TCS Daily


Give the Devil Her Due

By James Pinkerton - July 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Let's check in on what the liberals and ultra-liberals in Hollywood are up to. Oh, and while we're at it, let's also monitor moviedom's lefty pals over in the Mainstream Media (MSM); maybe we can see how the Hollywood-MSM alliance is pushing the country toward Big Government and socialism -- oops, hmmm, except that it isn't.

In fact, the movie news this weekend shows instead a distinctly unsolidaristic preoccupation with profit. Both movie-makers and movie-reporters seem focused on just a few materialistic questions: How much money did "Superman Returns" take in? What was the gross for other films, such as "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Click"? And what are the ticket-sale prospects, now, for movies in general?

Here's The Wall Street Journal's report on the weekend movie box office: "'Superman' Performs Solidly, but 'Prada' Dents Take." Of course, some might note, that's the Journal, concerned with business. Yet revealingly, other MSM focused, too, on the greed-is-good aspect of the movie biz. Here's the headline, for example, from Monday's edition of The Baltimore Sun: "'Superman' saves the day as women flock to 'Prada.'"

And what of the Grande Dame of the MSM, The New York Times? The Gray Lady prides herself on comprehensiveness: "All the News That's Fit for Liberals to Print" -- I think that's the paper's motto. Surely, one would think, the Times would cover the movie business with an eye toward social justice. But no: the headline reads, "Signs of Life at the Box Office, if Not a Full Recovery."

All this talk and buzz about superheroes, supermodels, and superstars -- and the supermoney they earn! What happened to pro-proletarian politics? And the Al Gore movie isn't even mentioned once?

Oh wait, here we go: Here's a big piece in Sunday's Times, detailing Oliver Stone's forthcoming movie on 9-11, "World Trade Center." Surely any Stone film will include a heavy dose of Left Coast-lefty consciousness-raising and conspiracy-theorizing. But wait, as I read the article, I learn that the film eschews larger issues, focusing instead on two heroic cops. Stone is quoted as saying, "This is not a political film. The mantra is 'This is not a political film.'" And Stone is candid -- almost Republican-ly candid -- as to why his change of heart: money. After a string of flops, the director of such long-ago lefty icons as "JFK" and "Nixon" realizes that he needs a box office hit. In other words, that most capitalist of virtues, greed, has led him to make a movie that celebrates those uniformed Americans who went running up the stairs when others went running down. Some might say, in response, that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Others will say, Let me see the movie.

It's still possible, of course, that Stone, and The Times, are lying. Both the lefty director and a left-friendly media establishment could be seeking to use stealth tactics to sneak yet another agitprop flick into America's multiplexes -- we'll know for sure on August 9, when the film is released. But a look at the trailer for "World Trade Center" gives the feeling that it's an honest celebration of manly bravery; moreover, the two men, trapped in the rubble, seem to experience a profound spiritual moment, to wit, the closing words of the trailer: "The world saw evil that day. Two men saw something different."

As I have argued in the past, there's no denying that the "formal" politics of Hollywood lean to the left and toward the Democratic Party. However, in the course of doing their business -- that is, trying to get rich -- Hollywoodites take on, shall we say, a different political aspect. At night, at gala benefit dinners when the world is watching, they might proudly wear liberalism on their Armani sleeves, but during the day, they throw their elbows around instead. But the point isn't merely that they are hypocrites; though of course they are. The real point is that in the course of achieving their own Ayn Rand-levels of personal ambition and self-aggrandizement, they invariably imbue their movies with this same Randian value system.

So the deep structure -- the "metapolitics" -- of movies is individualistic and right-wing, even if the superficial ideological carapace is borrowed from the collectivist left. The archetypal America movie hero is a loner, not a communalist. Moreover, the journalists that cover the industry are infected by this deeper, free-market conservative meta-worldview, too. That's why, as we have seen, the press coverage looks so unblinkingly and admiringly upon the naked ambition of money-making.

And the new "Superman" movie fits right in -- right in with Superman as a Nietzschean concept. What Hollywood uber-mogul doesn't have such grand dreams for himself? They all do, of course, which is one reason why the Superman franchise returns and returns in Tinseltown; producers and directors identify with the caped crusader. For loner superheroes, the metapolitics of individual destiny and righteousness far outweigh whatever minimal politics of sharing and do-gooding such a movie might toss in.

So while some have complained that the new film eschews the familiar line of "truth, justice, and the American way," the decision to change the wording to "truth, justice, and all that stuff" probably had as much to do with the imperatives of marketing to the planet as it did with any home-grown anti-Americanism. Which brings up another point: As Hollywood goes global, it will likely continue to downplay unique Americanisms that might antagonize far-flung audiences. But such downplaying doesn't put Hollywood on the political left; it merely reminds us that personal ambition and personal greed are often at odds with patriotism. It's a rule that Nietzscheans are loyal only to themselves. As such, they will lose friends on the tradition-minded right, but such ego-emboldened strivers won't gain many fans on the left, either.

We might also pause over the metapolitics of the runner-up movie at the box office, "The Devil Wears Prada," which is based on the best-selling roman à clef by Lauren Weisberger. She channeled her real-life stint as an assistant to Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue, into the fictionalized brief career of young Andy Sachs (played by Anne Hathaway in the film), working for Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep, in yet another Oscar-snagging performance), editor of Runway.

Young Andy, born and educated in the Midwest, comes to New York City to be a journalist; as editor of her college newspaper, she was most proud of her series of articles on labor unions. Yet working-class simpatico-ness can't pay the bills, at least not in Manhattan; hard times force her to go looking for a job at the glossy fashion magazine. Lucking into a position as Miranda's "second assistant," the normally attractive Andy is seen at first as an ugly duckling, derided by her starved-to-perfection colleagues as "the fat girl." But she quickly adapts to her new environment, learning to swim and dive with the best of them. In terms of tone, "Prada" owes much to such sturdy cine-perennials as "Cinderella," "A Star is Born," and "All About Eve." That is, Andy learns to abandon her simple and honest ways and adapt new airs and attitudes -- not to mention fancy clothes. However, she comes to learn that everything glittering is not golden; she is seduced by her ambition and loses her boyfriend. Only then does she realize the trouble she is in; so she steps back from a "Dorian Gray"-like fate and walks away from Miranda and Runway. Finally, she takes a working-stiff job at a New York newspaper, where her editor will no doubt make good use of her labor-beat expertise.

By that brief reckoning, "Prada" is a moderate-liberal morality tale. As in, say, "Oliver Twist," it teaches us not to be tempted by wicked ways, no matter how hungry we are. So score one for small town values -- small town values that include the liberal politics of embracing labor unions.

But as we have seen, the "formal" politics of movies are small -- that is, minimal. What really matters are the informal politics of how people live their lives -- the metapolitics. Does "Prada" praise Andy's turning away from what William James called "the bitch-goddess, SUCCESS"? Sure it does, at the level of heavy-handedly banal obviousness. But at the meta-level, "Prada" exalts Miranda and Runway: Do you want to wear fabulous clothes? Be thin and rich? Live in an Upper East Side townhouse? Fly first class to Paris to enjoy fancy lunches, and more, with Beautiful People? Well, all right then -- here's the formula for you, right in this film.

I don't suppose that Anna Wintour will enjoy "Prada." Her character Miranda isn't a devil, in the sense of being Satan-like, or even Joan Crawford-like. Instead, she is merely insensitive, demanding, and difficult. Yet at the same time, Streep deftly understates the part; she doesn't hit anybody with wire coathangers, or anything else. What does come clear is that she knows her fashion; spotting Andy wearing a cerulean blue sweater, she launches into a disquisition on the fashion-genesis of that particular color that can only be called erudite. Which is to say, the editrix is a serious meritocrat who is serious about her work -- and serious, to the point of relentlessness, about getting just as much work out of others. There are worse things.

Indeed, at the risk of sounding like an Oscar Wilde wannabe, one can say that never has so much importance been attached to something that is so unimportantly important. It's true, of course, that fashion is trivial, except when fashion is seen as a part of an overall style. And style, too, might be minimized, except for the fact that style is also art. Even art is no big deal -- until one remembers that art is central to civilization.

And it's worth noting here that fashion, style, art, and civilization are not often thought of as belonging to the left. Yes, of course, many artists are kneejerk lefties, but once again, in its metapolitics, art itself tends to be elitist, even snobbish. Which is to say, in its manner, art is mostly conservative. The upholding of the best of what's been thought and said is not a job for the masses; it's a job for a few paragons -- such as Miranda Priestly.

These are powerful cinematic metapolitics: First, such a film gets made. Second, reporters judge it on how much money it makes. Third, it makes lots of money because ordinary people want to see conspicuous consumption being glamorized. Fourth, and finally, the critics like "Prada," too. Yup, that's right. A film devoted to extolling haute New York scored a cumulative "fresh" rating of 77 percent from those critics tallied by the website rottentomatoes.com. It would seem that even reviewers prefer to watch fabulousness over global warming and labor unions.

As a capstone to the argument that the metapolitics of style provide at least as much aid to the right as to the left, we might take note of an article in Tuesday's Washington Post:

Under the headline, "Defining Her Own Sphere of Influence/Rice's Popularity Crosses Borders and Party Lines Thanks to Careful Attention to Image," reporter Glenn Kessler praises Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's chic poise, describing it as a key component of her international influence. In a nutshell, people think she's cool. And the Postie, a certified member of the MSM, uses a movie reference to underscore his point:

But she appeared to achieve stardom early in her tenure as secretary of state when, a month after taking the post, she was photographed walking past hundreds of cheering soldiers in Germany wearing a black skirt, a black coat and knee-high black boots that evoked the movie "The Matrix." Rice routinely wears expensive and flashy designer outfits in her travels.

By all accounts, Condi Rice is no Miranda Priestly. But at the same time, Condi and Miranda share an icy hauteur, a dignified reserve based on hard work and merit, thus separating them from the pack. They have earned their way to distinction, and even after they have reached the pinnacle of their respective professions, they keep on working hard, never letting down their guard -- or their image.

Thus we see a kind of aristocratic, conservative metapolitics in action, celebrating individual merit, as well as rigid self-discipline -- no letting it all hang out here. And while it's not surprising that Hollywood moguls dig the idea of personal ambition, it's revealing that reporters dig it, too, as evidenced by their eager-beaver chronicling of the box office rankings. But what's most revealing of all is that movie critics and movie audiences, eating up "Prada," seem to be part of the same conservative value system.

There's a reason the left is doing so poorly in politics -- it's the metapolitics, stupid.

James Pinkerton is the TCS Daily media critic.

Categories:

78 Comments

Down is not up

Pinkerton must be courting some lady whose daddy is a H-wood mogul. That's all I can think of, because he writes about movies constantly, and he sure doesn't persuade me that H-wood leftism has any redeeming qualities.

The new Superman flick was a relative dud, probably because Drudge and The Advocate publicized the movie's tacit leftism. Maybe ticket sales will pop in places like Belgium, but I doubt it will make up for lost sales in the red states. So much for counter-intuitive "metapolitics."






Individualism and courage are not "conservative" virtues
James Pinkerton is often sensible about politics, but this ongoing venture into movies seems almost perversely misguided.

The modus here seems to be identifying a large number of virtues -- individualism, courage, leadership, notably -- with conservative values and then somehow implying that since liberals can't or don't have or respect these values, liberal filmmakers are (at best) hypocritically supplying the conservative heartland with product.

This may be self-gratifying to conservatives, but it's deeply bogus. People in the entertainment industry - writers, directors, actors and executives - are and always have been individual risk takers. Every single movie is a risk. Choosing a career in the entertainment business, particularly on the creative side, is an enormous risk, with failure far, far more likely than success.

So why don't movies simply exalt and worship success? One answer is that winners in this business come out of the proceess with knowledge that, as good as they are, they did not succeed alone. Film is an intrinsically collaborative business, where you teams are only as good as their weakest links. When this understanding is expressed in film, however, it's regarded as neo-communism.

These 'Hollywood Metapolitics' articles..
They just seem like so much blather to me.

And even though he makes a point of saying 'This is not to just make the point that liberals are hypocrites - of course they are.', that seems to be the only real point of these things.

Yes, liberals ARE hypocrites. Duh. They are also intellectually bankrupt, dishonest to the core, and totally lacking in any kind of substantial virtues.


Ok, so tell us something we didn't already know.

Eric's justifying herd think
That's why we see so many examples of this in TV and films, the entertainment industry ability to come up with originasl ideas and concepts and avoid herd thinking!


Yeah Eric tell us about how this is shown in this upteeth remake of Superman.

The proof of the cowardise and herd like thinking of Hollywood lies in a film like Me Gibson's Passion of Christ. Its something thaT WON'T WORK WHILE hOLLYWOOD'S ANSWER is a movie like Brokeback Mountain.

The idea of a film as a team effort is truly funny. One hears of stars, directors, producers, but a team effort?

Reality check please.

Ideological battle Ground
Reading all these posts and articles concerning the supposed ideological battle ground that is Hollywood makes me questions whether you Americans realise how important dissent is in a functioning democracy.
Hollywood is filled with creative people and whether you agree with them or not, they are the kinds of people who are more likely to question society and highlight problems.

Over the years Hollywood has produced films that tackle all the social issues, including those unpopular in mainstream culture, such as civil rights, homosexuality, drug abuse, child abuse, etc.

I for one am glad there are people with conviction to highlight problems in society. I certainly don’t agree with all their views, but am glad there being aired so they can be discussed.

But then again you Americans should already know this; just what kind of democracy are you promoting? All opinions are valid except those that disagree with me, perhaps?

pour epater le bourgoisie - - - - - or some such
After wasting my time reading Pinkerton's limp-wristed apologetic, I was going to give my fellow conservative a sound verbal thrashing. But the above posts have asturely done it for me. Let me just point out that "Hollywood" is not an industry formed primarily for economic reasons. It is a self-absorbed cult, alienated, and devoted to destruction of the middle class, as is the MSM. However, the MSM's next favoritest obsession to tearing down western culture; is sensationalizing and exaggerating reports on any contest, hence the shallow, boneheaded horse-race reporting of politics and movie revenues.

Help us out here: how does this work?
This is a little puzzling:

>Let me just point out that "Hollywood" is not an industry formed primarily for economic reasons. It is a self-absorbed cult, alienated, and devoted to destruction of the middle class, as is the MSM.

Movies are a multibillion dollar industry produced by publically held companies, including Fox, which report earnings and losses every year. But you say they are a cult. Are (for example) drug companies, oil companies,and chemical companies also "cults?"

Let's make a movie
Pinkerton pins the tail on the donkey when he observes that "the 'formal' politics of movies are small -- that is, minimal. What really matters are the informal politics of how people live their lives -- the metapolitics."

The real question should be, what kind of people do ordinary folks want to pay nine bucks for the privilege of sitting down and watching their lives? Old farts with crusty ideas? Or the cool kids?

You just can't show people movies about squares making the ordinary choices. Well, you can, but they have to be interrupted by terrorists, abducted and injected into ridiculous plot lines until they improbably turn into heros.

No, the better way is to make movies about interesting people making odd choices. And that whole thing is,,, well, sort of lefty.

It's okay for a movie to display blatant right wing sympathies. What this does is to place the product in the direct-to-video category. All the young gyrenes on the base can rent it and hoot at the screen, as Vin Diesel socks it to the anonymous ragheads.

But to give a movie obvious left wing sympathies is to place it in a niche market. This partisan market must be a big one because they're making more of these than they ever used to. And Hollywood does nothing noble. It's all about the benjamins. One shudders as we await the inevitable Ann Coulter-themed countermovies to come.

I suspect that most moviegoers-- real people, as it were-- tend to shun these extremes, and seek out quirky, humorous, human movies. Or they're parents, and spend their entire adult lives paying to see animated figures romp through Pixar-ilated jungles. Or would just like an afternoon of escapist humor. These people won't give you $1.49 to watch politics.

So let's see how Prada does. Compared to daily life, how bad can it be?

Well said
Fon:
Outstanding description of an industry that is anthing but an object lesson in democracy. Its the propoganda wing of the Left.

Incoherent as usual Roy
Hollywood has given up on plot, character, descency that ideals that made Hollywood so great in the forties and fifties for a bunch of radical, twisted films that you are so excited about but no one is dull enough to pay to see.

Left wing hate America movies do have a large niche market. Not in the US where they bomb, but in the Middle East or France they're loved. That's why a Pirates movie makes more than all the Lefty themed films will ever hope to make. People aren't going to pay to watch a bunch of depraved individuals, not even the cool kids who think such themes aren't cool.

Hollywood's point of view is simple. Passion of Christ was evil becuase it repesented all that Hollywood opposes but you can't ignore its box office. So you produce a counterpart that represents your values. And true to Hollywood the DaVinci Code made money but sank quickly after people realized that Hollywood slickness doesn't count for much if a movie if nothing but a hollow vessel that celebrates gaia or new age fuller brushism.

= Box Office numbers for 'Left Behind'
Budget
$17,400,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend
$2,158,780 (USA) (4 February 2001) (867 Screens)
CAD 119,711 (Canada) (2 March 2001)
Gross
$4,221,341 (USA) (22 April 2001)
$4,193,087 (USA) (25 March 2001)
$4,188,007 (USA) (18 March 2001)
$4,113,857 (USA) (11 March 2001)
$3,970,671 (USA) (4 March 2001)
$3,809,946 (USA) (25 February 2001)
$3,685,368 (USA) (18 February 2001)
$3,237,899 (USA) (11 February 2001)
$2,158,780 (USA) (4 February 2001)
Weekend Gross
$2,898 (USA) (22 April 2001) (13 Screens)
$5,080 (USA) (25 March 2001) (15 Screens)
$22,794 (USA) (18 March 2001) (33 Screens)
$63,215 (USA) (11 March 2001) (49 Screens)
$138,153 (USA) (4 March 2001) (70 Screens)
$79,686 (USA) (25 February 2001) (114 Screens)
$277,092 (USA) (18 February 2001) (258 Screens)
$717,509 (USA) (11 February 2001) (569 Screens)
$2,158,780 (USA) (4 February 2001) (867 Screens)

Gulliver, gulled - - - -
Think about it a little. Apolitical family-type movies make bundles of money. Cultish screeds against religion and capitalism don't, but do get the "industry" awards and the plaudits of fellow performers. Cultish politics trumps profits. The antireligious, antihistorical Da Vinci Code is defended by saying after all it's only juat fiction, so critics should shut up.

Hollywood illuminati were for fascism in the '30s and for communism in the '50s, and now are pro-jihadist. At least they are constant and loyal to their own faith, anti-Americanism.

Let's do a thot experiment, when do you think Hollywierd will come up with a 'fictional' movie about an evil homosexual community plotting to subvert American culture and take over the world, only to be defeated by heroic, Baptist ministers? Anti-American directors (Ollie, are you listening?); you can use this idea for free.

What world are you posting from??
None of this has anything to do with reality

>The antireligious, antihistorical Da Vinci Code is defended by saying after all it's only juat fiction, so critics should shut up.

Nobody says critics should shut up, and most people don't say it's a good movie. Is the idea that it should have been censored?

>Cultish screeds against religion and capitalism don't, but do get the "industry" awards and the plaudits of fellow performers.

such as?

>Cultish politics trumps profits.

You should really bring this to the attention of the management of, for example, 20th Century Fox, which also runs the Fox Network. They will be very surprised to find they are part of leftist cult.


>Hollywood illuminati were for fascism in the '30s and for communism in the '50s, and now are pro-jihadist. At least they are constant and loyal to their own faith, anti-Americanism.

Maybe you can lists some pro-fascists, pro-communist or pro-jihadist films. This doesn't seem to ring a bell.

>Let's do a thot experiment, when do you think Hollywierd will come up with a 'fictional' movie about an evil homosexual community plotting to subvert American culture and take over the world, only to be defeated by heroic, Baptist ministers?

I just posted the numbers for Left Behind. If you think this is a good idea that a huge audience in the U.S. is waiting to hear, why not talk to the people who produced that film?

How about Mission to Moscow for One
Munich; what was the name of Clooney's latest film that bombed? The point of the 50s was that there were hundreds of Communists in Hollywood, the kind that thought Stalin was a wonderful man. The kind of commie that sold nuclear secrets to the USSR and work for the NY Times today.

One can look at the men who ran Hollywood in the 30s and 40s and look at the people who run it today and ask what happened.

Even you must be able to see the difference in their attitudes.

Mission to Moscow
That movie was made during WWII while Russia was our ally. Idea: remind people Russia was our ally. Was this disloyal? Did you want Germany to win?

>One can look at the men who ran Hollywood in the 30s and 40s and look at the people who run it today and ask what happened.

Why not back this up with names & facts?

You mean the fascists??
>One can look at the men who ran Hollywood in the 30s and 40s and look at the people who run it today and ask what happened.

Dan Vanderveld said that the people running it in the 30s were pro-fascist. Is that your position too?

It was disloyal to paint a wonderful picture of an ally as evil as the Germans
In fact something I'll never unstand about the wonderful allies is if they were willing to declare war on the Germans for invading Poland why didn't they declare war on the Russians who also invaded?

I all ready named several pictures which you apparently don't conclude are evidence. You might read about the Hollywood Ten, whom Hollywood today paint as saints rather than as dedicated communists who would have been very happy to oversee gulags in the US.

Is that what you wished for Eric?

Of course there were fascists in the entertainment field
Ever hear Of Ezra Pound?

You have an issue with history, not the movies
Surprisingly enough, in the middle of a world war, under wartime censorhip, someone made a movie about an ally who was at the time doing most of the fighting against Hitler. You have issues about the war. Fine. That's about your fascist politics, not about movies.

You named some movies you don't agree with. They're movies, aka "just movies." Hundreds are made each year. They're a commercial product made by very large corporations, designed for the market to make money, not vetted by a commissar Most are crap. To find a conspiracy in this marks you as a paranoid loon. But we knew that.

Ezra Pound???
The poet?? We were talking about movies. If you want to bring in the "entertainment field," you might more coherently bring in Father Coughlin -- who likely is one of your heros, judging by what you write -- but this still has nothing whatsoever to do with movies.

There you have it then only commies were in the entertainment field
But we all knew that. Commies who hate this country. Commies who love the failures of the world. Commies who inflict misery wherever they go. Commies who use the foolish and the sick. Just like you Eric.

Whenever someone says it just
You know you have a real Morlock by the balls. Someone who desperately seeks to defend the indefensible and knows it impossible. I guess this is why you people peddle kiddie porn saying its a commercial product. One only need look at your comments to realize what a paranoisd loon you are and how the readers here have noted it.

Now why do you think they think you are such a loon Eric?

You have real problems, TJ
Sorry reality is hard for you to take in, but that doesn't make it less real.

Sorry, that doesn't work
You were sure that Don was right that all the evil film executives in the 30s were communists, and came up with Ezra Pound, someone with no film producing credits whatsoever.

But if you want to show how Louis B. Mayer or Harry Cohen were communists, go for it.

You should grovel at their feet Eric
Both Mayer and Cohen were patriotic Americans who loved this country. They'd be ashamed to see people like you defending communists. As has been noted Hollywood was infiltrated by communists and still is.

Denial? Poor Eric, member of the delusional community
Say Eric would your real name wouldn't be Frisch would it?

Seems like they tracked down a Morlock who sounds just like you.

What does this have to do with movies?
You have no case. All you have is hate. Thanks for making this obvious

But Jack Warner was a communist?
Mission to Moscow as a Warner Bros. film. Take it up with them, and with FDR.

Wait: didn't you say Ezra Pound was a moviemaker?
Why not list his films, TJ?

Eric proving he can't read nor comphrend again
Why don't you try reading what I wrote about Pound. As your peanut brain may notice I never once said he was a film maker.

Now try explaining to the readers why you would make such a dull comment. Oh, its cause you're on the wacky tobaccy again. Well I have heard those afflicted with senility and blindness use it for medical purposes, or at least thats what Leftists claim. No wonder their kiddies all have odd chromosomes from all that drug use.

Why do you think Jack Warner shared your religious beliefs?
I believe HUAC did. Sad to see you love the commies so mcu you'd accuse Jack Warner of being a communist just because his firm produced a film with a noted communist director.

Is your name Frisch Eric?
All this hate talk is most revealing. Exactly why do you feel this way and how long have you harbored such hostility? Do you strangle puppy dogs and torture small anmials?

Then why'd you bring him up?
The question was, fascist filmmakers. Your answer: avante garde poet Ezra Pound, who you said had something to do with entertainment. Sure. Sleep it off.

It's not me barking like a rabid dog TJ
sounds like you have a lot in common with the Frisch guy, whoever he is.

Jack Warner produced the film
Encouraged by FDR, during wartime. But you're blaming the lower-downs?

Note: the director, Michael Curtiz was never remotely a communist

Yeah it must be you Eric
They said it was a pyscho woman. That would about sum you up.

I rather doubt Curtiz was the director
Since his specialty was action not talky propoganda pieces.
I suggest that you wait till I have the name of the actual producer and screen writer, though it was based on the ambassador's book, who was himself an agent for the Russians. The other piece, which is no longer broadcast because of its communist influences was Red Star, again a wartime propoganda piece.

Are you on drugs?
Eric you smoke too much of that crap, or should I just call you Frisch from now on?

Rabid dog
Do you realize you're making no sense at all? That you're just raving and screaming?

But why change now?

Let me go over this
You're incoherent but I'm on drugs?

You're incoherent and on drugs
Can't you get anything right dolt?

Just hope no one shots you Eric
You're correct you are a rabid dog, no insult to dogs intended.

It's not me spraying hate in all directions, TJ
I made points about movies. You broadcast incoherent personal hatred at me.

Why don't you go back to rocking back and forth and repeating 'res ipsa loquitur?"

Look it up, TJ
And look up what Jack Warner said about it.

Anyone's welcome to read over the postings
... and see who's posting on topic, and who's bringing up Morlocks and full volume meaningless nois. It wasn't me who ansered "Ezra Pound" to a question about fascists in Hollywood. And nothing penetrates: you just keep posting irrelevant abuse.

You are a pathetic little Morlock
Please do not bother me or the readers again with your drivel. You fully meet the requirements who "I am an infantile idiot who craves attention."


Luke 23-34

Did he say that commie rats like you weren't welcome there or here?
Or was it that he thought that people like you were the scum of the earth?

Res ipsa loquitur
Anyone can tell who is the source of hate here by reading your comments, as so many have all ready remarked. Must be tough being so hateful 24/7.

As a matter of fact, he said nothing of the kind
And it's not me calling people "commie rats" while accusing others of hate speech.

Still another demonstration of your inability to argue rationally
The discussion was about Hollywood, not about your Morlock obsessions. is there some reason you are completely unable to bring anything to this but hate and invective?

TCS Daily Archives