having George Clooney star in the film would be “best way to do it.” No it wouldn’t.
• Clearly the biggest news on the Cold War front was the recent release of X-Men: First Class (read the LFM review). The film had a decent debut at the worldwide box office, but nothing earthshaking – nor necessarily up to the standard of previous installments. My sense is that Fox has some hard decisions to make on this series, in terms of what future films they want to greenlight that don’t involve Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. It’s a little unclear how popular the series is without him being front and center.
You can read what director Matthew Vaughn says about the possibility of sequels … and also about how much he’d love for the Brocollis to hire him and Michael Fassbender to do the Bond films (Vaughn also, interestingly, made sure to watch You Only Live Twice before working on First Class). Star James McAvoy has also been weighing in the possibility of sequels, as well.
As Libertas readers know, I was ambivalent about First Class. While I did not like the film’s overall depiction of the Cold War as a conflict among implied moral equals, I nonetheless acknowledge that the film basically glamorized the period and was entertaining. It galls me that the film may be some teenagers’ first exposure to important Cold War history like the Cuban Missile Crisis … but that’s probably better than them not being exposed to such history, at all.
Elsewhere in First Class news: Michael Fassbender, the man of the moment, talks to the Wall Street Journal; Architectural Digest takes a look at the film’s fabulous sets; The New York Post has a feature on Jennifer Lawrence in the film; and here’s the clip of Kevin Bacon doing is pseudo-Bush “for us or against us” riff, if you’re in the mood to be annoyed.
• Is it unfair of me to feature Transformers: Dark of the Moon news in both Invasion Alerts! and Cold War Updates? Not really, because there is a U.S. vs. Russia/Cold War space race element to the new Transformers film – and, as if confirming this, the film’s world premiere will appropriately be at the Moscow International Film Festival on June 23rd.
I’m actually trying to avoid more news of Transformers as its debut approaches, as I’m eager to not have the film spoiled. But for the less cautious, you can learn more about Shockwave (the film’s new villain) here and here; The New York Post has a feature out about Rosie Huntington-Whiteley; some new production stills are out; there’s a new featurette out about the film’s base jumpers; two new TV spots have appeared (here and here); and even an early, rave review from Ain’t It Cool News.
• In other Cold War News & Notes: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy now has a release date (see here and here); worldwide distribution on Mission Impossible: 4 is being settled; ABC’s fall TV series Pan Am apparently has a Cold War spy subplot; Ridley Scott will be taking on a new film about the Reagan-Gorbachev summit at Reykyavik, appropriately called Reykyavik; the Weinsteins have picked up the Meryl Streep-Margaret Thatcher pic, The Iron Lady; the Mossad-in-East-Berlin Cold War thriller The Debt (with Sam Worthington and Helen Mirren) has a new poster; and John Huston’s The Kremlin Letter is finally coming to DVD.
• AND IN TODAY’S MOST IMPORTANT NEWS … it just seems like we should take one more look (below) at January Jones as Emma Frost in X-Men: First Class, who parades around in that film in one eye-popping outfit after another. Were the 60s really this great? I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t there …
And that’s what’s happening today in The Cold War!
Posted on June 7th, 2011 at 4:21pm.
Hollywood currently now has its own full-fledged communist-hunting franchise up and running. What could be better?
This: the writers would be talented activist conservatives who adopted the left’s messaging techniques. Therefore a likely story line would be exposing a sleeper Soviet plot involving high level bureaucrats of the government environmental complex – where the communist’s social goals are being implemented in the west through alarmist climate propaganda. It would feature several US government types who are bigoted jerks with pictures of Obama over their desks. ; )
I hear you … 😉 I don’t think they need to be ‘activist conservatives,’ though. Merely talented will do.
Saw X-Men today. I guess the film was entertaining enough that I pretty much ignored the “moral equivalency” thing, but I do acknowledge that it was there.
Whatever. January Jones and Rose Byrne in their underwear in the first ten minutes? Yeah, everything after that was gravy. 🙂
I won’t argue. 🙂
I read an interview with “X-Men: First Class” director Matthew Vaughn. He said he’d like to possibly show Magneto behind the JFK assassination, which would explain the magic bullet theory.
A 007 film would be a great challenge for Michael Bay. He would still be able to show his action chops, but it would also require a more subtle touch at times. Not only do I think he could do it, but I think it would be awesome.
As for “Salt” sequels … bring it — that’s all I can say.
Wait … you knew Van Jones?
Dave and I knew Van quite well in college, although Van himself was actually in law school at the time. I co-founded Yale’s conservative newspaper, The Yale Free Press, which David later edited. We brought Van in on lark, because he could write, was funny, and was very good with the ladies – a kind of well-dressed, activist babe magnet. As I recall, I wanted him to do some kind of dating advice column. Eventually, we decided that he would simply be the resident communist on an otherwise conservative newspaper. It worked.
So if you can imagine, there was a period when David, myself and Van Jones were all writing for the same college paper.
As opposed to our conservative writers, I recall that Van was always punctual in turning in his columns, and that his stuff was usually in great shape … although David may remember differently, as he dealt with him more directly than I did. I remember Van being a great guy, who wore these cool turtlenecks, who just happened to be a communist.
A communist writing dating columns? Dating could lead to love, marriage, children, family — all things frowned upon by the state.
As you know, I’m a journalist, so most people I work with are either leftist dupes or pure open Marxists. Some of them are even cool — I’ll rap with them about books, movies, and even sports sometimes — but I NEVER trust anyone who believes the fruits of my labor belong to the state.
There’s something seriously wrong with you if you promote a system that’s resulted in not only the severe deterioration of the quality of life, but also more than 100 million deaths in the modern era (that’s just from political killings alone).
I hear you. At the time, frankly, I didn’t take Van’s rants very seriously. Remember that this was at the tail end of the Reagan-Bush years, when guys like him seemed quaint, at best. What I didn’t see coming – what I couldn’t see coming – was everything brought in by the Clinton era … and the absolute domination of the culture by Baby Boomers and their progeny. Guys like Van now own the world. So do guys like Austan Goolsbee, who I also knew at the time, the person who’s currently
ruiningrunning our economy.But you have to understand: to a lot of these guys, being a leftist is really just a lifestyle. They’re not thinking about it all that much. They’re putting their finger to the wind, seeing the way it blows, and adjusting their careers accordingly. And I’m sorry to say that for many of these guys, it’s working out beautifully for them.
Salt worked for two reasons and two reasons only. Jolie is the main reason. No actress alive today could do that role and second it had a competent veteran directer, Phillip Noyce. Hopefully they’ll raise their game in the next installment because the first was a good (not spectacular) start.
We talked about this in the comments of your review of the X-Men First Class and that is Fassbender stole that movie. He’s the perfect choice for the next James Bond. Daniel Craig has screwed his image up to the point that unless the next Bond returns to the quality of Casino Royal, he should be replaced with Fassbender. I’m not hopeful of that occurring due to the fact its going to be directed by Sam Mendes. (The man responsible for American Beauty, which is on my top ten list of most dreadful movies ever made and for me epitomizes everything that’s wrong with Hollywood’s view of America.)
And CODMW3, well I can’t wait!
Agreed on all fronts here, JG. And actually I should spend more time lamenting that Sam Mendes is directing the new Bond film. I think that was a bad decision … but I’m quasi-encouraged that people (including Matthew Vaughn) are already throwing around Fassbender’s name as Bond. Hopefully he’ll get the role before he’s 50.
Great update, Jason. Although I’ve been following video game news from E3 religiously, I didn’t know anything about MW3’s storyline til I read it here. It truly sounds epic. Thanks for that.
No problem, VW. Thanks for checking in.
VW well COD4: Modern Warfare plot held together well enough, though it was a bit short Modern Warfare 2 ended up being something of a mess. To be sure the gameplay was solid, but the story was full of holes.
To recap (Spoiler warning):
Modern Warfare: Civil war rages in Russia between the goverment and Ultr-Nationalists well in the Middle East a coup brings a terrorist leader to power. The SAS discovers a link between the Terrorists and Ultra-Nationalist but not before the Americans invade. The first half concerns the Americans trying to capture the Middle Eastern terrorist well the SAS rescues their informant in Russia, and comes to an end when the American forces fighting in the Middle East are wiped out when the now fled terrorist leader detonates a nuclear device. The 2nd half concerns a joint US Marine/SAS operation to find and capture the terrorist leader and then take out the Ultra-Nationalist leadership.
Modern Warfare 2: Picks up about 5 years later. The Ultra Nationalists have seized power in Russia despite the events of the first game. After a brief intro fighting in Afghanistan as a US Ranger, we learn that the British and Americans have formed Task Force 141 a new anti-terror unit. 141 discovers that critical intel has fallen into Russian hands during a raid in Kazakhstan. Following the infamous “No Russian” mission (a terror attack on Moscow airport in which a CIA man participates unwittingly) 141 is sent to find the man responsable (Makarov) starting with an arms dealer in Rio. Concurently Russia blames the US for the attack in Moscow and invades the East Cost. As American forces battle in and around Washington D.C. 141 rescues Capt. Price from a Siberian prison and launches raid on Makarov’s safe house. After securing intel 141 is betrayed by American Gen. Shepherd who because he’s pissed about precevied lack of support for the US military (its never really makes sense why he does what he does), has been in cahots with Makarov to start a major war (the Moscow attack being part of the plan). Well the Russian assault on America is stalled thanks to an EMP burst, the survivors of 141 journey to Afghanistan where they assault Shepherds hidden HQ, his elite “Shadow Company” before finally killing the General. The game ends with Makarov still at large who will presumably be the main target in Modern Warfare 3.
More on MW2 plot holes can be found here
http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox360/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/g-20090326142018906090
Thanks for the intel, Jim.
Here’s a plot outline for Salt II
The fall of the Soviet Union was a sham, a grand maskirovka, to lull the West into a false sense of victory and to stop the unwinnable direct competition between the Soviets and the US. The KGB, led by Putin, has never actually given up control; rather, they put up the drunken buffoon Yeltsin to be a show President for the West, to convince the West to stop the Cold War and reclaim the “Peace Dividend”. The original illegal placement into the CIA of Salt et al. has been duplicated across all the most important sectors of the government and economy. Finally the pinnacle of the plan is approaching, as Putin and the hidden core of the CPUSSR execute their brilliant plan to place a sleeper into the White House.
Writes itself from there, though we don’t know the conclusion yet. 😐
I love it! Incidentally, you should check out the Charles McCarry novel Lucky Bastard from back in the Clinton era. It would be right up your alley …
I agree with everything you said about Salt. Look forward to the sequel and it is perfect for Jolie.
But onto Bond. I am a Bond aficionado with collections of many books and paraphenalia. I have even spoken on Bond panels. My views on Craig are thus…he is, as an actor, a fantastic Bond. Casino Royale is one of the best, Quantum of Solace is one of the worst. But here is the rub. He seems ashamed to be the character. It is a launching pad for him to something bigger but he shows it no real respect. He takes his paycheck and moves on. That is starting to run me the wrong way. He has made comments that Bond fans have looked past like he would play Bond gay or such…but the Bond in drag really put a craw in the teeth of a lot of fans.
I was even more put off that it was sanctioned by the Broccolis. You do not see Matt Damon apologizing for Jason Bourne being an America hating Marxist. Even Roger Moore, lefty as he is, is proud of Bond and wears his history with it with honour and pride. Love him even if his films are flawed.
What Craig forgets is that if the actor is not proud of Bond, people forget the actor. People still look fondly at Dalton because he looked up to Bond.
Craig’s Bond is good, but after his trilogy I would be fine if he moved on. As for Bay directing…I am so there. Think of the girls he would bring! It would easily be the most babe friendly bond ever made with no PC comments made about Craig being the “babe” in the film.
He would also give it a real edge and knock the PC of Quantum of Solace away. Those anti American pro Marxist comments made by Bond a few times in Quantum really are not the character. Loved that the villain was a faux environmentalist but it leaves a bad taste.
Nicol, thanks so much for this contribution – this is all very appreciated. I think you’ve basically hit the essence of the problem with Craig, why he irritates me and others beyond merely what he isn’t bringing to the role (humor, panache): it’s that he doesn’t respect the character or its history. Craig is basically a dry-as-dust careerist who sees Bond as a professional opportunity, and nothing more. He neither relishes the role nor embraces its possibilities, beyond those associated with sadism and violence. The Bond role seems to be simply an expensive pretext for him venting his aggression, or whatever hostility he holds. He plays the role like a drunken rugby player, and he’s boring to watch.
What Michael Bay would bring to the table is the old-fashioned Cold War ethos, a playful sense of humor, the high-tech fetishism … and the best women available, period. Bay’s style, actually, is already the Bond style in its original, 1960s inflection. I think he would be a marvelous choice.
Please continue to contribute your expertise and passion in these matters, Nicole … I really enjoy your remarks.
While I was an instant convert to Fassbender as Bond, I can’t agree with Michael Bay directing. Bay overuses “shakey cam” (alas I don’t know the proper term) and it may just be because of transformers, his recent action sequences have been almost impossible to decipher (if the robots had more distinguishing features I’d perhaps be more lenient, but between teh camera work and the subject matter I could barely tell who was doing what to whom in Transformers II).
I also must dissent from the general approval that has been directed towards Casino Royale: Daniel Craig is a terrible Bond and always has been. While Casino Royale was in a way going back to the source, severing it from the Cold War gave it problems. Having it relate to terrorist financing might have worked, if the only terrorists they bothered mentioning or showing hadn’t been the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda of all things. While the LRA is as foul an outfit as you can name, I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t some more international group of terrorists that western intelligence agencies might be interested in thwarting. Just a thought. I disliked Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace has the dubious honor of being the worst Bond movie of all time and made me consider declaring the franchise dead.
Andrew, thanks for your comments. Bay’s not known so much for using handheld – although he certainly does, especially for action sequences – as much as for using a moving camera, but usually his moving camera is quite fluid. In fact, Bay is rather famous these days for the duration of his shots, in which he packs as much spectacle as possible – and my understanding is that he pushes this to the limit in the new Transformers movie. But if that’s not to your taste, I understand. I still think Bay brings a lot of other factors to the table that the current Bond director, Sam Mendes, most definitely does not bring.
As for Casino Royale, I appreciate your point. At the same time, I do think Craig brought some ruggedness to the role – and credibility, in terms of Bond being an action hero – that was sorely lacking with Brosnan, and arguably had been lacking since Connery. Craig is actually the first Bond since Connery (outside of Lazenby, perhaps) who actually looks like someone you wouldn’t want to get into a fight with. Craig looks tough and menacing, and I think that’s appropriate for the role. To me, the problem is that he brings nothing else.
As for making Bond feel relevant to the War on Terror, they haven’t licked that yet – I suspect out of political correctness. And that’s a shame, because it’s right there for the taking. Somehow Michael Bay has made a Hasbro toy line seem relevant to the War on Terror – which is why I think Bond would be a relative breeze for him.
I like this site because of its reaction to the dominant media culture. For many years I’ve been very, very tired of hearing about Boomers. It’s just not relevant anymore- most of the big events in the Boomer narrative happened before I was born.
The almost total absence of anything that happened after 2000 from the pop culture perplexed me for a while. Then I realized what it was.
If we win the war, it means that the Boomers, alone in American history, had lost their war. If Iraq and Afghanistan prove to be winnable then they lost Vietnam. It wasn’t that the war was unwinnable, but that they couldn’t win it. And so, desperately, they did everything they could to talk down any hope of victory. They won’t even say “victory.”
It’s personal to that generation. Note how Iraq is just gone from the news and that Vietnam has also faded. We just don’t hear about them anymore.
I’ve told my friends that if someone really wanted to make a transgressive movie they’d make the heroes a team of corporate middle managers fighting to overcome a cabal of activists and lawyers in order to save the world from bioterrorists by using a genetically modified vaccine. It makes as much sense as our current movie plots. It’s grown so predictable that I can’t watch any modern thrillers. Really, yet another “shocking twist” that the real enemy is a bald white guy wearing a suit in an office. Who knew? I don’t mind that plot so much except I’ve seen it 1000x and it’s as predictable as the sunrise.
I think the last movie I watched in the theater was the “True Grit.” remake because I was pretty sure they wouldn’t make John Wayne’s/Jeff Bridge’s character into the villain.
I completely agree with you John that the Boomers are, at a certain level, mortified by the success we’ve had in Iraq in particular (Afghanistan is a more complicated situation; the country’s always been a mess) – because of how poorly it reflects on their own handling of Vietnam. The self-absorption of that generation, their tendency to see every narrative as reflecting back on themselves, apparently has no bounds.
Salt was a fun film; the action shots were great, especially that wildly inventive freeway chase scene. But I didn’t see it as especially patriotic. The heroine was a Soviet sleeper agent who turns on her comrades only b/c they killed her husband, whom she loves. The implication is that had they let him be, she would have done her part. I like the fact that the commies are bad guys, for a change, rather than the CIA, but I don’t see Salt’s character as an American patriot at all.