Subject: Re: 12 STRONG: The Left is Upset (Again)
>This guy has some serious issues to work through. His obvious issues
>with the military aside, he can't even stand that Hemsworth is
>good-looking. "Greviously handsome"? WTF?
>Oh, and contrary to the writer's claim, Hemsworth's Marines did a lot
>more than decimate the Taliban forces. They annihilated them.
>January 27 2018
>The Hollywood Reporter published a surprising story earlier this month
>about film studios turning away from movies about sex. A biopic about
>Hugh Hefner is stalled, gone for the moment is a James Franco film about
>a 15-year-old Russian prostitute, and a remake of A STAR IS BORN is
>being re-thought, too.
There have been four versions of this movie! When does it end?
>"As Hollywood begins to navigate the #MeToo landscape," Tatiana Siegel
>reported, "one of the first casualties appears to be big-screen erotica.
>In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, studios are steering clear
>of sex." Alyssa Rosenberg, writing in the Washington Post, hopes that
>Hollywood's embarrassed executives are navigating "the end of a very
>narrow way of thinking about what's alluring." Instead of movies that
>objectify women, she suggests more films that portray sex and sexuality
>in intelligent ways.
>This reckoning is long overdue. And it can be extended to another genre
>that has distorted how men behave: war movies. Hollywood has shown
>itself capable of making excellent war movies (think THREE KINGS, PATHS
>OF GLORY, and THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES), but most are problematic.
>Some of the biggest war movies of the post-9/11 era don't just show
>violence in ways that are often gratuitous and occasionally racist. They
>model a cliched form of masculinity that veers from simplistic to
Yeah! The violence in war movies is always directed against the enemy!
>For instance, you can see Rambo and John Wayne return to life in the
>latest war blockbuster, 12 STRONG, which was produced by Jerry
>Bruckheimer, who also brought us BLACK HAWK DOWN. 12 STRONG is an
>extravaganza about a Special Forces team that fought the Taliban in
>Afghanistan in the weeks and months after 9/11. During the movie's
>pivotal scene, the leader of the Green Berets, played by Chris Hemsworth
>(the grievously handsome star of the THOR franchise), decimates a hive
>of Taliban fighters with his rifle ablaze as he gallops ahead on his
>fearless horse (yes, he's riding a horse). In the same way that
>Hemsworth's assault weapon goes rat-tat-tat and the bad guys fall like
>bulleted dominoes, the scene itself checks off one born-in-Hollywood
>cliche after another: of the rugged gunslinger, the warrior in camo,
>good versus evil, the modern vanquishing the profane, a man at his
Did they discriminate against some trans-gender horse in casting?
I can't follow this.
>Whenever I write about the real-world impact of war movies-- and I've
>gone to bat against AMERICAN SNIPER, ZERO DARK THIRTY and 13 HOURS-- I
>always get responses along the lines of "Relax, these are just movies.
>Don't take them so seriously. They're harmless." That's when it becomes
>necessary to say that movies can create or reinforce narratives of
>history and gender that influence what people think and what they do.
>Boys and men develop their notions of masculinity from a variety of
>sources that include the films they watch (the extent to which this is
>true is, of course, open to debate). The time has come for Hollywood to
>turn away from war movies that, while satisfying to both a studio's
>bottom line and a flag-waving concept of patriotism, perpetuate a model
>of masculinity that does violence to us all.
I'm willing to entertain your argument that the Taliban aren't among the
most horrifically evil political force there ever was and they shouldn't
all be shot dead with extreme prejudice. There was just another bombing
yesterday, this time using an ambulance to gain sympathy at checkpoints.
I must have missed the argument. What was it again?