One of the most important questions of our times is the determination of the extent to which our liberties, such as the freedom of speech, impact upon the rights of others as they provide aid and comfort to our declared enemies in a time of war.
There is no doubt that Hollywood has a long and torturous relationship with socialism, Marxism and communism. In many cases, Senator Joseph McCarthy was right about the extent to which our sworn enemies have infiltrated our government and institutions. Only a concerted campaign by the media, whose members were directly affected by his actions, made investigations into the actions of Hollywood a sacred cow.
But is it not time for the citizens of the United States to impose some degree of censorship on Hollywood. It is no secret that Hollywood, generically used as a label for the movie industry and the media conglomerates that control it, has been highly political in the attempts to introduce legislation which protects their income stream in perpetuity and even at the expense of the citizens of the United States.
How many among us know that Hollywood is responsible for the curtailment of helpful technology such as digital recording technologies that are "outlawed" unless they contain special identity chips to identify the user of such devices or limit access to certain digital products containing special codes? How many understand that a portion of each CD and DVD blank is subject to a fee, administered by the government, which is given directly to the largest media companies to ostensibly reward those whose copyrighted materials are lost to piracy using the surcharged digital media? Ask the artists if they have seen penny one of this windfall income and they look at you with amazement.
So is it not time for the citizens to impose a greater degree of responsibility on Hollywood by boycotting actors and others associated with producing movies that are designed to embarrass the Administration and the United States as much as they are to entertain? Perhaps middle America can send a message to the nabobs who feel that they can push their political agenda and, in doing so, damage the foreign relations of the United States as well as placing additional Americans at risk in combat.
Consider a movie recently shown in a foreign film festival, "Redacted" by Brian De Palma.
The actual story is real...
The story underlying the film is the true tale of a horrific crime committed by American soldiers in Iraq. Not to deny that the crime is horrendous and the soldiers should be punished to the maximum extent of the law would be shameful. However, it is also just as shameful, in my humble opinion, to once again rape the girl in an effort to influence opinion in the United States. It is shameful, not to put this single aberrational event in perspective: in a country which was liberated from a heinous dictator whose career was filled with the killing, torture and rape of his own citizens.
According to Reuters, "Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi, a fourteen year-old girl was gang raped, killed and burnt by American soldiers in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, in March 2006. Her parents and younger daughter were also killed. Five soldiers have since been charged with the attack. Four of them have been given sentences of between 5 and 110 years. "
Credible Sources?
It is interesting to explore exactly where the intersection between free speech, creative license and the production of overtly anti-American propaganda begins.
According to Brian De Palma, Redacted is "halfway between documentary and fiction" and "draws on soldiers' home-made war videos, blogs and journals and footage posted on YouTube, reflecting changes in the way the media cover the war."
But have we not recently seen a major media outlet publish the first-hand accounts of a soldier serving in Iraq that was subsequently proved to be totally false and misleading. Where the soldier instantly recanted all that he had reported when faced with a military court-martial for not reporting the facts to his superiors.
Media Credibility Problems
It is amazing to consider the depths to which the established media has sunk in their pursuit of corporate profits, often ignoring serious coverage of the events in favor of ratings-grabbing stunts, even to the extent of turning tragedy and suffering into reality-based entertainment.
Again, according to the Reuters' reports of an interview with De Palma...
"It's all out there on the Internet, you can find it if you look for it, but it's not in the major media. The media is now really part of the corporate establishment," he said.
The film's title refers to how, according to De Palma, mainstream American newspapers and television channels are failing to tell the true story of the war by keeping the most graphic images of the conflict away from public opinion.
"When I went out to find the pictures, I said (to the media) give me the pictures you can't publish," he said, adding that because of legal dangers he too had to "edit" the material.
Restraint, based on legal realities, leads to fiction...
"Everything that is in the movie is based on something I found that actually happened. But once I had put it in the script I would get a note from a lawyer saying you can't use that because it's real and we may get sued," De Palma said. "So I was forced to fictionalize things that were actually real."
Using Hollywood techniques to drive home the message...
"The film, shot in Jordan with a little known cast, ends with a series of photographs of Iraqi civilians killed and their faces blacked out for legal reasons."
"I think that's terrible because now we have not even given the dignity of faces to this suffering people," De Palma said.
"The great irony about Redacted is that it was redacted."
"This is a harrowing experience you put the audience through. It is not something you want to go to on a delightful Saturday evening but this message must be put forward and hopefully the public will respond," De Palma said.
Respond?
De Palma's feelings and his wish for a public response is what is at the crux of this discussion. By respond, does De Palma refer to the successful exhibition of his movie or to something more political: the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq?
Let De Palma himself answer the question:
"De Palma, 66, whose "Casualties of War" in 1989 told a similar tale of abuse by American soldiers in Vietnam, makes no secret of the goal he is hoping to achieve with the film's images, all based on real material he found on the Internet."
"'The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people,' he told reporters after a press screening."
"'The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war,' he said."
But at what cost...
Does Hollywood, collectively, and the artists, individually, need to consider the extent to which a movie may damage America's current foreign relations and lead perhaps to more American lives lost in the conflict as the movie is used to recruit and motivate additional insurgents?
And this is just the beginning as we head toward the 2008 election cycle...
"'Redacted', by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice's main competition."
What can YOU do?
At the very least, consider the damage this movie might do to our troops on the ground as they faced renewed fighting with an enemy motivated by the showing of this movie highlighting a single atrocity committed by individuals acting in total disregard for American custom, practice and policy. Consider the potential danger to yourself and your family by the continued showing of this movie to new generations of so-called "freedom fighters." With depictions such as these, is it any wonder that generation upon generation is taught to hate the west and to attack it at every opportunity?
Do not let your elected representatives be railroaded into taking actions which would hurt America's short- or long-term interests in favor of their careers or artificially manipulated media events such as the one typified by this movie.
Do not elect any candidate or incumbent who will not stand up for America and whose sole idea of an enemy is the Bush Administration.
See the movie, discuss the movie with your friends and reach your own conclusion about boycotting those who are slowly destroying America with propaganda-style films.
Are you a rapist or generally bad person? No, I thought not. So why are you letting your country being painted with a broad brush that depicts Americans as the bad guys without responding?
Where is an actor of the stature of George Clooney making pro-American movies. Oh hell, where is John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Aldo Ray, Audie Murphy and the rest of the old gang when we need them the most?
We are now at a historical crossroads which may determine whether or not the United States will remain true to its core values and those of the founding fathers or be slowly turned into a third-world nation under the control of a United Nations-style bureaucracy. Many in government have sold out America for personal power, prestige and profits -- now is the time to send them packing in favor of a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And the special interests be damned.
-- steve
A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Reference: "Redacted" stuns Venice|Reuters
Comments