You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Hollynoid - Hollyweird's Return of the Paranoid Style
2008-03-27
Conservatives such as Noonan hoped that 9/11 would bring back the best of the 1940s and Â’50s, playing Pearl Harbor to a new era of patriotism and solidarity. Many on the left feared that it would restore the worst of the same era, returning us to the shackles of censorship and conformism, jingoism and Joe McCarthy. But as far as Hollywood is concerned, another decade entirely seems to have slouched round again: the paranoid, cynical, end-of-empire 1970s.

We expected John Wayne; we got Jason Bourne instead.

The Bourne movies are the first major action franchise of the new millennium; they’re also the highest-grossing example of the revival of the paranoid style in American cinema. Matt Damon’s Bourne marries the efficiency of James Bond to the politics of Noam Chomsky. He’s imperial overreach and blowback personified—the carefully brainwashed product of a covert CIA program who goes off the reservation and starts taking down his superiors, a succession of jowly, corrupt agents of the American empire. The Bourne saga’s anti-government paranoia reached its peak in last year’s $227 million-grossing Bourne Ultimatum, which exposes the CIA as an all-powerful bureaucracy that can track anybody, anywhere, and is comfortable wiping out journalists, innocent bystanders, and even its own agents in the service of dubious war-on-terrorism aims. “Where does it end?” the lone free-thinking spook, Joan Allen, demands of her superior. “It ends when we’ve won,” he snaps, before ordering up another execution.

Such “fear thy government” anxieties are always laced throughout American pop culture. But they belong most of all to the 1970s, when the one-two punch of Vietnam and Watergate sparked recurring visions of isolated Americans trapped in the gears of an irreducibly complex conspiracy: Gene Hackman’s surveillance expert in The Conversation (1974), tearing up his apartment in search of proof that his every move is being watched; Robert Redford’s CIA agent in Three Days of the Condor (1975), forced to go on the run from shadowy forces within his own government; Warren Beatty’s reporter in The Parallax View (1974), manipulated by a sinister corporation to become the “lone gunman” patsy in its latest bought-and-paid-for assassination.

Now they belong to us as well. HollywoodÂ’s highest-profile conspiracy theorist is, of course, Michael Moore. But the more telling figure is Stephen Gaghan, the screenwriter for Steven SoderberghÂ’s Oscar winner, Traffic (2000), who moved on to script and direct Syriana (2005), the first major Middle East movie released after the invasion of Iraq. Traffic and Syriana are superficially similar, offering kaleidoscopic visions of American policy that rove across borders and multiple points of view. But whereas the former takes care to present the architects of our failed drug policy as decent (if misguided) people struggling with the moral compromises required in a fallen world, Syriana eschews nuance entirely, tracing all the ills of Mesopotamia to a malign nexus of Texas oilmen, neocons, and a trigger-happy CIA, and culminating with the agency ordering a missile strike on an inconveniently liberal Arab leader to preserve an American oil companyÂ’s bargaining position.

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#6  "Whats old is new again"
It shows how obsolete hollywood is that they rely on re-makes and big-name stars to sell films. Manchurian/Mesopotamia Candidate is a fine example. Saw the original and - though may be unpopular - will never see another denzel movie again. Looking back, his whole career (yes a talented actor) choice about the message the movie sends is absolute crap. And I have been noted that "don't judge and actor/esses own beliefs based on what they film" Well that bullcrap. They read the script and, especially somebody high billing, choose what they want to do.

I was upset for a little bit about the HD vs bluray thing for a while then, "Hey, there ain't s*t coming out anyways and I already have my copy of 300 (which, by the way, Gates of Fire was a great read before watching the movie). We Were Soldiers, Troy (to an extent only bc I was familiar with Illiad), then I have to go back to Aliens for a good war movie. OK, Gettysburg was pretty good but again I had read the book/knew history.

Is 'stop-loss' even a term? You real military people will have to clue me in on this, because the best movie MTV has ever made was Joe's Apartment. The ads just show a lot of actors in cowboy hats with sticky phrases.

Why not a movie about The Gallic Wars - a trilogy using the same tech as the opening scene of Gladiator, Shakespearean actors and stuntmen? Hannibal by Harold Lamb is already written. but it is all about the vampire killing 'take the shot' cloony, crappy rhetoric (can't handle the truth cruise), and uninspiring stories (bored identity group, maybe the books were better I don't know because now I know I will never read them).

Gotta agree with Bright Pebbles:
The market is out there else Halo 3 would not have out-earned major films, CoD, all those games. Me, Ace Combat was fine but no candle to Wings Over Vietnam - would love an update to Steel Panthers III/MBT.

In my humble opinion, hollywood knows it is doomed so they are attempting to make themselves better than the independant movie maker, much like how the established news sources are downplaying the internet. Ironically (again) IMHO by establshing themselves they fail to bring up new actors or take chances on plots. If people get used to star wars I vs. star wars IV graphics - and in fact the next star wars movies will be all CG as I understan, and they will on account of video games, then all somebody needs is a studio to film (plus equipment et al) and insert own background. Of course there is much more to making a movie, but there always seems to be recreationists out there ready for a battle or go CG as Medieval II has layed the foundation for.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-03-27 23:12  

#5  the next film will be "stop-loss". Supposedly about a SNCO whose called back to iraq on the "stop-loss" plan, something we did away with over 2 yrs ago. The bigger issue is that any military guy tells you he had no idea stop-loss was a possibility is either full of shit or plain stupid. Especially as the character is supposed to be a combat hardened Staff Sergeant. Of course, the average dork will think it's real and that's another myth I'll have to dispell to potential officer wannabes.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2008-03-27 22:27  

#4  "exposes the CIA as an all-powerful bureaucracy that can track anybody, anywhere, and is comfortable wiping out journalists, innocent bystanders, and even its own agents in the service of dubious war-on-terrorism aims."

-only hollywood could create such a fantasy. If only the above were true.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2008-03-27 22:15  

#3  Look to the future, not the past. Look to computer games not films.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-03-27 22:01  

#2  What America needs is a combination of American International, Hammer and Golan-Globus studios, cranking out all manner of entertaining movies.

All they really need are three things: small budgets, plots and acting. 10 movies that cost $2M each and make $30M each in the box office makes a lot more profit than a $200M movie that makes $210M at the box office.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-03-27 20:12  

#1  Oh, dear - this is why I turned to writing historical novels. "To Truckee's Trail" began as a lament about how there were no movies I wanted to see, in the spring of 2004. Nothing that told our stories, that harked back to where we came from, that painted our ancestors (literal or metaphorical) as brave, decent, competant, honorable people.

We need our stories, not some politically correct wankfest that will make some Hollywierd denizen (and their European fans) just go all over goose-bumpy with chills 'n thrills over their bravery in pissing on our institutions and our ancestors.

Indie movie making, indie writing may be where it's at, because we need our stories. We need to remember where we came from and who we are. We need to take back our stories and remember who we are. Hollywierd won't do it for us. It's up to us, that Army of Davids.

Oh, and my follow-up book(s) is about how the German colonies in Texas came to be, and how they worked out their place as Americans.

You didn't know about how a bunch of German noblemen and so-gooders tried to plant a colony of good German farmers and craftsmen in 1840s Texas?

Well, thats another damn good story that Hollywierd has tried to keep from you!
Posted by: Sgt. Mom   2008-03-27 19:44  

00:00