Category Archives: Movies

Hollywood hoopla ignores media’s history of servility, by James Bovard

Hollywood ought to turn the lens on itself and do a picture on the intelligence agencies’ influence in Hollywood. That, alas, would be like making a movie of What Makes Sammy Run? (a fine novel about Hollywood that cuts too close to the truth for tinseltown). From James Bovard at thehill.com:

Hollywood hoopla ignores media's history of servility

Much of the media nowadays is portraying itself as heroes of the #Resist Trump movement. To exploit that meme, Hollywood producer Steven Spielberg rushed out “The Post,” a movie depicting an epic press battle with the Nixon administration. But regardless of whether Spielberg’s latest wins the Academy Award for best picture on Sunday night, Americans should never forget the media’s long history of pandering to presidents and the Pentagon.

“The Post” is built around the Pentagon Papers, a secret study begun in 1967 analyzing where the Vietnam war had gone awry. The 7000-page tome showed that presidents and military leaders had been profoundly deceiving the American people ever since the Truman administration and that the same mistakes were endlessly repeated. Like many policy autopsies, the report was classified and completely ignored by the White House and federal agencies that most needed to heed its lessons.

Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon official, heroically risked life in prison to smuggle the report to the media after members of Congress were too cowardly to touch it. The New York Times shattered the political sound barrier when it began courageously publishing the report despite a profusion of threats from the Nixon administration Justice Department. After a federal court slapped the Times with an injunction, the Washington Post and other newspapers published additional classified excerpts from the report. Likely because the Washington Post had a female publisher, Spielberg made it, rather than the Times, the star of the show.

Spielberg’s movie portrays Post editor Ben Bradlee denouncing dishonest government officials to publisher Katharine Graham: “The way they lied — those days have to be over.” Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who deluged the media with falsehoods about battlefront progress, did more than anyone else (except perhaps President Lyndon Johnson) to vastly increase the bloodbath for Americans and Vietnamese. McNamara’s disastrous deceits did not deter the Washington Post from appointing him to its Board of Directors. As author Norman Solomon recently observed, “The Washington Post was instrumental in avidly promoting the lies that made the Vietnam War possible in the first place.”

To continue reading: Hollywood hoopla ignores media’s history of servility

‘The 15:17 to Paris’ Review: Eastwood’s Ode to the Americanism that Makes Everyday Heroes, by John Nolte

Clint Eastwood has made some good movies. According to this review in Breitbart by John Nolte, The 15:17 to Paris is one of them. As an aside, he made a movie starring Angelina Jolie, The Changeling, (2008) that didn’t get a lot of attention or acclaim but was one of his best. It’s a haunting, disturbing movie, not Hollywood at all, based on a true story. Highly recommended. From Nolte at breitbart.com:

On the afternoon of August 21, 2015, on a train headed to Paris from Amsterdam, an Islamic terrorist named Ayoub El Khazzan exited a bathroom with a AKM rifle and 300 rounds of ammunition. The first person to try and stop him was Mark Moogalian, a 51-year-old American-born Frenchman, who wrestled the rifle away from El Khazzan but was shot in the back with a pistol Moogalian did not know the terrorist was carrying.

With his rifle and rounds back in his grasp, El Khazzan made his way to the passenger car. It was here that he met up with three Americans, three lifelong friends enjoying a European excursion together: 23-year-old Airman First Class Spencer Stone, 23-year-old Anthony Sadler, and 22-year-old Specialist Alek Skarlatos.

It is the story of the American friends that producer/director Clint Eastwood wants to tell. In fact, the three-time Oscar winner is so interested in these three, he had them play themselves in a $30 million studio film.

The opening scene is a doozy, a sharp stick in the eye of public school tyrants eager to feed drugs to boys as a means to control their behavior, or “to make your job easier,” as Spencer’s mother (Judy Greer) puts it just before Spencer and Alek are placed in a Christian middle school.

The Christian environment does not, however, calm the boys’ behavior, and it is in the principal’s outer-office where they complete their trio with Anthony, a street-wise charmer who proceeds to lead them into even more trouble. Eventually real life intrudes and they go their separate ways. For Alek and Spencer, that means life in the military.

Alek is eventually deployed to Afghanistan while Spencer struggles to find his way in the Air Force.  In the summer of 2015, while they are still young and unencumbered, they decide to get the band back together for a trip through Europe. Near the end of the vacation, they find themselves on the 15:17 to Paris.

The only way I can describe Eastwood’s highly original approach to this story is to call it a populist art film. To begin with, the screenplay, written by Dorothy Blyskal, and based on the book written by our three heroes with Jeffrey E. Stern, primarily focuses on just how American these three guys are.

To continue reading: ‘The 15:17 to Paris’ Review: Eastwood’s Ode to the Americanism that Makes Everyday Heroes

Hostiles, by Jim Quinn

Hostiles, a movie with themes of reconciliation, is a good movie according to Jim Quinn, but reconciliation just doesn’t fly in the current political environment. From Quinn at theburningplatform.com:

 

Christian Bale in Hostiles

I don’t like going to the movies. Too much hassle, too many commercials and previews, too expensive, and 90% of the movies are worthless drivel, SJW inspired crap, or government buoyed propaganda. Last weekend was my wife’s birthday and she wanted to see a movie. When she shockingly suggested a western, I reluctantly agreed. So my wife and one of my sons got in the car and headed to an old Franks theater in Montgomeryville that only charges $8.50. I had seen a brief review of Hostiles on-line and saw it got a decent rating on rotten tomatoes. I was looking forward to being mildly entertained.

The next two hours and fifteen minutes of this dark, somber, violent, morally ambiguous treatise about the old west cannot be described as enjoyable. But I did find it riveting and thought provoking. Christian Bale, as Captain Joseph Blocker, mournfully carries out his duties without a single smile crossing his bearded countenance for the entire movie. The tone, atmosphere and message of this film reminded me of my favorite western and subject of the final part of my five part series based on Clint Eastwood movies – Unforgiven. One of the soldiers in Hostiles even has dialogue almost matching Will Munny’s foreboding exchange at the end of Unforgiven:

“That’s right. I’ve killed women and children. I’ve killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I’m here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned.”

It was clear to me Scott Cooper, the director, was paying tribute to Eastwood and his Academy Award winning revisionist western classic, with his dark cinematography, introspective atmosphere, and themes of good, evil, heroism, aging, duty and courage. Movies in this age of shallowness, disinformation, and fake news rarely broach subjects like the treatment of Native Americans in the 1800s.

To continue reading: Hostiles

A Post-Mortem On The Corpse Of ‘Social Justice’, by Brandon Smith

The social justice movement may be going extinct. Brandon Smith has an article that should brighten your day. From Smith at alt-market.com:

I have been commenting on social justice propaganda for quite some time; long before it was fashionable to do so, and long before there was an organized movement of support to defend commentators who dared to question the insane dictates of the cult of political correctness. In my article ‘The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness’, published in early 2014, I outlined the basic philosophical underpinnings of political correctness and what these beliefs tend to lead to. At the time, the future for champions of individual liberty and reason appeared rather bleak. Today, I am happy to say the backlash against “third-wave feminism” and cultural Marxism has expanded beyond anything I could have dreamed.

I do not want to diminish or underestimate the threat still posed to personal freedom by the adherents of the social justice cult, but at this stage I think it is safe to say that political correctness is effectively a dead movement walking.

Recent statistics without bias are hard to come by. That said, the latest available numbers show that people who agree with “gender equality” are many, but those who identify as “feminist” are slim. In the U.S. this constitutes 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 that identify as feminist depending on which polls you look at, while in the U.K. feminists make up only 7 percent of the population.

According to the CDC, abortion rates from 2008-2014 fell to historic lows post Roe v Wade. Abortion being a primary platform and leverage issue for social justice warriors, I take it as a good sign that even in a time of severe economic instability people are backing away from abortion as an acceptable option.

Just as a general observation, social justice has not been a reliable driver for political success, considering the abject failure of the Clinton Campaign in 2016, which clung tightly to SJW ideologies throughout the election cycle.

And finally, social justice has also not been selling so great in the marketplace. This is most evident in the entertainment world, where movies created by producers with open social justice agendas continually fail to bring in expected box office numbers.

For example, the feminist-produced and-directed Ghostbusters reboot ended with a dismal showing compared to many other blockbuster movies with the same production costs, ending its run with an estimated $70 million loss.

Feminist action films perpetuating the fantasy of physical parity between the sexes, like the movie Atomic Blonde, though receiving accolades from mainstream critics (like all social justice films do), have had embarrassing showings in theaters.

To continue reading: A Post-Mortem On The Corpse Of ‘Social Justice’

“I Paid To See A Movie About Singing. I Got Ninety Minutes Of Pentagon Propaganda.” by Caitlin Johnstone

It’s a wonder we don’t have to stand for the National Anthem before movies. From Caitlin Johnstone at medium.com:

To cap off a long, strange day, my husband and I took the kids out last night to see Pitch Perfect 3. The first Pitch Perfect is a firm favorite in our household, the kind of movie we end up watching when we can’t agree on what to watch. We’d been waiting til we all had a night to see the latest one together, so we made a night of it and went out for some dinner, too. I even had a Coke. The sugary kind. This was a big night, people! So we were all in high spirits and I entered the theater excited to see some good music and have a good time.

I wasn’t expecting a masterpiece, but I also wasn’t expecting to be blasted in the face with ninety minutes of blatant war propaganda from the United States Department of Defense.

Before I go on I should mention that a group called Insurge Intelligence published a report a few months back on thousands of military and intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act which showed unbelievably extensive involvement of US defense and intelligence agencies in the production of popular Hollywood movies and TV shows. Just from the information this group was able to gain access to, the scripts and development of over 800 films and 1,000 television titles were found to have been influenced by the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA to advance the interests of the US war machine. We’re talking about big, high profile titles you’ve definitely heard of, from Transformers to Meet the Parents.

So it’s an established fact that these depraved agencies of destruction and domination are balls-deep in Hollywood production. You can understand my discomfort, then, as it became evident that the movie I’d sat down to watch with my family was set on US military bases for no reason whatsoever. There was nothing about the plot of Pitch Perfect 3 that required this; any music tour of any kind would have worked just as well. The antagonist had nothing to do with the military, the protagonists were a civilian a capella singing group, and the general conflicts and resolutions of the film were entirely uninvolved with anything related to the armed forces of any nation.

To continue reading: “I Paid To See A Movie About Singing. I Got Ninety Minutes Of Pentagon Propaganda.”

The Big Problem With Hollywood Is Its Product, by Kurt Schlichter

They don’t make movies liked they used to, and its showing up in the box office receipts. From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:

The other night we saw a superhero movie where the protagonist used his awesome powers to save the world from an evil supervillain – okay, it was The Darkest Hour, and the superhero was Churchill. The villain was Hitler, the real Hitler, not the fake Hitlers that are everyone who disagrees with liberals. But you get the point. It was nice to go to a movie for once and not be bored to tears by spandex-clad magic people flying about punching and exploding stuff. Of course, it was also weird because everyone in the theater was alive when Reagan was president, and no one was on their iPhone tweeting – except for me, but I’m special.

Plus, our future ambassador to Germany Ric Grenellwas there – there is zero excuse for a GOP Senate not to immediately confirm a nominee whose idea of a night out is going to see a movie about Winston defying Hitler.

What’s important is that for me and probably the rest of the adults in the audience, this was the first movie in a while that I had actually wanted to go out and drop $60 on (with tickets, refreshments, and that Los Angeles necessity, valet parking). Sure, I saw the latest Star Wars movie where Girl Luke met Hairy Crusty Luke and milked a llama-bird then Discount Han Solo did stuff and there was some weird other girl who went to another space racetrack (weren’t there space jockeys in another of these movies?) and then they had the same battle as they did on the ice planet except on a salt planet and then it ended and I was like, “Okay, well, that took place.”

Now, it’s easy to lament the death of Hollywood, which seems determined to ritually sacrifice itself on the altar of homogenous corporate moviemaking, if not the altars of leftism and perversions. But what are really dying are theatrical movies as we knew them. I like going out to movies, despite the cost and the inconvenience – when the lights go down it’s really something special. But it stops being special when everything that goes up there on the screen is lame.

To continue reading: The Big Problem With Hollywood Is Its Product

Who Stole Our Culture? by William S. Lind

This is a good historical examination and analysis of cultural Marxism. From William S. Lind at lewrockwell.com:

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the ’60s feel like it’s a foreign country? Did it just “happen”?

It didn’t just “happen.” In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation’s history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

What happened, in short, is that America’s traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.” It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America’s elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.

To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of “political correctness.”

To continue reading: Who Stole Our Culture?

 

Happy New Year: Don’t Be Fooled By the Orthodoxies of the Messengers, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Here is Hollywood’s latest in political correctness. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

– Edward Bernays, “Propaganda”

Edward Bernays (1891 – 1995) was a famous pioneer in the field of public relations and is, today, often referred to as the Father of Propaganda. Perhaps Bernays became thus known because he authored the above quoted 1928 book titled with that very term. He was actually the nephew of the famed psychopathologist Sigmund Freud and was very proud of his uncle’s work. More than that, however, Bernays accepted the basic premises of Freud towards the use of emotional manipulation of the masses through advertising. It was, in fact, Bernays, who changed the term propaganda into “public relations”.

If the excerpt above from Bernays’ book “Propaganda” is true, then it would imply there are men of great power who utilize psychology in order to message and manipulate the minds of the masses. Are these the men that Thomas Jefferson, supposedly, once warned about? Indeed. They are the ones who control the issue of currency; the ones who first by inflation, then by deflation, caused the banks and corporations to grow up around the people thus depriving them of all property until the people’s children woke up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

These are the men who financially and politically manage sovereign governments as well as the handful of corporations that control 90% of the media today.  It is not hard to imagine, therefore, why it would be in the best interests of these men to mentally maneuver the masses into complacency. But how is this psychological manipulation implemented?

Through lies, of course.

To continue reading: Happy New Year: Don’t Be Fooled By the Orthodoxies of the Messengers

Christmas Story, by James Howard Kunstler

James Howard Kunstler ponders It’s a Wonderful Life. From Kunstler at kunstler.com:

These are the long, dark hours when cis-hetero white patriarchs sit by the hearth chewing over their regrets for the fading year and expectations for the year waiting to be born. I confess, I like Christmas a lot, Hebrew that I am, perhaps the musical and sensual trappings more than the virgin birth business. Something in my mixed Teutonic blood stirs to the paganism of blazing Yule logs, fragrant fir trees, rousing carols, and snow on snow on snow. I hope we can keep these hearty ceremonies… that they are not banished to the same puritanical limbo where the Prairie Home Companion archives were sent to rot.

One surviving old chestnut of the season is the 1946 movie, It’s a Wonderful Life, a movie so thick with gooey holiday sentiment, it’s like bathing in egg nog. It’s larded with messages of good-will-to-all-mankind, of course, but some of the less obvious themes — almost certainly unintended — tell the more interesting story about where America has come from in recent history and where it went. One thing for sure: every year that goes by, the America of It’s a Wonderful Life seems utterly unlike the sordid circus we live in now.

The movie takes place in a town, called Bedford Falls, like many in my corner of the country, upstate New York, or at least the way they used to be: alive, bustling with activity, with several layers of working, middle, and commercial classes employed at real productive work making things, and a thin candy shell of “the rich,” portrayed as unambiguously greedy and wicked — but overwhelmed in numbers by all the other good-hearted townspeople.

The movie depicts an American social structure that no longer exists. It’s both democratic and firmly hierarchical — owing probably to the lingering influence of army life in the recently concluded Second World War. Jimmy Stewart plays George Bailey, the head of an old-style family-owned Savings and Loan bank, a very modest institution dedicate to lending money for new homes. His competitor in town is the wicked old rich banker Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), a swindler and thief, who wants to put George out of business.

To continue reading: Christmas Story

 

The Superhero Complex: Are We Incapable of Saving Ourselves? by Charles Hugh Smith

Here is a deep dive into the psychology behind our attraction to superheroes. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

If we felt empowered in daily life, would we be so enamored of superheroes constantly saving our world from destruction?

It’s been widely noted that the U.S. film industry ably functions as a pro-global hegemony propaganda machine: even when the plot features evil rogue elements at work in a global-hegemony agency (Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc.), the competence of the agency is never in doubt, nor is the agency’s ability to rid itself of the evil rogue element.
Evil conspiracies are revealed and the Good Guys/Gals win.
This depiction of official competence and the moral righteousness of patriotic employees is not surprising; these agencies have long “cooperated” with Hollywood on many levels.
More troubling is the recent film-industry depiction of our dependence on superheroes and their superpowers to set things right. The benign view is that Hollywood is always seeking new billion-dollar source materials for multi-film franchises, and comic book heroes are tailor-made for franchises: not only can multiple films be made about individual superheroes, but the potential for mix-and-match combinations of superheroes is practically endless.
The less benign view is that the popularity of superhero movies reflects a deep insecurity and worrisome desire for fantasy saviors, as if mere mortals can no longer save themselves with their pitiful real-world powers.
Psychoanalyzing the zeitgeist of films has long been a popular parlor game: much has been written about the popularity of monster films (often featuring nuclear radiation as the trigger of the mayhem) in 1950s Japan, and the meaning of the American Noir films in the 1950s.