Hollywood relentlessly demonizes our enemies *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Jun 12 2008 at 8:13 am | Filed under: Hollywood
Hollywood just came out with another movie that relentlessly demonizes the enemy — which would be a good thing if the Hollywood types had figured out that America’s enemy is radical Islam, which has been very open about its desire to kill our citizens and take over our government. The problem with Hollywood — again — is that it’s the gang that doesn’t want to shoot straight. In its latest action adventure movie, The Incredible Hulk, the enemy isn’t old-fashioned Communism (a la Indiana Jones), it isn’t radical Islam (a la no movie ever made), it isn’t men from Mars (which at least has the excuse of being cute and 1950s retro). No, it’s . . . well, read this for yourself (emphasis mine):
As a concession to the existence of the previous “Hulk” movie - though every aspect of it, from the look and the casting on down has been reconceived - we find Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) as a man already coping with his hulkness. Like Dr. Jekyll or a someone in 12-step recovery, Bruce is just trying to get by, one day at a time, working in a Brazilian bottling plant by day and taking private classes in anger management and self-discipline. He knows that if he gets angry, if his heart rate gets up to 200, he will turn into a tremendous green muscle man and start taking apart everything and everybody.
But Bruce is a man on the run. He may want to slip beneath the radar and live with his condition until he can be cured, but the U.S. government - in the person of General Ross (William Hurt) - has other ideas. The Army wants to study Bruce and figure out the science behind what’s happening to him, so as to create other Hulks. They want to weaponize the Hulk technology.
There you have it — the Hollywood set has concluded that the meanest, cruelest, most amoral enemy (because that’s always what the enemy is in a fantasy action adventure movie) is the American military. In Hollywood-land, nobody is more evil than the boy or girl next door who signs up to defend our freedoms. I hope that movie tanks, big-time.
UPDATE: My bad — and a very girlie one at that. Thanks to all the comments left educating me about the Hulk’s perpetual battle with the American military — a battle that’s been going since his creation in the Vietnam era. I had no idea, not having been a Hulk fan in my youth (although I liked Bill Bixby). I was more Archie and Richie Rich, to be honest.
Having said that, I’m going to go all lawyer-like now and claim that my original point can still exist, sort of — namely, that Hollywood likes having the American military as the enemy. Hollywood could easily have changed the enemy here, given that we are at War and that Hollywood keeps saying “we support the troops.” Certainly, in other remakes, Hollywood has been happy to change the enemy. I think that the Manchurian Candidate is a good example of modern Hollywood’s adaptability — old enemy, Communists; new enemy, American corporations. Nevertheless, with this movie, Hollywood was happy to go big budget with the same target the comic book created during the Vietnam War — the American Army.
I’ll freely admit that my new, updated, informed argument does not work as well as my original, ignorant point, but I still think the new Incredible Hulk movie works as another indictment of Hollywood’s disdain for and fear of America’s troops
Email This Post To A Friend
25 Responses to “Hollywood relentlessly demonizes our enemies *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So? Republicans are demonizing Obama, not just voting against him. Politics. Movies. It’s the drama. The Incredible Hulk isn’t real; Obama is.
Politics is where we play hardball. That’s the nature of American politics, and if Obama can’t take the heat of the American kitchen, it’s pretty arrogant for him to believe he can handle the heat from the world inferno. Hollywood, however, is in the business of shaping views. This is a movie marketed to teenage boys that tells them that the American military is their enemy.
Book,
I could be wrong on this, but I think the Hulk, since the beginning, was always chased by the US Military. I seem to remeber, when I was a kid, in the original 1970’s show, every episode ended with Banner just getting away from the military.
Spiff
So are you saying it’s okay to attack a real person, but don’t make a point symbolically? Or just that you don’t like the point that is being made, Bookworm?
There you have it
Do you find it at all surprising that young people are against the war and the military given that this is the kind of stuff that they have seen for the entirety of their lives, Book?
They’re not against a war, not if that war is against the “Enemy”, of course.
The Incredible Hulk isn’t real; Obama is.
The Hulk was far more real than Obama ever was.
So are you saying it’s okay to attack a real person, but don’t make a point symbolically?
If you equate challenging war crimes and criminal behavior as the same as “symbolically”, meaning lie and make up to manipulate people into killing good people directly and indirectly, making a point, then that’s your problem, not ours.
Hello Bookworm,
I know of only one movie out there on the movie store shelves that overtly and emphatically makes radical Islam the enemy. That’s the Stone Merchant starring Harvey Kitel. It was panned by critics and appropriately vilified.
I recommend it.
Having seen the commercials for the film it looks to me to be only marginally better than the last one. I wouldn’t waste my time and I’d bet this one tanks, too.
As for the anti-Military air to it, the Hulk has always been sought by the military. Sorry, Bookworm. But that’s actually keeping the movie close to the origins. Unlike the hatchet-jobs done on Clancy novels to eliminate Muslim terrorists and replace them with Neo-Nazis.
I don’t intend to see this movie.
What’s it called, “displacement”? Like when “The Da Vinci Code” came out and identified the real enemy as a conspiratorial group of sado-machocistic young catholic terrorists? Couldn’t be the religion of peace.
Or an “Inconvenient Truth” — you know, a theory that describes an amorphous, global problem that will bring doom sometime in the indefinite future, as opposed to real barbarian terrorists who kill people who threaten civilization in the here and now.
Query: Does plainly pointing out what someone does count as demonizing him?
People nowadays go apoplectic when others point out what they are, in fact, doing. Is that not strange?
… reminds me of the blinders narcissists take on to avoid seeing imperfections in their perfect self-image…
… also reminds me of how Hitler closed the blinds on his train and his car to avoid seeing the devastation he had wrought.
Deity isn’t to be questioned, but us mere mortals are…
This guy’s heart rate gets up to 200? And nothing breaks?
Wow - that’s pretty good shape.
The movie Not Without My Daughter has radical Islam and Iran as the enemy, and is based on a true story. It stars Sally Fields, was made in the 1980s (I think), and unfortunately has a bit of “Lifetime” quality to it, as the Sally Fields character is blindsided by her Iranian husband turning from a perfect husband into an evil monster once he gets her back to Iran. However, I read a good chunk of the book once, and in reality there were warning signs present before and all through the marriage. At any rate, it is a chilling tale that is not unusual (Arab-born man takes his wife and kids back to the Middle East and the wife and kids are not allowed to leave).
There’s an odd definition of “demonize” going on here on this post, too.
If Barack Obama comes out and tells you exactly what kind of jackass he truly is, and exactly what kind of low-rent jackasses around with whom he hangs, and then you say; “this guy’s a jackass, because of (A), (B), and (C) that he just said…” - that isn’t “demonizing.”
Helen Losse:
“Demonize.” “Attack” you say. This is how you all attempt to evade criticism. You call any and all criticisms, even observations by some extreme name.
Disagreeing is not attacking, or demonizing. Nor is pointing out what an opponent has actually done, and said. Grow up.
About the movie.
Liberals, at sometime in their early teens discover that their parents are not perfect. To them this is an epiphany, and they see themselves as brilliant for having made this momentous, unique discovery.
Criticizing their parents, and by extension anyone In Loco Parentis, is Deep. Nuanced. Evidence of superior, and rare intellect.
“It’s not THEIR fault!! [insert any evil doer, enemy, fool here]
No! It’s OUR FAULT!! **anguished sigh**
And this is where they stay. Each time they have this same, adolescent revelation it seems like a brand new, deep thought to them.
“WE are the enemy!”
Uhhhh! What brilliance!
It’s also very safe. It neatly avoids having to confront a REAL enemy. It takes adults to do that.
As for the anti-Military air to it, the Hulk has always been sought by the military. Sorry, Bookworm. But that’s actually keeping the movie close to the origins.
Given those “origins” were around the 70s, there’s no “sorry” to it concerning the anti-military bias.
Having said that, I’m going to go all lawyer-like now and claim that my original point can still exist, sort of — namely, that Hollywood likes having the American military as the enemy.
That was obvious to begin with, since all the things you’ve said about “The Incredible Hulk” also applied to the original Hulk. So there’s no contradiction at all, Book, and nothing to be sorry for. Except having a bunch of traitors in Hollywood with both the power and wealth to influence millions of people, American and otherwise.
They want to weaponize the Hulk technology.
The last thing the Army and Marines would want is a big arse green thing that can’t control himself just cause he got “angry”. Military members and infantry get “angry” while in combat all the time. Having one go berserk and start throwing things, like maybe your HUmvee or APC, is not the kind of army the Army wants to create.
Of course, you know very well Book that if the Left had been in charge of the Army and Marines, that the Soldiers and Marines would be exactly like the Hulk, except without the compassion. The Left would create a military that would shoot first and ask for forgiveness later. The Left would create a military so corrupt it would be making more money than the government from taxes, probably because half of the income is from taxes. The Left would create rules of engagement that is so illdisciplined that the military would be shooting each other, let alone innocent civilians.
Look at every Leftist revolutionary organization and who they ultimately ended up shooting, and you’ll figure out exactly what the US military would look like under a 100 years of Total Socialist and Totalitarian control.
Hollywood’s disdain for and fear of America’s troops
They fear the Marines because they know the Marines have the discipline, intellect, will, and spirit to bust open any little claptrap mercenary army the Left could field, whether it be Brownshirts, SS blackshirts, or Stalin’s secret police and commissars.
Look at the UN paying peacekeepers to rape children for a good example of what I mean by socialist mercenary armies.
Book,
Check out the upcoming GI Joe movie. The “G” stands for “Global”. I dont remeber the rest.
Apparently GI Joe is no longer a US special forces team but now is a “Global” anti-terrorism team.
Spiff
But that’s actually keeping the movie close to the origins.
For people’s information, Book’s original post did not mention anything about the I Hulk movie had not kept close to its origins.
Hollywood just came out with another movie that relentlessly demonizes the enemy
That didn’t read as “Hollywood just came out with another movie that changed the original villains to something more anti-American”.
Y,
I agree with your comments. In my original comment I was just pointing out that basically the movie was true to its source (at least as far as the TV series went).
I did not know that the Hulk was originally created during the 70’s; when anti-military attitudes were at an all time high.
So, this movie simply fit into the Hollywood anti-military mold without actually changing the source material.
Hell, I saw a show on the history of comics. I guess in one issue of Captain America, Captain America questioned the actions of the US after 9/11 and did some serious soul searching. The comics are no longer the bastion of patriotism like they were during WW2.
Spiff
Actually, in light of government programs such as MK-Ultra, the original “Manchurian Candidate” was considered so anti-American, it almost didn’t get made. (For more information, see The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control).
But according to screenwriter George Axelrod, a phone call from JFK got the ball rolling.
From the Washington Post, in 1988:
“Axelrod reports that United Artists, the company that produced the film, had always been nervous about making the picture, but not because of any fear that it would encourage assassinations. “They didn’t want to make it because they thought that it was un-American,” he says. Ironically, it was a phone call from President Kennedy — made at Sinatra’s request — that persuaded Arthur Krim, then head of United Artists and also the national finance chairman of the Democratic Party, to change his mind and start production.
(An additional irony, which may be more curious than telling but is entirely in keeping with the tone of the film, is that it was Frankenheimer who drove Robert Kennedy to the hotel in California the night he was assassinated.)”
Another interesting tidbit from the Washington Post article:
“Controversy seems to have always followed this off-beat political thriller. When it first came out, one critic called it “the best film of the year, and the most irresponsible.” And about the same time, the film was picketed in Orange County, Calif., for being pro-communist, while in Paris, protesters denounced it as right-wing propaganda.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/manchuriancandidatehinson.htm
After reading declassified info on MK-Ultra, Operation Paperclip, and other bits of CIA history, I think both versions of the Manchurian Candidate are entertaining as hell.
Book! You need to cleanse your palette by seeing last year’s Transformers movie.
Autobots + US military vs Decepticons == Big pile of steaming awesomeness.
US military is displayed as effective, efficient, courageous and necessary.
Bookworm,
Speaking of which, another good dose of awesomeness is Iron Man. Now, that’s a movie.
The bad guys are al-Qaeda types and corrupt multinationals. There was also a point in the movie when it lays out Teddy Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” diplomacy. I heartily approve
Lionel Chetwynd, a writer and film executive, wanted to make a movie about the disastrout WWII invasion at Dieppe. Read about the reaction he got from the head of a TV network.
Who’s the REAL enemy?
spiff580,
I was mostly responding to benning’s comment, though, as I didn’t have a problem with yours.
***
The greater technology changes, the greater the pace of social upheaval and progress. New technology would have made slaves uneconomical. New technology made women more capable of serving in the military. Exoskeleton powered armor will reduce the disparity between female and male physical power in infantry.
However, the price of such fast paced change, change that over the last 50 years overwhelmed the entire history of the Roman Empire, both West and East in terms of tech and social advances, is that people no longer feel certain about their past, their present, or their future. This means nihilism gets a spot on the stage once more. Mercenary attitudes as well.
The comics are no longer the bastion of patriotism like they were during WW2.
Few have the certainty in their beliefs now as their ancestors once had in theirs. There has been too much change, too many storms of disbelief where the truth held from yesterday will become obsolete tomorrow, for people to hold to God given rights, liberties, and eternal truths. This makes it very easy to people to come up with manufactured truths and sell it in our marketing economy.
In a riff on Book’s Sheep I/II thread, this kind of relationship is true even in physics. People know the normal physics force equation is mass times velocity squared equals Newtons of force. In a fight to the death against criminals or sociopathic attackers, you can either sacrifice speed for form and power (solidness) or you can sacrifice power and strength for speed and mobility and fluidness.
The more fluid your motions, the less power they have to resist external stimuli and the less force they strike with. The age old analogy is that water flows around objects while glaciers and ice smash through them. It takes a disproportionate amount of water, compared to ice, to exert the same force per square inch because water is a fluid while ice is a solid.
On the other hand, take the old tree with roots sunk through several layers of soil and petrified rock even. It cannot move, it cannot change, it cannot bend much, but it has strength and foundation.
The analogy is irrefutable and even when human beings think their birth control technology has “freed” them from Nature, we return once more to the fact that a society that changes too fast will eventually lose its ability to withstand external forces and threats. A society that does not change fast enough, however, will shatter as it tries to absorb too much force and finds that it cannot but break.
Still, many Westerners believe they have transcended the laws of nature, physics, and reality, but they have just simply moved onto a different sphere of difficulty. A frog in a 50 meter pond will certainly feel that it is freer in a 5 mile radius lake.
PS.
If you ever try to strike somebody as hard as you can, any curve in your joints or looseness of your muscles will cause the force you are exerting upon the target to be reflected back and taken in by your own bones, muscles, and ligaments. You don’t want the spear to bend and rebound off a target. You want it to stay stiff and go through the target, as in armor piercing.
Joint breaking, however, even though it uses the principles of striking, primarily seeks to break a joint by creating a lever and then causing the lever to break with a force exceeding the lever’s tolerance. Usually one might say an elbow can only bend in one direction and it doesn’t take much force in the opposite direction to damage the elbow joint, let alone the 100+ pounds of force used in TFT strikes.
Martial arts prefers to trade pure power for mobility and speed. Physical conditioning and muscle mass is what they use for power and to counter strength, they use speed since a smaller person is almost always faster than a larger and more powerful person. Exceptions are when the 250 pound guy has very well conditioned leg muscles that can accelerate him and de-accelerate him in a pinpoint flash.
As seen in military affairs, sometimes you can do more with surprise and mobility than you can do with large numbers and firepower. Larger armies move slower and are more visible.
However, in war we are dealing with sociology, psychology, and essentially the Boyd OODA cycle. Thus getting large numbers to attack takes a long time. In martial arts or fighting and personal one on one killing, we are dealing with simple physics and the OODA cycle of only a few people.
Which means that unless your speed and mobility is used to attack, attack, attack, it’s not going to do much given that a person is unlikely to outnumber or overpower their criminal opponents. Such things happen, but usually they are the luck of the draw scenarios that don’t apply to most others.
The amount of extra acceleration you can put in a fist strike is neglible compared to adding in 50-100% of your body weight to the strike. Gravity gives you free acceleration of your mass, whereas swinging a leg or a fist requires you to use your own muscles to accelerate it, oftentimes laterally or parallel to the ground.
In the end, people will always have to choose which to sacrifice. Stability, security, power, strength, or speed, mobility, change, fluidness.
The Democrats like “change”, you see. Change as in how entropy changes things.
Speaking of which, another good dose of awesomeness is Iron Man.
The openning intro for Ironman was ridiculous.