the left vs. the military: Act of Valor

[billc]

In another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?" we have the movie Act of Valor. You saw the same level of contempt for the movie Battle: Los Angeles when it came out. Here is an article on the Huffington post review of the film. For those who do not like Breitbart you could go straight to the hufpo to read the review...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/20/huffpo-slams-act-of-valor-not-anti-military-anti-american-enough/

The upcoming film “Act of Valor” is replete with that kind of action, but there are a few things it doesn’t have: There are no corrupt officers, no damaged heroes, no queasy doubts about the value of the mission or the virtue of the cause.

That’s because “Act of Valor” was born not in Hollywood, but in the Pentagon. It was commissioned by the Navy’s Special Warfare Command and its success will be measured not in box-office receipts, but in the number of new recruits it attracts to the Navy SEALs. [emphasis added]

Yes, the Navy Seals are known for their doubts about their service...

With almost every movie about the military out there, at least since the vietnam war, being a negative portrayel of the military, is it too much to ask for one, once in a great while, that actually salutes the effort of our soldiers and sailors?

Where does the left get their dislike for the miltary? Will they ever understand what the U.S. military is about or who our soldiers and sailors actually are?

 

[Steve]

Movies are about conflict and growth. The characters in the movie have to move from one place to another... they have to take a journey. Conflict can be external, but it is often also (or exclusively) internal.

Corrupt officers, doubts, fears, crisis of faith... these are all very common ways to create conflict. Without conflict, you don't have a story.

It's also, I think, important to note that the accusation is essentially that movies with these kinds of conflicts are leftist propaganda. It positions cinema as nefarious and politicized, rather than as entertainment. If believed, than it follows that movies without these kinds of conflicts are rightwing propaganda.

I don't believe that this is true in most cases.

 

[oftheherd1]

Movies are about conflict and growth. The characters in the movie have to move from one place to another... they have to take a journey. Conflict can be external, but it is often also (or exclusively) internal.

Conflict doesn't have to be at the cost of character. It can be, but doesn't have to be. It is also permissible to have a hero that doesn't hate his own country (so who does the hero love?). That is mostly Hollywood hype for the controversy it causes. Call it controversy or conflict, but it does sell movies. The sad part is that it may also shape thought processes rather than just supposedly report or postulate them.

Corrupt officers, doubts, fears, crisis of faith... these are all very common ways to create conflict. Without conflict, you don't have a story.

That's kind of a broad statement. But even taking that as a given, why must it be promoted? I guess see above. But, if all you see are movies about corrupt officers, or soldiers with doubt about their country, will that cause you or anyone else to believe that is what the military is all about?

It's also, I think, important to note that the accusation is essentially that movies with these kinds of conflicts are leftist propaganda. It positions cinema as nefarious and politicized, rather than as entertainment. If believed, than it follows that movies without these kinds of conflicts are rightwing propaganda.

So there is no middle ground? Do you think there is no cinema that is politicized, either for the right or left?

I don't believe that this is true in most cases.

Just some quick thoughts on my part. I realize that the military isn't perfect, nor is the movie industry. I am not always a fan of right-wing posters here at MT, but not left-wing posters either. Mostly it is emotion talking, and interpretations of facts to support their own beliefs. Life usually isn't that simple.

But by no means do I intend what I have written as a put down to you. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Neither has to agree with the other.

And if you think I have a bias towards the military, I reckon I do. I spent 29 years in the US Army. It isn't perfect, but it isn't all bad, and it does serve its country and its country's citizens.

 

[CanuckMA]

Do keep in mind that that particular movie was originally conceived as a recruiting video.

It will be singularely skewed in favour of the military.

And regardless of what the myth portrays, I'm sure SEALs do get conflicted about missions. I would not trust a soldier that does not.

 

[Steve]

Just some quick thoughts on my part. I realize that the military isn't perfect, nor is the movie industry. I am not always a fan of right-wing posters here at MT, but not left-wing posters either. Mostly it is emotion talking, and interpretations of facts to support their own beliefs. Life usually isn't that simple.

But by no means do I intend what I have written as a put down to you. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Neither has to agree with the other.

And if you think I have a bias towards the military, I reckon I do. I spent 29 years in the US Army. It isn't perfect, but it isn't all bad, and it does serve its country and its country's citizens.

I can't say I agree 100%, but I think we're close. My last sentence was this: "I don't believe this is true in most cases." What I meant by that is I believe most movies are just movies. They can be provocative without being propaganda.

I'm saying this because I want to be very clear that I'm not emotionally vested here. I'm not advocating a left wing position. I'm pointing out that the very act of politicizing most movies is pointless and usually off-base.

And if you think I don't have a bias towards the military, you would be wrong. I spent 4 years in the USAF as an ammo troop. I'm the only single term enlistee in my family. My three brothers all have over 10 years each. My mom had over 8, but was forced out when she got pregnant back in the late 60's, and my dad is retired USAF. My family has a tradition of military service that extends back to the civil war. I have a wall in my house with dozens of pictures of family in uniform. I don't wear it on my sleeve, but I'm a proud vet from a family of proud vets.

For what it's worth, while you say you weren't trying to put me down, I will admit that I took offense to your post. That you felt it necessary to write that came off as patronizing to me, kind of like starting off a sentence with, "No offense but..." Always followed by something offensive.

 

[Sukerkin]

No offence but ... :lol:

This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now. Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'? By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?

I understand and agree wholeheartedly (as a Navy wannabe) with the manifest dignities that go along with volunteering to put your life on the line for the ideals of your country (or at least the ideals of the money behind the men in charge of your country). What I don't understand in my bones is the hero-worship of many who have done no more than put themselves in a 'box' where heroism may be required. Fireman and police and the ambulance-service do much the same but get only a fraction of the kudos.

If any country should have a Cult of the Warrior it is Britain, for war (and shop-keeping) has been our life-blood for a very long time indeed. But we don't - it's getting a bit that way now, fed by true heroism as well as media mythology but it's still more of an acknowledgement of people doing a scummy job for reasons that are, for many of us, tenuous or untenable.

Is it, perhaps, that the American military (other than in the 69's and 70's) has never really been seen as the haven of last resort for the scum of the earth, which is what the British Army was for a couple of very successful Imperial centuries?

 

[granfire]

No offence but ... :lol:

This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now. Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'? By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?

I understand and agree wholeheartedly (as a Navy wannabe) with the manifest dignities that go along with volunteering to put your life on the line for the ideals of your country (or at least the ideals of the money behind the men in charge of your country). What I don't understand in my bones is the hero-worship of many who have done no more than put themselves in a 'box' where heroism may be required. Fireman and police and the ambulance-service do much the same but get only a fraction of the kudos.

If any country should have a Cult of the Warrior it is Britain, for war (and shop-keeping) has been our life-blood for a very long time indeed. But we don't - it's getting a bit that way now, fed by true heroism as well as media mythology but it's still more of an acknowledgement of people doing a scummy job for reasons that are, for many of us, tenuous or untenable.

Is it, perhaps, that the American military (other than in the 69's and 70's) has never really been seen as the haven of last resort for the scum of the earth, which is what the British Army was for a couple of very successful Imperial centuries?

I think it's because since 1865 the average person has not seen the aftermath up close.

 

[Steve]

No offence but ... :lol:

This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now. Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'? By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?

I understand and agree wholeheartedly (as a Navy wannabe) with the manifest dignities that go along with volunteering to put your life on the line for the ideals of your country (or at least the ideals of the money behind the men in charge of your country). What I don't understand in my bones is the hero-worship of many who have done no more than put themselves in a 'box' where heroism may be required. Fireman and police and the ambulance-service do much the same but get only a fraction of the kudos.

First responders deserve just as much respect. For me, it's not hero worship. In fact, I've found myself in hot water on these boards before for suggesting taht there are plenty of despicable vets running around.

But there is, as you say, a default position that one should respect someone who has served honorably in the defense of his or her country. Not hero worship. Just simply respect for that thing. And a fundamental belief that we as a society should honor and care for those who are permanently disabled or killed in this service, or their surviving dependents.

If any country should have a Cult of the Warrior it is Britain, for war (and shop-keeping) has been our life-blood for a very long time indeed. But we don't - it's getting a bit that way now, fed by true heroism as well as media mythology but it's still more of an acknowledgement of people doing a scummy job for reasons that are, for many of us, tenuous or untenable.

I would say that this is more a gap of understanding than any real difference in belief. We honor our vets as you do. For most, it's not more than that. I think there are some who try to politicize "support the troops" but they're in the minority, I believe.

 

[Flying Crane]

Battle: Los Angeles was an incredibly stupid movie. Bad writing, bad concept, bad acting, it was simply embarrassing.

Hey, I'm a guy, I like a good shoot-em-up movie from time to time. But that movie was chock full of cringe-inducing crap, that quite frankly stunk with the bad cheese stench of blatant recruitment. I felt like I paid $4.99 on Pay-Per-View to watch a two-hour recruitment film. That's not what I intended to spend my money on, and that's why I didn't like it.

It had nothing to do with my leftist pinko commie fascist socialist hippie tree-hugging puppy kissing animal rights activistic godless leanings. Or whatever else it is that Billcihak wants to label people who disagree with his political leanings.

I expect Act of Valor to be much the same.

 

[billc]

I think the citizen soldier part of service in the U.S. military might make it different over here. We don't "take the Queen's shilling," but we enlist to protect our fellow citizens from the people who might try to harm them. It is a choice freely made, by a free citizen. The people who join give up certain freedoms, endure hardships, especially in war time, and they are us, as it were. They aren't born to a warrior class, they come from all walks of life. Maybe that helps.

Here is a question. After 9/11, the worst attack on the United States in our history, how many movies were made that showed the effort against radical, islamic terrorism as a noble fight? How many showed the U.S. military as evil, dupes, or doped up nut jobs? The biggest military endeavor in our lifetimes and hollywood decides not to cash in. They make film after film showing the U.S. as evil, dupes or nut jobs, that make no money, and the only pro-American, pro military film I can think of off the top of my head was Dear John, where the war was peripheral to the story. It did have that Amanda Siefried in it, and it did show the U.S. special forces in a good light, but that is it. HBO's big contribution to the effort is Homeland, where a U.S. marine converts to Islam to kill the American President. Thanks HBO. You even have the pacific theater of WW2 coming under assault now with the HBO show the Pacific and Tom Hanks and his stupid comments.

You didn't have to think that Battle: Los Angeles was good, but that isn't the criticism for Act Of Valor, this is...

There are no corrupt officers, no damaged heroes, no queasy doubts about the value of the mission or the virtue of the cause.

That is how hollywood sees the military, except for Jerry Bruckheimer.

 

[CanuckMA]

Battle: Los Angeles was an incredibly stupid movie. Bad writing, bad concept, bad acting, it was simply embarrassing.

Hey, I'm a guy, I like a good shoot-em-up movie from time to time. But that movie was chock full of cringe-inducing crap, that quite frankly stunk with the bad cheese stench of blatant recruitment. I felt like I paid $4.99 on Pay-Per-View to watch a two-hour recruitment film. That's not what I intended to spend my money on, and that's why I didn't like it.

It had nothing to do with my leftist pinko commie fascist socialist hippie tree-hugging puppy kissing animal rights activistic godless leanings. Or whatever else it is that Billcihak wants to label people who disagree with his political leanings.

I expect Act of Valor to be much the same.

The difference being that Battle: LA was conceived as a movie that turned out looking like a commercial. Act of Valor started as a commercial that got extended as a movie. I expect the acting to stink a month old blue cheese.

 

[CanuckMA]

I think the citizen soldier part of service in the U.S. military might make it different over here. We don't "take the Queen's shilling," but we enlist to protect our fellow citizens from the people who might try to harm them. It is a choice freely made, by a free citizen. The people who join give up certain freedoms, endure hardships, especially in war time, and they are us, as it were. They aren't born to a warrior class, they come from all walks of life. Maybe that helps.

Here is a question. After 9/11, the worst attack on the United States in our history, how many movies were made that showed the effort against radical, islamic terrorism as a noble fight? How many showed the U.S. military as evil, dupes, or doped up nut jobs? The biggest military endeavor in our lifetimes and hollywood decides not to cash in. They make film after film showing the U.S. as evil, dupes or nut jobs, that make no money, and the only pro-American, pro military film I can think of off the top of my head was Dear John, where the war was peripheral to the story. It did have that Amanda Siefried in it, and it did show the U.S. special forces in a good light, but that is it. HBO's big contribution to the effort is Homeland, where a U.S. marine converts to Islam to kill the American President. Thanks HBO. You even have the pacific theater of WW2 coming under assault now with the HBO show the Pacific and Tom Hanks and his stupid comments.

You didn't have to think that Battle: Los Angeles was good, but that isn't the criticism for Act Of Valor, this is...



That is how hollywood sees the military, except for Jerry Bruckheimer.

Hollywood makes movies that has conflict, very often internal. It's also hard to depict in a 2 hour movie.


AFAIC, one of the better depiction of that life, as far as entertainment is concerned, was 'The Unit'. The format of a TV series is much better to allow for character development, to show both sides.

 

[Kinghercules]

In another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?" we have the movie Act of Valor. You saw the same level of contempt for the movie Battle: Los Angeles when it came out. Here is an article on the Huffington post review of the film. For those who do not like Breitbart you could go straight to the hufpo to read the review...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/20/huffpo-slams-act-of-valor-not-anti-military-anti-american-enough/



Yes, the Navy Seals are known for their doubts about their service...

With almost every movie about the military out there, at least since the vietnam war, being a negative portrayel of the military, is it too much to ask for one, once in a great while, that actually salutes the effort of our soldiers and sailors?

Where does the left get their dislike for the miltary? Will they ever understand what the U.S. military is about or who our soldiers and sailors actually are?

I think the question should be "Why the need to have a pro military movie?"
I think these movies just tryna help Americans gear up for a war with Iran. As if they really pose a damn threat.
Get real!

 

[Cyriacus]

I think the question should be "Why the need to have a pro military movie?"
I think these movies just tryna help Americans gear up for a war with Iran. As if they really pose a damn threat.
Get real!

Yeah.
They should make the movies about fighting Aliens, so noone dares relate it to anything realistic.
NO WAIT.
Then if there are Aliens, we might be too violent towards them!
Better make it about fighting vicious ant monsters with no thought or reason, possibly colored pink to make them implausible.
There we go.

:lfao:

 

[WC_lun]

Its not a right or left thing. I saw the movie before it came out with my best friend.
"Its not that good. Terrible acting, Small plot. No character development. Predictable. Good action." These are things that my friend said and he is a staunch conservative.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Hollywood makes movies that has conflict, very often internal. It's also hard to depict in a 2 hour movie.


AFAIC, one of the better depiction of that life, as far as entertainment is concerned, was 'The Unit'. The format of a TV series is much better to allow for character development, to show both sides.

For my money, Red Tails was the best military movie I've seen in a long while.

 

[Jenna]

Hello Bill, can I ask please when you say this movie is another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?" do you think it is a natural predisposition of the left to dislike the military of their own nation? Would you explain why this would be the case that it would be more important for a citizen to support a left-leaning political orthodoxy than to ensure safety for their own family and theirselves?

I do not think it is quite the same here in the UK I think political ideology is not the main reason for support or otherwise of the military. Is this how it is in the US? Thank you.

 

[CanuckMA]

For my money, Red Tails was the best military movie I've seen in a long while.

Try to find a copy if The Tuskagee Airmen with Lawrence Fishburne for a much better take on that squadron.

 

[Empty Hands]

So you just want more blatant propaganda, got it. Why didn't you just say so?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No offence but ... :lol:

This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now. Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'? By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?

From my perspective, I think the general American trend is to view any political/social issue as a line in the sand, rather than a spectrum. You're either liberal or conservative; pro-military or entirely against it; an anti-regulation, pro-capitalist or a socialist regulatory control-freak. From that starting point, the assumption is that one's answers must ALWAYS be either in-favor of or against a certain position.

Taking the military service as an example, the result is that one must always favor the soldier if one wishes to fall on the pro-military side of the line. There is no room to say something like "yeah, that soldier deserves respect for his service, but he was wrong to shoot those civilians". It's unfortunate, because such thinking results in the mindset that servicemen can do no wrong, which clearly they can. But if you say that they can or did make a mistake, then clearly you're an anti-military pinko pansie whatever.

So, response may be off the mark, but I think that's a big part of how the soldier-worship develops. All-or-nothing thinking results in the idea that the serviceman can do no wrong.