| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING NEWS AND COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
Another Iraq War Movie, "Stop Loss," Headed For
Dustbin of Cinematic History
Let me get this straight. You mean Hollywood just released
"Stop Loss," yet another in a recent spate of Iraq war movies,
and as usual, attendance was dismal? Gee, I wonder why
nobody's going to see these movies?
According to Nikki Finke in his "Deadline Hollywood" column,
an anonymous "studio source" provided this answer: "It's a
function of the marketplace not being ready to address this
conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something
that's unresolved yet."
Are you buying that? Okay, that might conceivably be a small
part of it, but the studio source left out the other part, the more
glaringly obvious part, the part that's like the elephant
standing in the middle of the lobby of the studio's main office,
whose presence no one can bear to acknowledge even as the
line on the profit/loss chart continues to plummet.
And that part is -- hang on to your hat for a startling revelation
-- that the Iraq war movies that have been released so far have
been overwhelmingly negative in their portrayals of American
soldiers and the American mission in Iraq. "Redacted," "Lions
For Lambs," "In the Valley of Elah." They've all been relentless
downers and they've all been unmitigated flops.
But wait a minute. Is "Stop Loss" as bad as all the others?
Well, admittedly, no, and that's even according to some
conservative reviewers. The movie actually deals with a very
legitimate issue that is worthy of debate. The title "Stop Loss"
refers to a contractual provision that allows the military to
extend a soldier's tour of duty after he has already technically
served his normal hitch.
Naturally, one of the main characters in the movie finds
himself getting stop-lossed after he has returned home with
every intention of leaving the service, which, of course, makes
the military look bad. And, of course, other returning soldiers
in the movie are depicted as damaged goods whose
readjustment to home life is hampered by drinking, fighting
and various bizarre behaviors, all of which are the presumed
psychological costs of having been in combat in Iraq. More
negativity. Has there ever been a soldier who served honorably
in combat in Iraq and/or returned home without having been
turned into an antisocial time bomb? Not according to
Hollywood.
When are these filmmakers going to connect the dots? Do they
really think this is what American audiences want to see? It
may well be that the majority of Americans wish we had never
gotten into this war, but that doesn't mean they want to see the
country's finest young people depicted as rapists, murderers or
even just run-of-the-mill, psychologically damaged basket
cases returning from combat.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results. Does that mean that
filmmakers in Hollywood have completely lost their marbles?
No, not exactly. What it means is that there are those
filmmakers in Hollywood who resolutely refuse to compromise
their artistry, not to mention their radical leftist politics, in
the name of the almighty dollar.
It's all very noble in an artistic kind of way, but if they keep it
up, some of them may soon be seen on the street holding signs
that say "Will make antiwar films for food."
So, movie goers aren't ready to address this conflict in a
dramatic way? Stop it, already. We're plenty ready. We just
want to see it addressed fairly. Message to Hollywood: If you
want to make a movie about the Iraq war that does boffo box
office, try depicting American soldiers as the noble freedom
fighters that they are rather than as a bunch of brainwashed
contract killers who are morally no better than al-Qaida.
Dustbin of Cinematic History
Let me get this straight. You mean Hollywood just released
"Stop Loss," yet another in a recent spate of Iraq war movies,
and as usual, attendance was dismal? Gee, I wonder why
nobody's going to see these movies?
According to Nikki Finke in his "Deadline Hollywood" column,
an anonymous "studio source" provided this answer: "It's a
function of the marketplace not being ready to address this
conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something
that's unresolved yet."
Are you buying that? Okay, that might conceivably be a small
part of it, but the studio source left out the other part, the more
glaringly obvious part, the part that's like the elephant
standing in the middle of the lobby of the studio's main office,
whose presence no one can bear to acknowledge even as the
line on the profit/loss chart continues to plummet.
And that part is -- hang on to your hat for a startling revelation
-- that the Iraq war movies that have been released so far have
been overwhelmingly negative in their portrayals of American
soldiers and the American mission in Iraq. "Redacted," "Lions
For Lambs," "In the Valley of Elah." They've all been relentless
downers and they've all been unmitigated flops.
But wait a minute. Is "Stop Loss" as bad as all the others?
Well, admittedly, no, and that's even according to some
conservative reviewers. The movie actually deals with a very
legitimate issue that is worthy of debate. The title "Stop Loss"
refers to a contractual provision that allows the military to
extend a soldier's tour of duty after he has already technically
served his normal hitch.
Naturally, one of the main characters in the movie finds
himself getting stop-lossed after he has returned home with
every intention of leaving the service, which, of course, makes
the military look bad. And, of course, other returning soldiers
in the movie are depicted as damaged goods whose
readjustment to home life is hampered by drinking, fighting
and various bizarre behaviors, all of which are the presumed
psychological costs of having been in combat in Iraq. More
negativity. Has there ever been a soldier who served honorably
in combat in Iraq and/or returned home without having been
turned into an antisocial time bomb? Not according to
Hollywood.
When are these filmmakers going to connect the dots? Do they
really think this is what American audiences want to see? It
may well be that the majority of Americans wish we had never
gotten into this war, but that doesn't mean they want to see the
country's finest young people depicted as rapists, murderers or
even just run-of-the-mill, psychologically damaged basket
cases returning from combat.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results. Does that mean that
filmmakers in Hollywood have completely lost their marbles?
No, not exactly. What it means is that there are those
filmmakers in Hollywood who resolutely refuse to compromise
their artistry, not to mention their radical leftist politics, in
the name of the almighty dollar.
It's all very noble in an artistic kind of way, but if they keep it
up, some of them may soon be seen on the street holding signs
that say "Will make antiwar films for food."
So, movie goers aren't ready to address this conflict in a
dramatic way? Stop it, already. We're plenty ready. We just
want to see it addressed fairly. Message to Hollywood: If you
want to make a movie about the Iraq war that does boffo box
office, try depicting American soldiers as the noble freedom
fighters that they are rather than as a bunch of brainwashed
contract killers who are morally no better than al-Qaida.