I've ignored a truant exclamation or two from overly-enthused Oscar winners, but the latest dramas spilling forth from Hollywood are beyond comprehension.
Che Guevara, the other Son of GodI am baffled by director Steven Soderbergh's glorification of bigot and murderer Che Guervara whom he deifies in
Che. Benicio del Toro plays the
hero, and says Che was, "Kind of like Jesus, in a way - only Jesus would turn the other cheek. Che wouldn't." Right.
To help del Toro get a grip on reality, there are other notable dissimilarities between Jesus and Che Guevara which are apparent via
this link. (I don't re-post the Guevara quotes from
Motorcycle Diaries here as they are vile and racist.)
Writer Rodrigo Orihuela offers a bizarre compliment about Che, "He could never be accused of spending a life on an armchair dreaming of how to change the world, as idealists do. He went out to change it, whether or not you agree with what he wanted." Well, he has a point. We could say the same of many other disgusting rogue political activists, terrorists, and dictators throughout history. They don't just sit around and
dream of killing people and destroying nations - they actually do it.
I have enjoyed the Soderbergh films I have seen: the
Ocean's Eleven series
, Traffic, Erin Brockevich, (Syriana was OK
) - but I can assure you, I won't be dropping loose change in a theater parking lot on the off chance a single penny I've earned would go to this film.
Soderbergh
says, "Che’s dream of a classless society, a society that isn’t built on the profit motive, is still relevant. The arguments still going on are about his methodology." Soderbergh should skip the high school poli-sci class rhetoric and
read about Cuba from an actual Cuban.
I believed in Santa Claus at one point as well, so I can understand where Soderbergh is coming from. But, it appears as if he is trying to place himself above profit motive, and is promoting the eradication of classes. I'm assuming he wouldn't speak this way unless he led by example, no? His comments only make sense if he meant we all deserve to become Hollywood moguls regardless of our level of talent or output, thereby rendering his lifestyle, opportunities, and income useless.
It would follow that he's never made a film for money, correct? He would never say something like, "I’d made two films for Universal but they were low-budget, loser films and Casey Silver (Universal bigwig) wanted to find a proper studio project for me." And this entire
interview he did with
Wired about how to innovate to keep making profits in a world of piracy was probably just a series of misunderstandings about how the movie industry can still earn their fair profit share in a world where consumers are out-smarting anti-piracy protections.
To be perfectly clear, I have
nothing against Soderbergh making money. I've liked his films, they entertain me, I happily give his projects my money and hope he lives a long life to make many more. Have at it. But what I don't appreciate is his making millions through a capitalist system then pretending he is somehow above, or independent of it.
Supply and Demand be Damned!The next feat of mental gymnastics comes when British actress Emma Thompson compares building a tarmac to under-aged sexual slavery. Is this the result of a Stanislavski or Hagen exercise I'm unaware of? I know metaphors are quite useful for acting, but this is too much of a stretch for my untrained mind.
She recently bought land near Heathrow airport to prevent construction of a third runway. She is confident this move will keep Heathrow from increasing the number of flights demanded by consumers by her stunning display of increasing awareness about global warming. I'm fairly certain most people are aware of the situation, and taking away their ability to fly from a desired destination is probably only going to annoy them, not educate them.
She explains, "I thought it was worth making the point for all the people in the country who have been quietly trying to do their little bit to reverse climate change. And then the Government shamelessly turns round and says, we are doing this! And they say they're doing it because there's a demand. There might be a demand for child prostitution, but that doesn't make it moral! The demand for more cars and planes is immoral. I thought we were being treated as though we were stupid."
It must be hard for Ms. Thompson to face the immoral act of demanding airplane flight for the many roles she plays and films in various locations worldwide, and events she must attend for PR purposes. Clearly she does this against her will since the only way one becomes an actress is through coersive force by a third party. Furthermore, since demand of airplane flight is so similar to child prostitution, I can understand her fury and disillusionment. In fact, it probably pained her greatly to be required by force to attend the Golden Globe awards across the world in LA just two days after her revolutionary political intervention.
Of course the fact that Ms. Thompson makes much of her living by polluting a great deal via airplane doesn't mean she is making the wrong move. Again, I don't much care that she bought the land, it's her money, they let her do it, whatever. But she is deluding herself by thinking that her decision going to significantly help mitigate pollution, or that her decision is more meaninful and informed than the tens of thousands of people who actually
wanted the additional flights from Heathrow. Furthermore, they will simply seek flights elsewhere. Thankfully Britain is still a free society, and Ms. Thompson's idiotic opinion is not writ into law. I'm guessing another airport is quite pleased with this turn of events and is going to discreetly begin plans for expansion, with their hearty thanks going out to Ms. Thompson for aiding the competitive capitalist process.
Photo by Simon Shek
I've ignored a truant exclamation or two from overly-enthused Oscar winners, but the latest dramas spilling forth from Hollywood are beyond comprehension.
Photo by greggoconnell