Movies

June 18, 2008

Movies that Provoke Thought - or Think About It Movies

Movie Reel The American Film Institute (AFI) has just revealed the 10 greatest movies in 10 classic film genres.  To arrive at this list of 10, AFI enlisted the help of 1,500 film critics, artists, and historians.  The list the came up with is:   2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (Science Fiction), CITY LIGHTS (Romantic Comedy), THE GODFATHER (Gangster), LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (Epic), RAGING BULL (Sports), THE SEARCHERS (Western), SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (Animation), TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (Courtroom Drama), VERTIGO (Mystery) and THE WIZARD OF OZ (Fantasy).  Did anyone notice that these are all old movies?

This started me to thinking about movies.  Not just about my favorite movies, but about the movie that that I found to be the most thought provoking.  Think About It, if you will.  As I said before, I have a love-hate relationship with the movie industry.

My favorite thought provoking movie was “A Man for All Seasons,” starring Paul Scofield.  Why?  The movie was about Sir Thomas More, who as Chancellor of England defied Henry VIII when Henry wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
I found a thought provoking discussion of the law when Sir Thomas had a discussion with his son-in-law, William Roper, about a law that Roper felt was unfair.

“William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

However, I found the most thought provoking part was when Henry has lost his patience with Sir Thomas More.  It was either cave in to Henry’s wishes or die.  Sir Thomas More had a sizeable family who would also suffer from his decision.  Sir Thomas More had to make a decision whether to die with his principles and honor intact or to live and continue to support his family.  As we know, he chose to stand on principle.  Henry had him executed.

Questions:

I’m curious if anyone else has found a certain movie or movies thought provoking, a Think About It movie

May 16, 2008

The Origins of the New Morality

"Ernie" has some thoughts on today's morality.

"I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut (though I am convinced a devious group is constantly at work keeping the Cubs out of a world series), so I'm totally confused about the downward plunge of American culture and values.  Is there a conspiracy afoot to destroy us from within, or is this just the normal outcome of a free society?  If it's a conspiracy, who's the architect and who's keeping it going?  Is it mush brained liberals?  Islamic terrorists?  Communists?  Rosie O'Donnell?  Reverend Wright?  Liberal media?  I don't know the answer, but I think we need to take whatever time is necessary to study this deterioration and get it reversed.  It's truly destroying us.

Look at today's immorality and the country's seeming lack of concern about it.  Whether it's drugs, porn, homosexuality, greed, corruption, rampant promiscuity, filth driven entertainment, supporting a Muslim for president, or any of the other deadly sins, it's obvious that the "problem" is growing and shows no signs of lessening.  It's sadly becoming the norm.  Even TV commercials are so full of sexual content they should be rated X.  I went into the bank the other day and the 2 young female tellers were wearing blouses that were barely keeping their un-bra'd boobs from falling out on the counter.  That kind of attire may be fine for hookers walking Sunset Boulevard, but not in a bank.  You have to ask why they think dressing that way is acceptable, and why bank managers allow it.  I guess when they see their Hollywood idols dressing that way and changing sex partners on a weekly basis, it's got to be OK.  Right?

In all this immorality I have to ask, "what is the purpose of it all?"  Why is it so important to those in influential industries to force this indecency upon us?  Is it just to see how far they can push the envelope, or is it part of a conspiratorial left wing agenda?  Why wouldn't it be more appropriate to force higher moral values on us?  Filth makes more money?  Probably as good an explanation as any.

And lastly, how do we stop it and start moving back to the moral values and Christian principles that formed this once magnificent country?  You can't look at the GOP for help.  They've not shown one inkling of willingness to buck the liberal agenda.  After all, what's more important?  Standing up for decency or getting reelected?  They've almost totally abandoned the conservative base of the party.  Think about it.  They had 8 years to prepare potential candidates for the presidential race and what did we get?   A 70+ year old democrat in Republican clothing named John McCain.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.  I'd like to hear yours.  Thanks.

Ernie"

April 08, 2008

Charlton Heston on Political Correctness

   Please forgive me for making this blog entry so long, but this speech that NRA  President Charlton Heston gave to the Harvard Law School Forum on February 16, 1999, should be required reading for every American.  I doubt, in view of today’s political correctness, that Heston would even be allowed onto the campus of Harvard. 

“Dedicating the memorial at a Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you...the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association...I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured senile, crazy old man."

I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that.  I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

Let me read a few examples.

• At Antioch College in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation...all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.

• In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS, the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not...need not...tell their patients that they are infected.

• At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

• In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

• In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

• At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know...that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now.

Finally, just last month...David Howard, head of the Washington, D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly, (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind.

Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe?

It scares me to death and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that...and abide it...you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.

Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs.  Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?

The answer's been here all along.

You simply...disobey.  Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea in to Boston Harbor... In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful...it hurts.
You must be willing to be humiliated...You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.

A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world.

Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.

I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time and decided to attend.

What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF

I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF

I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF

I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.

Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.

"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY..."

Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner's selling it."

Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself...jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.

When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors...choke the halls of the board of regents.

When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment...march on that school and block its doorways.

When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you...petition them, oust them, banish them.

When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month...boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.”

CHARLTON HESTON

March 29, 2008

Hollywood's Liberal Bias

People reading this blog might think I’m obsessed with movies that claim to be based on true stories, but in fact turn out to be fabrications.  I apologize; please bear with me.  I just finished watching the movie The Hoax, which purportedly is the true story about the con-man Clifford Irving’s forgery of the infamous Howard Hughes autobiography.  The Hollywood political propaganda machine has turned out their own twisted hoax. 

To digress, Clifford Irving was a little known novelist who hit upon the idea of fabricating a book about the billionaire recluse Howard Hughes.
Hughes had disappeared from public view and hadn’t made any public statements for many years, so Irving figured he could proceed with his hoax.  With the aid of several forged letters and notes, supposedly written by Howard Hughes, Irving conned publishers into paying him and “Howard Hughes” over a million dollars for the manuscript.  The scam fell apart when the real Howard Hughes held a telephonic press conference to expose the hoax.  Irving, his wife Edith, and Irving’s coconspirator Richard Suskind all pleaded guilty and went to prison.

Hollywood producers Betsy Beers, Mark Gordon, Leslie Holleran, Joseph Maurer, and Bob Yari couldn’t resist taking the story of a second rate con man and turning it into a left-wing political diatribe against Richard Nixon and George Bush.  They did this by inserting a wholly fabricated portion that shows Irving (played by Richard Gere) receiving a box full of secret files from Hughes that implicated Nixon in a host of crimes.  The scene continues with Nixon and Hughes entering into an agreement whereby Hughes will disavow Irving and his book in exchange for Nixon exerting his influence to get an airline merger approved for Hughes. 

Even Irving was disgusted with the movie:  “I was hired by the producers as technical adviser to the movie, but after reading the final script I asked that my name be removed from the movie credits. I didn't want anyone to believe that I had contributed to such a historically cockeyed story where the main character, almost by coincidence, happens to bear my name,” said Irving.  “The Hughes people mailing the package of files to me is also made up... The movie is best thought of as a hoax.”

The end result?  If anyone has any doubts about whether Hollywood is controlled by the left wing, they should regard this movie as exhibit “A”.

March 28, 2008

Treason or Free Speech

Hollywood in the 1940s pitched in a did their bit for the war effort.  They not only made training films for the military, but they cranked out a steady stream of morale building movies for the troops and the folks at home.   There was no doubt whether Hollywood supported the American and allied armed forces.  Somewhere along the line, things changed and Hollywood has become a willing ally of our enemies.

One can expect an antiwar or antigovernment movie now and then, but recently there has been a spate of antiwar and antigovernment movies. In the past year, Hollywood has released the movies Redacted, Stop-Loss, In the Valley of Elah, and Rendition just to name a few.  There is also a noticeable absence of movies where the man wearing the white hat is a soldier or anyone from the government.

Fifty years ago, two things would have happened.  1) The American people would have been incensed by these movies, which would have led to boycotts, picketing and Congressional hearings.  2) The  word treason would be used, freely. 

The interesting thing is that none of these movies has made a lot of money.  Some are alleging these films are being made knowing they won’t do well financially  in the U.S., but there is a large secondary market for them in the foreign anti-American market.

The question is this: Who is putting up the money for these marginal movies?  Are they making them for the secondary foreign and DVD market or are they simply misjudging the mood of the American public?  These movies certainly don’t do anything for our troops’ morale.  At what point does this become “giving comfort and aid to the enemy”?  Is it treason or just free speech in a democracy?

March 06, 2008

Pierrepont: The Last Hangman - A Think About It Movie

   Once in a great while, I see a movie that I find myself thinking about later.   The movie Pierrepont: The Last Hangman is such a film.   It's a British film based on true story of Albert Pierrepont, who was England's foremost executioner from 1932 to 1955.  Pierrepont's regular job was that of a grocery clerk, but when an executions was called for, the Home Office called upon him.  During his 23 year stint, he hanged around  500+ criminals, including about 200 war criminals.  It is a powerful, dark movie that deals with capital punishment, but not in hit-you-over-the-head way that Hollywood deals with the death penalty.  The movie with all of its noir is a subtle movie that leaves the viewer to make up his own mind.  From what I can find about the Albert Pierrepont, it is reasonably accurate.  More information about this critically acclaimed movie can be found on this website:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462477/usercomments?start=10

February 25, 2008

The Hollywood Drug Connection

I have a love/hate relationship with Hollywood.  Much of what Hollywood produces is pure crap that caters  to the simple-minded, but I remind myself that it is, after all, fiction.  Each year, before the Academy Awards, I try to see the top movies that are up for awards.  The movie American Gangster picked up a couple of Oscar nominations, including a nomination for Ruby Dee for her portrayal of the mother of drug lord Frank Lucas.  The movie opens with a full screen comment that the movie is "Based on a True Story."   Frank Lucas was probably the biggest drug lord in American history; he cut out the middle-man and established a direct connection to heroin manufacturers in Asia.  Lucas and his underlings mainlined misery and death into the U.S. for two decades before the Feds put him in the slammer. 

The problem with American Gangster is this:  The Hollywood schlock merchants mitigated Lucas's evil by riddling the film with numerous scenes of payoffs to crooked drug agents, leaving viewers with the feeling that poor old Frank was just trying to make a living in this hard-knock world.  The movie climaxes with Lucas cheerfully fingering all the crooked drug agents for the federal prosecutor.  The screen fades to black with big white lettering that announced that three-fourths of the drug agents were convicted with the help of Frank Lucas.  Only one problem:  It didn't happen.   

In January, Federal and state drug agents filed a class action defamation lawsuit against the film makers.  The lawsuit cites the fact that no drug agents were ever arrested and/or convicted in connection with the Lucas case.  Even Lucas acknowledges that only 10% of the movie is true.  The federal prosecutor stated, "I don't know where that came from," referring to the way the film makers portrayed the drug agents.

So what's going on here?  How many gape-mouthed youth will watch this blockbuster and walk from the theater confident that society and the police weren't any better than Lucas?  Was the film deliberately designed not to paint Lucas as too evil so young African-American audiences wouldn't be turned off by the film? 

Newsvine Top News