By Govindini Murty. I’m pleased to announce to Libertas readers that I’ve been invited to blog at The Huffington Post. I will continue to edit and write for Libertas, of course, but this is a great opportunity to reach a new readership as well. My first post at The Huffington Post just went up this afternoon, and was featured both on the front page and on the Entertainment page. There’s already a lively debate underway in the comments section, and I hope that Libertas readers will join in.
I’ll be cross-posting select posts so you can read my posts here or at The Huffington Post.
Here’s today’s post:
Sony Makes the Right Decision in Postponing Bin Laden Movie
After months of controversy over Kathryn Bigelow’s planned bin Laden movie, Variety has reported that Sony is postponing the release of the film until likely after the 2012 election. This is a wise decision on the part of the studio.
Sony’s bin Laden movie had come under a firestorm of criticism earlier this summer when Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times that director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal had been given special access to information on the bin Laden raid by the Obama White House, and that the film’s planned release in October 2012 was “perfectly timed” to help President Obama with the election. Not surprisingly, Republicans reacted to this news with outrage. Rep. Peter King of New York called for an investigation into the film, and Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas announced plans for legislation titled the “Stop Subsidizing Hollywood Act” to prevent the filmmakers from accessing government information on the bin Laden raid. A movie that should have been a nonpartisan account of a great American victory — the Navy SEAL mission that killed the world’s most infamous terrorist — was in danger of being overshadowed by a cloud of partisan controversy.
The dispute over the bin Laden film didn’t just threaten to undermine the film itself — it also potentially diminished support for a number of other film and TV projects in the works that aim to portray the American military positively in the War on Terror. These projects range from Jerry Bruckheimer’s Navy SEALs TV series for ABC and Relativity’s Navy SEALs movie Act of Valor to movies like Peter Berg’s Lone Survivor and Christopher McQuarrie’s Rubicon that depict Navy SEALs fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. While liberals in the industry are supportive of these films after the success of the bin Laden raid, conservatives paradoxically have become convinced by the dust-up over Sony’s bin Laden movie that all these other projects must be thinly disguised pro-Obama propaganda as well. (See the comments section of my recent article in The Atlantic, where conservatives responded with skepticism to news of these War on Terror projects.)
As a result, a movie that should have been a unifying depiction of an American victory in the War on Terror has become a political hot potato. Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal released a statement in August saying that their film would depict the killing of bin Laden as “an American triumph, both heroic, and non-partisan.” Nonetheless, Sony needed to change the release date to truly show that their bin Laden movie was not intended to influence the election.
This issue has become increasingly pressing as filmmakers have blurred the lines in recent years between filmmaking and political activism. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004 unleashed a wave of activist filmmaking on both left and right that saw political documentaries and agit-prop screeds released every two and four years in order to sway political elections. Such movies for a time successfully conflated entertainment with electioneering, but mainstream audiences eventually became tired of the fact that every time they set foot in a movie theater they were being subjected to someone else’s politics.
As a result, audiences in recent years have abjured controversial polemical content and are instead seeking out more broadly unifying entertainment. Even Steven Spielberg, long an astute judge of public sentiment, decided to postpone the release of his Lincoln biopic until after the 2012 election for just this reason. As Spielberg told the Orlando Sentinel recently: “I didn’t want it to become political fodder.” Spielberg has the right instinct here. While movies should be free to express political viewpoints, by tying films to the political cycle, filmmakers risk subsuming the independent artform of film to the contentious forces of politics. This has a divisive and inflammatory effect on the public — something that the country certainly does not need right now.
Sony is making the right decision by postponing its bin Laden film to a time when the film will be judged on its own merits and not through the highly charged lens of a national election. The brave soldiers of SEAL Team 6 who carried out the raid that killed bin Laden did so on behalf of all Americans — not just for a particular political party. Any movie that seeks to accurately depict their actions should also honor their broader nonpartisan spirit.
Click on over to The Huffington Post to see the full debate going on!
[UPDATE 10/22: Thanks to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air for his great article today quoting extensively from my Huffington Post piece. Ed makes great points, as always.]
Posted on October 21st, 2011 at 7:47pm.
First off – congrats on the new spot.
Second… yeesh, that’s a debate? I’d come in and lend you a hand but I lost my taste for blog-comment polemics many moons ago. I hope there occasionally emerges someone with something interesting to say beyond calling you snarky (as one commenter bizarrely labeled your piece) or complaining about the “conservative media juggernaut” ™. Is it not gratifying to discover that you are a Voltron-like limb of a colossus? Who knew!
I hope at least you got a kick, as I did, out of the claim that the Jessica Lynch Story constituted a barrage of Hollywood war mongering in the wake of Iraq. Indeed, indeed, QED. The juggernaut in action.
Life is too short – one must laugh before time brings the tears.
Congrats again.
SeeSaw – thanks so much for your kind congrats. I’m having fun interacting with the commenters and appreciate the debate. It’s amazing to see the range of viewpoints people have. That’s why it’s good to “preach beyond the choir” and talk to people with different viewpoints. It makes you refine your argument.
And by the way – I like the little TM you added to “conservative media juggernaut”! Very funny.
And yes, please be poetic and always laugh! I like your soulful good cheer SeeSaw – keep it up. 🙂
Congrats from this end too. I’m a long time follower of Libertas …. even kept checking back for updates when Libertas was down for the year or two.
I’ve always enjoyed your perspective on films, the foreign films, indies and the blockbusters. Thank you!
Martin – thank you, that’s very kind of you to say that. We enjoy what we do and we’ll keep covering great films for you!
Congratulations on your addition to the Huffington Post. I’ve always held a tiny bit of respect for that place because it has done some good reporting, and now it seems it’s serious about adding a strong voice for individualism in the culture.
Some random thoughts:
– I think Spielberg is doing a bit of a disservice by moving his Lincoln biopic away from election season. A truthful story about Lincoln — especially one made by a filmmaker like Spielberg — could do wonders for our political atmosphere and our understanding of our current political structure.
– Call me one conservative who doesn’t like the recent rash of pro-military films. For the record, I think our military is made up of our best and brightest people, and I pray for them because the only thing that matches their dedication is the horrifying ineptitude of their leaders — on BOTH sides.
That being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with this trend because there’s nothing altruistic about it. When George Bush was president, Hollywood rolled out dozens of anti-war films — and 99% of them were pure based on lies and mistruths. It was HIGHLY possible to make anti-war films based on the truth … Bush made a ton of mistakes, so you really didn’t have to lie to attack him.
Hopefully no common-sense individual is “pro-war” although you understand that there are times to fight. Consequently, you can not argue the fact that going to war means less freedom to the people: secrets must be kept in war, and going to war costs a LOT of money … more taxes taken from me means less freedom for me.
So count me off of this bandwagon … something severely creeps me out about Hollywood banging the war drum while an open Marxist is in the White House.
And until one of these films takes on Islam, I’m just not going to be interested. Yes, Islamists will be featured in these works, but will we ever hear about what drives them? Will we ever hear about the Verse of the Sword’s role in Islam’s system of abrogation, or its role in a Muslim’s duty structure.
I don’t think so.
Vince – thanks so much for the kind words. I’m excited about this opportunity at HuffPost and look forward to contributing more pieces to them.
As for Spielberg, I look forward to his Lincoln film, whenever it comes out. Daniel Day Lewis is a brilliant actor, and I look forward to seeing his interpretation of Lincoln.
As for war films, I definitely agree that no rational person truly wants to be ‘pro-war.’ However, when war is thrust upon us, as it was on 9/11, I think it’s important to have films that support the cause of freedom and democracy. I think it may actually help end the war faster by showing the other side that America – not just its military but also its culture – is resolute in defending freedom. While I would never want state-sponsored propaganda or filmmaking that is overly tied to political ends, I do believe that when you have dangerous totalitarian ideologies like radical Islamic terrorism on the rise (just look at what is going on in Pakistan or Egypt), you have to have films and works of art that explain to people why freedom is worth defending. Hollywood played a critical role during World War II in defending freedom through films like “Casablanca,” “Mrs. Miniver,” “Across the Pacific,” and “Why We Fight,” and it can do so again without compromising free speech or artistic integrity.
Ms. Murty and Mr. Vince: Upon reading both your posts, i would like to say that I also am excited to see Hollywood films become more pro-military, though if their intent is solely to make Obama look better, this is regrettable. having said that, i am not totally convinced that this will happen. For example, Peter Berg’s adaptation for Lone Survivor is not expected to release until 2013. This might make it a post Obama film (depending on the election results). If Rubicon is just starting to go into development, then that might make it a post Obama release as well. If Killing Bin Laden is held till after the election, then might limit the assistance it gives Obama as well. That leaves Act of Valor, which if made with much naval support, then it might try to avoid partisan politics.
On a separate note there actually have been some pro-military films that have not been too fond of the left. For example
1. Iron Man 2 (2010): A film where the capitalist is the hero, capitalism is shown as a positive (Stark expo), partriotism is viewed positively (iron Man landing in front of the American flag). The military is viewed as honorable, heroic, and sensible (the character of Rhodes/War Machine). The government (in the form of the Democratic led Senate) is viewed as intrusive in attempting to forcibly impose its will on private corporations and citizens (both Stark and Stark enterprises) and attempting to manipulate the military in public (purposely taking Col Rhodes words out of context and ommitting some of his comments) as a power play. The film also makes a point of saying that people should NOT be forced to tow the liberal line (Stark: “I’m tired of the liberal agenda). There is even a small joke at the expense of Obama (Tony putting a picture that replaces the face of Obama with that of Iron Man).
Transformers 2 (2009): A movie that shows the American military saving the world. They are shown as heroic and noble. The climactic fight takes place in the middle east and the Obama Administration (he is specifically named as president in the film) is portrayed as antagonistic, weak, and a hindrance to the American Military. In fact, the American Military actually has to go behind the Administration’s back in order to fight the enemy (in the Middle East) and save the world.
Transformers III (2011) = The american military again saves the planet from invasion/genocide/ and enslavement. The Obama Administration again comes off as arrogant, dismissive, antagonistic, and this time they actually appease the enemy (under pressure from the United Nations). The Administration’s actions leads to the deaths of thousands of Americans, with the American military having to save the planet and clean up the Administration’s mess.
24 Season 8 (2010): undoes a lot of the damage done by season 7. This season includes such messages as : Jihadists do not want peace or concessions. They want total domination or total annihilation (the terrorist attacks being done on the day that the US and a Middle Eastern country are going to sign a mutually beneficial peace treaty). No matter what public face the Russian government put on, they will always try to find ways to undermine or sabotage the work done by the United States (Sorry TIme MAgazine and their man of the year). Iraq War vets can be stable, brave, and honorable people who do not regret serving in the war and will continue to fight terrorism (the character of former Marine and present Counter Terrorism agent Cole Ortiz). Appeasement of hostile governments for the sake of politics is never an option (President Taylor and Russia). Finally, turning your backs on those who have fought and sacrificed to keep this country safe for the sake of appeasing a hostile government is an outrage (President taylor, Charles Logan, and the Russians). These are interesting and TIMELY MESSAGES.
Pardon the long post.
Congrats Govindini! Engage them, Hold them, Change them!
Thank you johngaltjkt – I will! I look forward to continuing to mix it up here at Libertas and now also at HuffPost!
Oh No! A patriot writer goes over to the Huffy and Puffy Dark Commie Side!
Ron, did you even read her article? You should. It doesn’t really have that hammer-and-sickle feel.
I wasn’t being serious, Jason – and I did read the article, which is fair and objective.
The basic rule around here is that I’m not as clever as our readers. 😉 Thanks for clarifying the matter, Ronbo.
Congrats, Govindini! Yours will be the only articles I read on the Huffington Post, but your writing is fantastic!
Thank you JohnJ – I appreciate your kind comment!
Congrats Govindini. The Huff Post article got a link at National Review Online site under its NRO Web Briefing daily links.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner#webbriefing
Thanks Michael K – it’s good to hear from you! I’ll check out the link.