Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: 21 Questions

21 hits the box-office jackpot.

Survivor Series

Dith Pran, a survivor of Pol Pot's 1970s-era genocide in Cambodia, passes away at 65. Pran's story was turned into the Oscar-winning 1984 film The Killing Fields. More from the New York Times.

Troop Movements

With early reports of the failure of Kimberly Peirce’s anti-Bush screed Stop-Loss at the US box office, here’s hoping that Hollywood has finally gotten the we-hate-Dubya sentiment out of its system.

These “Bush sucks” movies (Lions for Lambs, Redacted, Rendition, In the Valley of Elah, etc.) will be remembered as a Hollywood fad, like the body-switching movies of the late-‘80s and the “erotic thrillers” of the late-’80s and early-‘90s. The only anti-Bush movie that had any real success at the box office was Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11—and that film’s success had a lot to do with Moore’s status as the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

Why have most of these anti-Bush movies failed? It’s not because there is still a reservoir of pro-Bush sentiment in this country: after all, most conservatives can’t even stand the man these days because of his lack of conservatism on issues such as illegal immigration. Rather, these films are tanking due to their predictability.

Most Americans know that Hollywood is filled with self-described “progressives” who loathe Bush and anything connected to conservatism, the Republican Party or “traditional American values.” They recognize that whenever Hollywood makes a movie about Bush or the Iraq War, the film will not contain anything that goes against the liberal template.

If Hollywood made one movie—just one movie—about the Iraq War that presented a “right-wing” or “pro-victory” take on the conflict, I guarantee that it would gross in excess of $100 million. Americans would see such a film not because they would necessarily agree with the film’s conservative politics, but because it would finally represent something different. (It can be argued that a significant portion of the money The Passion of the Christ made in 2004 came not from people who were particularly religious, but from people who liked the film because it was unlike ninety percent of Hollywood’s usual product.)

However, Hollywood would never make a non-liberal film about Iraq or Bush because the industry would regard such as film as fundamentally immoral. The industry is so narrow-minded that it cannot countenance a view of Iraq or Bush that is not negative.

Years ago, Limbaugh argued that the modern-day left, which grew up loathing Vietnam and Nixon, now regards Iraq as the new Vietnam and Bush as the new Nixon. However, it is logically impossible to compare Iraq to Vietnam, or Bush to Nixon. Iraq has not been as financially perilous or as casualty-filled as Vietnam was; in addition, we do not have a draft to force unwilling participants into Iraq, as we did during the Vietnam era. As for Bush, he has never done anything in office that even remotely compares to the crimes Nixon committed; using intelligence that later turned out to be faulty to build a case for war is not the same as obstructing justice. Bush cannot be rationally viewed as the same social menace Nixon was perceived to be: whereas Nixon was caught on tape disparaging people of color, Bush has appointed more people of color to high positions than any previous President--including the first black President.

Hollywood is full of folks who came of age during the late-‘60s and early-‘70s, and who now view Iraq and Bush the same way they viewed Vietnam and Nixon. They are wedded to the past, with no knowledge of how to seek a divorce. They cannot comprehend that there are intelligent Americans who don’t think of Iraq as an unnecessary quagmire, and who don’t regard Bush as a Mephistophelean figure. They have their issues with the war and with Bush, but they are not filled with contempt for the conflict and the Commander-in-Chief leading it.

Hollywood has embarrassed itself with these over-the-top Bush-bashing films. How many people like politics in their movies anyway? The last truly successful non-documentary film dealing with political issues was Mike Nichols’ The Birdcage, which came out in the middle of the Clinton era, during a time of relative calm in the culture wars. Even hardcore anti-Dubya types won’t run out to see these Bush-bashing films, because the pictures tell progressives something they already know. These movies are fundamentally pointless—so why are they even being made?

One can only assume the producers of these films simply want to “make a statement”—even if that statement comes at a temporary financial cost. The men and women behind these pictures want to tell the rest of the world that they share the international opinion of Bush and the war. Even if these films bomb, they can be offset by future successes: whatever grief Paramount Pictures feels as a result of Stop-Loss’ failure will be alleviated by the joy of the profits generated by such summer releases as Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  From Hollywood’s perspective, it’s no harm, no foul. From America’s perspective, it’s no class, no respect.

The Great Divide

The Washington Times on how younger and older blacks reacted to Barack Obama's race speech.

O, No!

Barack Obama has yet to understand the first rule of holes: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Reelin' In The Years

Charles Krauthammer on a new angle of attack against John McCain.

The Audacity!

Larry Elder on the racial conversation America really needs to have.

UPDATE: Some interesting comments from Condi Rice.

The Power Of One

Michael Steele on President Bush's efforts to lift up Africa.

Dear Diary

You really have to be a hard-lefty to think that filmmaker Tyler Perry--who has endorsed Barack Obama--is a right-winger. 

Difference Of Opinion

John McCain outlines his foreign-policy vision.

Writing Lesson

Former Boston Globe columnist David B. Wilson passes away at 80.

Kiss Of Death

Actor Richard Widmark passes away at 93.

Striking Out

Dr. Walter Williams asks: could a Barack Obama presidency actually embarrass African-Americans?

UPDATE: More from Robert Sirico.

Wise Man

The Wall Street Journal on John McCain. Plus, David Brooks on Hillary Clinton.

Signs

Has Barack Obama become the Mel Gibson of American politics?

The director of Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ has yet to recuperate from the injuries his image suffered after he went into an anti-Semitic rant following his arrest on drunk-driving charges in July 2006. Gibson—who had already been accused of homophobia and anti-Semitism in the years prior to the arrest—was disowned by Hollywood and condemned by numerous anti-defamation groups. Although his December 2006 release, Apocalypto, performed well at the domestic box office, he has yet to regain the pop-cultural power that made him one of the film industry’s most beloved stars—and it’s unlikely that he ever will.

Obama’s fall from grace has been almost as swift as Gibson’s. At the beginning of the year, Obama was hailed as the odds-on favorite to become the next President of the United States, a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who transcended racial and political boundaries. Now, in the wake of the controversy over his longtime connection to Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama has lost his crossover appeal and is now regarded as just another left-wing Democrat.

It’s hard to believe Obama didn’t realize just how politically perilous his affiliation with Trinity United pastor Jeremiah Wright would be. Oprah Winfrey was once a member of the church, but left several years ago; apparently, she understood that if the media uncovered her relationship with Wright, the ensuing controversy would doom her media empire. Why didn’t Obama follow in Winfrey’s footsteps?

Some of Wright’s supporters have attempted to change the subject by pointing to televangelists John Hagee and Rod Parsley, both of whom have endorsed John McCain. It’s a desperate comparison, because no one in his or her right mind truly believes that McCain subscribes to the Hagee-Parsley view of the world.

McCain is, at bottom, a secular Republican—arguably the most secular Republican the party has nominated since Gerald Ford in 1976. Hasn’t anybody noticed that the folks who loathe McCain tend to be from the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party? They despise McCain in part because he’s a throwback to the pre-Reagan, pre-Moral Majority era of the party. It’s impossible to convince average Americans that McCain shares the fundamentalist views of these two clergymen.

Some on the left—who are pro-Obama but anti-Wright—have argued that Obama is a victim of “guilt by association.” So what? “Guilt by association”  is, for good or ill, a time-honored political tradition in this country.  Ford in fact lost the ’76 election to Jimmy Carter due to “guilt by association”; Ford wasn’t involved in any of Richard Nixon’s criminality, but because he was Nixon’s Vice President (and because he pardoned Nixon in September 1974), the electorate regarded Ford as Nixon’s doppelganger, and tossed him out accordingly.

“Guilt by association” has felled many a Democrat: Walter Mondale in 1984 (because of his link to Carter), Al Gore in 2000 (because of his link to Bill Clinton), John Kerry in 2004 (because of his link to Massachusetts, which became ground zero in the American culture war after the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage). If Obama loses in November, he’ll merely become the newest member of the “guilt by association” list.

It’s amazing how quickly Obama’s image has been tarnished. In just two weeks, his public persona has changed from reasonable to radical, from moderate to militant, from decent to dogmatic. Michelle Obama’s remarks about not feeling pride in the country prior to Obama’s run did not shock the American conscience: they were considered mere misstatements, slips of the tongue by someone not used to extreme scrutiny of the American media/political complex.  Now, Mrs. Obama’s remarks have been dwarfed by Rev. Wright’s incendiary rhetoric—and Mr. Obama’s tepid condemnations thereof.

Why didn’t Obama use the Wright controversy as his own “Sister Souljah” moment? Obama could have galvanized the country by firmly rejecting Wright’s rhetoric, denouncing his remarks as an example of the extremism that poisons political debate in this country.  He could have echoed John F. Kennedy, who once famously declared that “Race has no place in American life or law.” Instead, he tripped over his lines in his Broadway debut.

Obama should have been a true maverick, rejecting Rev. Wright’s conspiracy theory and dismissing him as a mad individual who wants payback. Instead, he declared that he and Wright were soldiers—which means, of course, that a majority of Americans will not regard him as a patriot.

Stop-Loss

There's something disturbing about the media celebrating the fact that 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq, because they think this will destroy John McCain's chances of victory in November.

UPDATE: President Bush speaks on the war. More from the New York Times.