Say Anything Blog

But Mr. Clooney’s remarks were also part of the tinniness of the age, and of modern Hollywood. I don’t think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn’t even know he’s not heroic. He thinks making a movie in 2005 that said McCarthyism was bad is heroic.

Oh, why oh why do political commentators write about art? I mean, how artistically inept must one be to think Good Night, and Good Luck was a movie about how "McCarthyism was bad"?

50 years ago, Peggy Noonan would have written:

But Mr. Arthur Miller’s remarks were also part of the tinniness of the age, and of modern Broadway. I don’t think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn’t even know he’s not heroic. He thinks writing a play in 1952 that said the Salem witch trials were bad is heroic.

Oh, why oh why do political commentators write about art?

Because sometimes art is about politics and has political ramifications?  Is that ok with you, Davey, or should we all line up to apply for the Davey School Of Snooty Art Snobs stamp of approval before we’re allowed to speak on the subject? 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If people have some desire to write on subjects about which they have little knowledge, that’s their choice. I actually enjoy watching people like Krauthammer and Noonan fall flat on their face writing about movies--just that little bit of schadenfreude that lies in our hearts.

However, I would suggest that Noonan stop writing about cinema, for the same reason I shouldn’t write about quantum mechanics: She is absolutly clueless in that field.

Says you.  I found her comments quite insightful.  But then, I’m probably just some dumb rube in your eyes.  Hardly qualified to pick out my own reading material, let alone comment on cinema.

Honestly, your arrogance is astounding. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Dave -
I like your analogy, but I think it is slightly off in two respects.

1) I don’t think Arthur Miller declared himself to be a hero (of course, I am willing to be corrected on this...)

2) Miller himself, or at least his friends, were under attack to a far greater extent than Clooney can ever claim to be. Clooney is certainly far from being persecuted for his beliefs. Ridiculed, perhaps, but not persecuted.

Lol. I just wanted to use as close to the exact same wording as possible.

The point is that claiming Good Night, and Good Luck was a movie just about how McCarthyism was bad is as ludicrous as saying The Crucible was just about how the witch trials were bad: you’ve just completely missed the boat.

Which isn’t that big of a problem. Noonan is a political commentator--her knowledge of cinema is as relevant to her column as her knowledge of water polo.

So Davey, enlighten us...what else was Goodnight, Good Luck about other than McCarthyism?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

At the means of stating the obvious, suppression of dissent, now, then, whenever…

(Whether that argument is credible or not [as applied to now] has no bearing on the intentions of the film-makers...)

’Means’ should read ‘risk’.

Sorry…

Peggy had best hold on to the Boys of Pointe de Hoc. Them, she knows. She was in WW II, after all, scaled the cliffs, braved the mists, got acclaim, and to this day insists that the guns were really there.

But the movies? 

Her blandishments charm only Gigot. She pounds the keyboard and the ground trembles below her, but the stars stay undimmed, Clooney refuses her acquiesce and won’t return her calls.

This is what Noonan had to say about "Good Night, Good Luck":

The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they’ve experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven’t experienced life; they’ve experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life. This is how he could take such an unnuanced, unsophisticated, unknowing gloss on the 1950s and the McCarthy era. He just absorbed media about it. And that media itself came from certain assumptions and understandings, and myths.

 I fail to see how those comments prompt this from Davey:

The point is that claiming Good Night, and Good Luck was a movie just about how McCarthyism was bad is as ludicrous as saying The Crucible was just about how the witch trials were bad: you’ve just completely missed the boat.

I don’t see where Noonan said where the move was "just about how McCarthyism was bad." She said it was unnuanced and unsophisticated gloss on the McCarthy era.  Maybe you disagree with that, Davey, but I think you’re being more than a little arrogant by saying Noonan doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  You just disagree with her.  Seems to me your own opinions would be better served if you just told us why you disagree with her rather than launching a childish, snooty attack on her.

And, for the record, since when does one need to be an "expert" before they can comment on things like cinema or literature?  None of us here are religious scholars (as far as I know) yet we routinely discuss that topic at length.  None of us here are doctors or sociologists (that I knw of) yet we talk about abortion and its impact on society at length.

 I just don’t see what you’re getting at.  So Noonan isn’t Roger Ebert.  What’s your point?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"Old maids sweeten their tea with scandal," said Reagan to Noonan, quoting Josh Billings. "So keep your eyes open, see beyond the White House closets and curtains, listen closely for squeaks and murmurs."

And Noonan did, and when Reagan left for Main Street cavalcades, she saw Sinatra arrive with roses for Nancy behind closed doors on the second floor. Noonan’s   suspicions were dark and vivid, but years later she would write instead of other things,  and call the book, "When Character was King."

What the hell is this TC babbling about?

One thing some of you seem to forget is that politics has a view on every subject. Whether that view is right or wrong will not make it go away. All you can hope to do is influence it.

Noonan’s view of cinema, while from a political background, is pertinant to the political debate of cinema. Why would there be a political debate of cinema? Ask Hollywood people like George Clooney, who constantly stick their noses into politics, where their knowledge is considerably less than their knowledge of water polo.

Noonan says,

The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they’ve experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety...

nor had D. W. Griffith (two-years-old at the end of Reconstruction) with ‘The Birth of the Nation;’

Fred Niblo with 1923’s ‘Ben Hur;’

Cecil B. DeMille with ‘Cleopatra’ and ‘The Ten Commandents;’

nor had Ronald Reagan in ‘Desparate Journey,’ a WW II movie about RAF fighter pilots behind enemy lines, not about  life as he had experienced it.

Noonan’s a fraud, even dumber than Medved, reaching for stars beyond her grasp. 

Well I guess in the end Clooney got the reaction he wanted. There’s so much controversy over how this movie really isn’t all that controversial.

On another note, good news for the red states; a Larry the Cable Guy movie is comming out soon.

"What the hell is this TC babbling about?"

 You don’t get it? Are you one of those morons I’ve been hearing so much about?

While I do not dislike Clooney, I find him a little condescending when you listen to him discuss anything. It may be his personality or he may just be a pompus a$$. Not sure which one. But, he was not far off the mark about what Hollywood USED to be. They did discuss and make movies of cutting edge social issues. They did help bring about some good change. But again that was the past. The OLD generation. Unfortunatly, the NEW generation, not having really had a hard life,  think they now what is best for us. Don’t forget that most of these people are insiders from past Hollywood generations. They have grown up with money. Hollywood now consists of actors that think going against the grain is cutting edge in social issues. While the OLD hollywood went the depression, WW II and Korea, they understood hard times and new how to discuss issues. The OLD hollywood brought up social issues that opened up new and needed discussions. The NEW hollywood whines and stamps their feet on how bad America is then pat themselves on the back and think themselves wise. Sad to see how minor hollywood has become. I think they are so far off the mark on their comments. If they were just anti-war I could respect that. But they are not just anti-war. They rant and rave ONLY against Bush and his ideas. And their solutions to the problems of the world. Never hear them speak of solutions. Only pointing out problems.

Cable Guy Movie?

Git’er Done! 

Git’er Done! 

I wish I could share in the enthusiasm. Just never really liked his comedy (I guess I’m just not blue collar enough or a red stater). Though I did see him in an interview, and I have to admit he was amusing.

Esthetics haven’t a prayer around here.

Don’t you know that Clooney be the next Sonny Tufts?

Is a never-ending series of "Larry the Cable Guy" sequels what conservatives want out of Hollywood?

Jack Conway said, Esthetics haven’t a prayer around here.

Perhaps people just have different opinions on what "esthetics" entails.

JC, it is cute that you post comments under 2 different usenames. We never get tired of that shit. Please attempt to use relevent literary references. Illegitimati non carborunddum.

Is a never-ending series of "Larry the Cable Guy" sequels what conservatives want out of Hollywood?

There’s nothing wrong with some shallow humor from time to time, but ultimately what this conservative would like to see from Hollywood is more story telling and less hipster, avant garde, gimmicky B.S.  I want stories that are inspiring and provacative, not stories that are filtered through liberal Hollywood cynicism and self-importance.

But ultimately I think we’re putting way too much importance into these movies.  Look at yourself, Davey, pretending in this thread like one needs a Phd. in cinema before commenting on a film.  Lately it seems like Hollywood has been making a lot of movies that nobody really watches and then rewarding themselves for making the unpopular movies.

Which isn’t to say that financial success is the only measure of a film.  Far from it.  But still, look at the numbers.  Hollywood used to have their priorities straight.  They used to entertain us first, then maybe lecture us a bit.  Now it seems like they’re making these movies to lecture us while leaving the "entertaining" part second.  In the end we’ve got to realize that these are just movies.  Diversions from the real world.

Ultimately I think Americans just want to be entertained again.  You’ll probably say that all Americans want is low-brow explosions, sex and dick humor...but I don’t think that’s true.  Americans are capable of appreciating a fine story, I just think they’re tired of being lectured. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: