|
The
Return of the Hollywood Hawks
from
the S.F. Gate
Cinnamon
StillwellWednesday, August 30,
2006
The
above full page ad appeared in the L.A. Times, Variety, and
the Hollywood Reporter August 17, 2006 -
Readers
perusing the Los Angeles Times, Variety or the Hollywood
Reporter earlier this month would have stumbled upon a
curious sight: a full-page
advertisement signed by 84 actors, producers,
directors, writers and other Hollywood types condemning
terrorism.
Originated
by actress Nicole Kidman, the signatories included
William Hurt, Danny DeVito, Michael Mann, Bernie Mac,
Sam Raimi, Michael Douglas, Vivica Fox, Sylvester
Stallone and Ridley Scott.
The
advertisement focused on the recent
conflict in the Middle East and deplored
civilian casualties in both "Israel and
Lebanon." But it laid the blame squarely on
Hamas and Hezbollah for initiating the violence, as well
as correctly labeling them "terrorist
organizations." The ad also spoke of the need to
"support democratic societies" and to
"stop terrorism at all costs."
Recognizing
that Israel's existential battle with its neighbors has
great implications for the entire democratic world,
these members of the Hollywood elite clearly chose to
align themselves with the wider war on terrorism. So are
they the new Hollywood hawks?
Such
sentiments are certainly a departure, considering
Hollywood's recent track record of churning out anti-war
activists. Liberal actors and actresses such as Susan
Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, Alec
Baldwin, Martin Sheen and George Clooney have set
Hollywood's political agenda ever since the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11.
From
their perches atop the benighted world of Hollywood,
these self-proclaimed prophets of peace have taken every
opportunity to oppose the Bush administration's handling
of the war on terrorism. All the while complaining
of suppression of their right to free speech.
Meanwhile, countless documentaries (or "docuganda"
as some have labeled them) and feature films have put
forward a worldview in which America
and Israel
are the bad guys, not the terrorists.
 Stars
Shining Right
But
while all of this was taking place, another political
movement in Hollywood was bubbling just beneath the
surface. Along with a growing number of conservatives
in the film
industry, the Hollywood
Congress of Republicans and conservative film
festivals such as the American
Film Renaissance and the Liberty
Film Festival began to emerge. Many in Hollywood kept such views under wraps for fear of losing their
jobs or being blacklisted by liberal colleagues, but a brave few eventually departed from the crowd. Indeed,
the signatories of the anti-terror advertisement include many of these names.
For
instance, actress and author Patricia Heaton of
"Everybody Loves Raymond" fame has long
been an
unabashed conservative and a practicing Christian,
which in Hollywood is almost as taboo.
"Wheel
of Fortune" host Pat
Sajak, a Vietnam veteran, also leans rightward in
his politics. He was one of the few in the entertainment
industry to
address the "universal lack of outrage coming
from Hollywood" after the terrorist murder of Dutch
filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.
Television
and radio talk-show host Larry
Elder brings a libertarian perspective to the
Hollywood scene. His pro-Second Amendment rights
documentary "Michael
and Me" was a rebuttal to Michael Moore's
anti-gun "Bowling for Columbine."
Screenwriter
and producer Lionel
Chetwynd, who made the Showtime film "DC911,"
a play-by-play account of the White House's actions on
Sept. 11, 2001, is another well-known Hollywood
conservative.
Actor
James Woods has always been
outspoken about his right-leaning politics. He has
been highly critical of the anti-war movement and the
Hollywood liberal establishment in particular. Although
still a Democrat, he supported Bush in the last
election, a move that no doubt put a dent in his
cocktail-party invitations.
The
fact that Woods was
a passenger on an American Airlines flight one month
before Sept. 11 and witnessed what appears to have been
a dry run on the part of ringleader Mohammed Atta and
his cohorts may have something to do with his views.
Actor
Gary Sinise generally avoids partisanship but has
consistently demonstrated his
dedication to supporting U.S. troops. He was one of
only a handful of celebrities to volunteer to perform
for the troops in Iraq early in the war. He later went
on to co-found the organization Operation
Iraqi Children, which donates school supplies to
American soldiers so that they can distribute them to
Iraqi children. And he continues to perform for
troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world with
his "Lt. Dan Band."
Movie
star Bruce Willis has been "out
of the closet" as a Hollywood conservative for
many years. A longtime Republican who grew up with a
military father, Willis was one of the lone Hollywood
public supporters of the war in Iraq. During an
appearance on MSNBC last year, Willis offered to pay
a $1 million bounty to anyone who captured al Qaeda
leaders Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi (now deceased). Like Sinise, he performs with
his band for U.S. troops in Iraq.
Willis
is reportedly planning to make a movie based on the
coverage of former Green Beret turned embedded
photojournalist Michael
Yon and his gripping and inspiring dispatches on the
highly decorated Deuce
Four, the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry, in Mosul.
Despite
the presence of such right-leaning signatories to the
anti-terror advertisement, there are many whose politics
go in the other direction. In fact, the variety of
signatories demonstrates that this issue need not be
confined to one side of the political spectrum. There
are those in Hollywood who wouldn't be caught dead in
the same category as conservatives or Republicans but
who nevertheless support the war on terrorism. Others,
such as Al Franken, Robin Williams and Joan Jett,
perform regularly for the troops in Iraq, despite their
personal opposition to the war.
Some
will argue that the political opinions of movie stars,
not to mention musicians, supermodels and wealthy
debutantes, are hardly worthy of attention. After all,
there is nothing in the work they do that qualifies them
as the great political minds of our time. When the
Hollywood left was in full steam a few years ago, some
conservative critics made this very argument.
At
the time, liberal defenders were aghast at this
suggestion and stood
up vociferously for the rights of Hollywood stars to
use their platforms as a means of furthering political
change. But interestingly, some of the very same people
are now dismissing the signatories of the anti-terror
advertisement as "dumb,"
"hypocrites" and "disgusting human
beings." Either that or "Zionist
sympathizers." A look at the angry
comments following the posting of an article on the
subject at the left-leaning Huffington Post betrays this
double standard.
Whatever
their political persuasion, celebrities, just like
anyone else in this country, have a right to publicly
express their political views. Whether or not they
should be accorded statesmanlike stature because of them
is another matter. Instead, such sentiments should be
taken for what they are, the opinions of individuals.
In
the case of actor and director Mel Gibson's recent
anti-Semitic outburst, he has no one to blame but
himself. Gibson has long been one of Hollywood's
best-known conservatives, but his comments put a serious
dent in his personal credibility. What becomes of his
career remains to be seen.
Changin'
With the Times
The
anti-terror advertisement is nothing more than a
symbolic statement, and some on the right argue that
it's too little, too late. But emanating from a sphere
that has been so consistently hostile to the war on
terrorism, its very existence offers a glimmer of hope
that perhaps, as Bob Dylan once
prophesied, "the times they are a' changin'."
When
it comes to cinematic content, there too changes may be
afoot. Thus far, Hollywood has mostly avoided
the war on terrorism, likely because of the
constraints of political correctness. But the emergence
of big-budget films devoted to chronicling Sept. 11,
such as Paul Greengrass' "United 93" and
Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center,"
demonstrates that Hollywood may at last be ready to
engage with the world we live in.
There
was a time when Hollywood was not so hesitant to get
involved in the conflict at hand. During WWII, almost
all the major Hollywood stars did their bit to
contribute to the war
effort by helping sell bonds, making pro-American
films and enlisting in the military. While such
patriotism may seem unheard-of today, the emergence of a
Hollywood contingent that hearkens back to those days
demonstrates that it may not be entirely absent.
But
the pull toward elusive promises of peace is a strong
one. In the 1930s, the world refused to act against the
emerging threat of fascism and instead offered
appeasement in the vain hopes of achieving what then
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain called "peace
for our time." Similarly, today's ostriches
continue to bury their heads in the sand and hope it
will all just go away.
If
we just pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan,
they say, or if Israel just gives up more land, or if we
just try to "understand" the terrorists, then
maybe, just maybe they will leave us alone. But if
history is any indication, such delusional thinking
ultimately leads not to peace but to further bloodshed.
That's
why this advertisement, while merely a small step in the
right direction, is so significant. When even members of
the Hollywood elite have figured it out, then perhaps
the blinders really are starting to come off.
Cinnamon
Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached
at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com
|
