Weblog
About ArmaVirumque ( AHR-mah wih-ROOM-kweh) In the Aeneid, the Roman poet Virgil sang of "arms and a man" (Arma virumque cano). Month in and month out, The New Criterion expounds with great clarity and wit on the art, culture, and political controversies of our times. With postings of reviews, essays, links, recs, and news, Armavirumque seeks to continue this mission in accordance with the timetable of the digital age. Recent posts
Archives more archives Info
Recent contributors
Shortcut
To contact The New Criterion by email, write to: letters@newcriterion.com.To contact The New Criterion by mail, write to: The New Criterion 900 Broadway Suite 602 New York, New York 10003 USA
Blogroll
Oct 19, 2007 11:39 PM by Stefan Beck
I couldn’t help laughing when, several years ago, James Wolcott referred to Bruce Willis’s rumored pro-war flick as The Smirk that Ate Mosul. As “unpatriotic” goes, there’s refusing to wear your flag lapel pin and then there’s refusing to salute the screen giant who gave us four installments of Die Hard—but I’d say one-trick Willis has made himself fair game at this point.
I thought of Willis while reading this George Packer piece about Brian De Palma’s Redacted, the latest ripped-off from the headlines anti-war drama to issue forth from Hollywood. (Others include In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, Rendition, and Stop-Loss, the latter two of which by their titles alone give the viewer a good idea of what he’s about to be browbeaten with.) The review pulls no punches. An old New York Times article about In the Valley of Elah referred to “a new and perhaps risky willingness in the entertainment business to push even the touchiest debates about post-9/11 security, Iraq and the troops’ status from the confines of documentaries into the realm of mainstream political drama.” Packer knows that not only is a film like Redacted the furthest thing from “risky,” it can also be dangerous:
So why did this remind me of The Smirk that Ate Mosul? It reminded me that, from Paths of Glory (World War I) to Three Kings (Gulf War I), I can think of far more anti- than pro-war movies I’ve thought really valuable. But the ones being made today are, like Redacted, more often concerned with flattering their audiences’ and even their directors’ prejudices than with any “reality.” An explicit portrayal of one horrifying incident is not an argument, but, unlike Packer, I’m willing to believe that Brian De Palma hasn’t grasped that.
Everyone knows that Hollywood is anti-war, and there is no shortage of conservative cultural critics to complain about it. They shouldn’t. They should complain that, in cases like Redacted, today’s Hollywood is anti-thought. The only paths of glory these propagandists know about are the emotionally manipulative formulae that lead to an Oscar nomination. When I feel like turning off my brain and pumping my fist in the air, I’ll call Bruce Willis.
E-mail to friend
|
Subscriber login
 The New Criterion is now optimized for Mobile Devices Already a print subscriber? click for online access New from The New Criterion: ‘Free speech in 
Webcasts
The Milt Rosenberg Show: Free Speech in an age of Jihad
Roger Kimball on liberalism's response to Islam
Encounter Books at 10, an interview with Roger Simon |
add a comment
you must be a new criterion subscriber to post a comment. {subscribe now}