Learn, Hollywood, Learn
By Callimachus | Related entries in Partisan Hacks, The Politics Of Film, The War On TerrorismAnd they wonder why so many Americans long for the return of silent movie stars — not films without sound, but actors and filmmakers who know how to STFU when they’re not talking about acting or filmmaking.
Jason at Libertas tracks down the quote and finds the first candidate for the sequel to “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.” It’s War of the Worlds screenwriter David Koepp :
Here are Koepp’s remarks, as drawn from a Canadian magazine called Rue Morgue (Issue number 46, Pages 25-25):
“And now, as we see American adventure abroad,� he [David Koepp] continues “in my mind it’s certainly back to it’s original meaning, which is that the Martians in our movie represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext.�
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 19th, 2005 and is filed under Partisan Hacks, The Politics Of Film, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:14 am
His own script said it wasn’t a war but extermination. We aren’t exterminating Iraqis.
July 19th, 2005 at 2:49 am
I guess I got it all wrong. I thought it was supposed to be a sequel to The Day the Earth Stood Still.
In that movie, Super-Liberals from Outer Space warned us to abolish war or they would exterminate us. Needless to say we didn’t listen, so they came back to finish the job. We showed them, though.
Now their discorporate spirits are stuck to Tom Cruise, and he’ll have to pay the Church of Scientology millions to have them scraped off. Which goes to show that sometimes people have to make sacrifices in order to save the earth. I guess. Anyway, that more of a moral than you generally get from a David Lynch film.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Callimachus,
You wrote:
“actors and filmmakers who know how to STFU when they’re not talking about acting or filmmaking.”
Why does it matter what these actors, directors and screenwriters say about politics? If they don’t have informed views on these issues, don’t take them seriously. That should be the standard everywhere. But they should still be able to say what they want. It just makes them look silly when they say this stuff.
The attacks on Hollywood-types doesn’t get us anywhere. Let them say their nonsense. It doesn’t hurt anyone. Goldberg’s book is trash and a pure waste of time and energy. As Jon Stewart grilled him the other night (watch the video here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/13.html#a3919), our focus on the “influence” of Hollywood is completely misguided. Our real attention should be on those in Washington. They are the people with the actual power, whose opinions should be ridiculed when they get as ridiculous as this screenwriter (see the latest from the Congressman who wants to nuke Mecca and Medina). The latest political ramblings of Tim Robbins or whoever just isn’t important.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Entertainment can become culture. Politics is thunder and lightning, but culture is tide and flood. It has permanent force. Look at the influence of Wagner and the Ring cycle on Germany in the late 19th century. Look how that cultural influence shaped Germany in the 1930s.
For better or worse — certainly for worse — America’s polyglot, immigrant, democratic culture will never have philosophers or poets or epic-makers or deep thinkers at its pinnacle. What we get instead are actors who can make sexy in front of camera crews and pop stars who can cuss and play three chords at the same time.
Advertisement is propaganda. Only difference is the content. Orwell, among others, warned us to be on guard in that direction.
We’ve already been through the topic of the Goldberg book and didn’t get anywhere. The Right’s equivalent of Hollywood blowhards are in the pulpits — the Falwells and Dobsons. Should they be ignored, too? What goes deeper into America’s mind, the sermons of Billy Graham or the speeches of Teddy Kennedy?
July 19th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
If nothing else, Koepp’s comments demonstrate how one individual can completely rip a novel from the context of the era it was written in and re-interpret the plot to suit his own biases.
I seriously doubt that H.G. Wells had Iraqis in mind when he wrote this book.