Self appreciating distortions rule the American persona.

Within these films we can find enough historical partial tales which will mislead and distort the true realities in which we live.

The key question then becomes, how can we resist the indoctrination of a one sided uncritical approach?

How can the majority prevent their minds from being polluted by a pro power / elite status quo?

Like all bad critics, Mr. Pilger criticizes the works for what they are not. Politically, he may or may not have valid points. But his reductionist analysis, depending on simplistic and half-baked perceptions, is just silly.

Leftist fantasizing knows no bounds. Pilger looks at the anti-white, anti-male, pro-"minority" agitprop factory called Hollywood, and sees racism/sexism. Note to self: the opposition is irrational beyond redemption, and cannot be reasoned with. I more or less knew that before, but the above screed is one for the ages.

Thank you, Harry Thomas, for your response to Mr. Pilger's fascinating and sad rejection of all that fiction is.

Harry Thomas, are you implying in your second paragraph that Truthout needs to be more entertaining in order to "play in Peoria"? Sure, "Redacted" didn't sell because its too realistic and not made so that you leave the theater feeling warm and fuzzy or entertained, while "Hurt Locker" is a violent thriller and more plainly entertaining. Many of us in many different places would like to see more movies that dont necessarily "reflect the values" we personally agree with, but we'd certainly like less visceral, simplistic or at the very least movies that aren't so damn typical! Forget how ignorant some of these films are for a moment. Its just so lazy! its the same pattern over and over again, and that seems to be part of Mr.Pilgner's point.

But Truthout, and a few others (one of my favorites being Amy Goodman at DemocracyNow.org) ARE NOT meant to entertain. Unless of course you only read op/eds..., And thats the problem with mainstream media-the whole damn thing is a giant op/ed and entertainment piece, a bad one at that, but they act as if they are reporting news. Thats why many of us turn to sites like Truthout because mainstream media keeps setting the bar lower and lower and blurring the line between news, entertainment, and op/ed. Sure truthout has lots of op eds....but at least they try to clearly separate that from news. If Truthout does not "play in Peoria", then they're probably on the right track, and all I can hope for is that as the mainstream media becomes more and more obviously contemptuous of the average american intellect more will turn it off and quit seeing movies like "Hurt Locker" in favor of something that just might challenge their presumptions.

as for the piece, yes, its pretty full of venom. But I'll be damned if the Oscars and the movies it celebrates aren't largely poison for the brain. Pilger ruthlessly sums up why I cant stomach most mainstream media.

Up In The Air was such a stupid movie. It was so bad in so many ways. As for saying its a comedy? Please.
Burn After Reading WAS a COMEDY. Up In The Air was GARBAGE. I still scratch my head as to how the film got an Oscar nod.

Anon 22:40 -

No, I don't mean to imply that Truthout needs to be "more entertaining." I don't read this site to be entertained; I'm looking for new ideas. I enjoy reading Truthout because it does express new ideas.

I'm simply speaking to reality, which sadly is that the average American consumer has become so spoonfed that real truths (such as those in "Redacted") are simply ignored. The term "reality TV" is a misnomer; with very few exceptions, most "reality" shows are more scripted than professional wrestling.

Mr. Pilger's seizure on the elements of American society that he does not like exported to the world in our popular culture has some merits. But his whole piece was a long rant on the evils of Hollywood. Change the "imperialist America" charges to "immoral America" and you have the Right-wing arguments 0f Michael Medved.

I've seen plenty of good and bad films; I review DVDs myself. I've ripped on everything from "The Dark Knight" to Quentin Tarantino. But I always try to find something redeeming about a film; something that might speak to the masses in ways that they had not considered before. Sometimes it's a struggle.

The examples Mr. Pilger picked do have their negative connotations. But his invective was so bitter that it will get him dismissed as just a leftist whiner by most people. He's entitled to his opinions; Truthout wouldn't employ him as a columnist if they didn't believe they have merit. But he offered no middle ground, which is the same sin that the extreme Left and Right accuse each other of all the time. It's that bitter sniping that makes most of America tune them out.

This fills me with the urge to launch a public protest of the Oscars this year. Of course, if the Oscars were held in San Francisco, perhaps it would fly, but Angeleans love their starf***ing even if to sell their souls. Have the Oscars ever been mass-protested-on-location? I am not much of an organizer, but I'd show up even from Portland, OR!

You can add "Precious" to that list too; Black female as perennial victim, Black man as brute, while all Whites are so wonderful and understanding. Racist propaganda at it's best.

It seems someone might benefit from cutting down on the coffee and rinse the bitter taste from his mouth.
If this is how you regard art, you've discredited for me your capacity to assess other human endeavors without a jaundiced eye.

"When will directors and writers behave like artists and not pimps for a world view devoted to control and destruction?"

Well, never -- aside from William Blake's observation (written on the LAOCOON picture):
Where there is a view to money, art can not exist but war only," I worked in that business and walked away from promotion/power because I couldn't stand the people I needed to work with (I once told my boss I would accept the bump but only if I could associate exclusively with the techies -- Editors, Sound people, etc) --- the people who connect the tendrils of the movie business believe it. The ones who see things otherwise get these behind-the-back looks at eash other, them shrugging shoulders and looking questionably at each other, very specifically saying: "Who is this guy?

To make it more brief, Noam Chomsky made the observation that the people in power are not hypocrites --you couldn't stand the stress if you didn't wholeheartedly believe the crap you parrot.

They look at the likes of us and DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING .. not disagree -- just don't understand. Or in the words of one of the Rockefellers after meeting with an environmentalist, he leaned back and pointed out the window across the river to the industrial Jersey town and said -- in all sincerity -- "You call this pollution but I call it PROGRESS." He wasn't mocking that person, just stating his reality.

So let's enjoy what squeaks through. In 1972, a man named Robert De Ropp wrote a book called "The Master Game" --I'm no fan of that 60's 70's redacted Gurdjieffian thought but one statement stays in my mind -- that "most of our entertainments are pathological."

Murder mysteries and romances, science fiction has to have battles, not just realizations, etc...

We can't blame the movie industry for being superficial when their technology and product is intended to do nothing but project surfaces.

To me, it's amazing ANYTHING with some thought behind it gets through.

I would never claim that the American film industry has no problems, particularly when it comes to the portrayal of war, but this critique (if I could use such a neutral word to describe this venomous screed) lacks any sense of perspective. I would assume from this piece that Mr. Pilger believes that no other nation, either currently or historically, has ever engaged in violent and imperialist atrocities. Take a look at the history of the world. The real problem isn't the movies. The problem is that humans as a species are, inexplicably to me, driven to kill each other, both individually and in groups. Ranting at American cinema isn't going to fix human nature.

With all due respect Mr.Pilger, you give too much credit to the Oscars and the Hollywood machine. You expect too much. As much as we try to project wholesomeness and political correctness to these movies, their sole purpose as evidenced by Avatar, is to make money. I will grant that the audience may be satisfied with them as "scholarly dissertation" on a given subject but this is no fault of the Cameron's and Bigelow's out there, we can call it "truth seeking laziness". Fiction cinema is not journalism. They have different purposes and we should not expect to hold cinema to the standards of journalism. Your fault is in expecting these films to be judged by their social merits and not for what the Oscars are all about, the process and craft of making films, Many times, and for this I complain, they don't chose the ones I like. I hate the Oscars but I always watch them and get a lump in my throat. I'll bet that you will be watching too.

I've seen a lot of this negative talk about Hurt Locker - to that I say, "It's a film"

It doesn't pretend to be anything else - it's not a statement on the war, on Bush, Obama anything. The Hurt Locker may begin with a quote from Chris Hedges but that's where it's anti-war sentiment ends. The characters don't have any feelings either way. This is why, I believe that anti-IED soldiers were chosen not regular infantry. It's a film - a film about a bunch of guys in a shitty situation.

And a well made film at that.

Redacted on the other hand was just a horribly made film, it doesn't even deserve to be discussed. DePalma made a film so bad that it killed the issue in the public's eyes.

Avatar is just Dances with Wolves with a bigger budget and the injuns are blue. It's a terribly racist film, but it's films like Dances with Wolves that as a child got me to read Dee Browns history of the Native American's and become a liberal and then go to school for journalism and political science. Sometimes you need a character that you can emphasize with, or recognize when you are entering a foreign land.

Mr. Pilger - you a great writer, a great journalist, but sadly you don't know anything about film. And this is sadly why no one reads Pilgers, Chomsky's or Klein's work in Peoria... and this is why us liberals will always lose.

A generally accurate piece until the last graf. Pilger unjustly shoehorns "Up in the Air," the most anti-capitalist film made in Hollywood since the 1930s, into his general thesis.

Harry Thomas,

What Pilger is doing, among other things, is pointing out Hollywood's perpetuation of ahistorical, racist and imperialist film. He clearly substantiates the laundry list of lies being perpetuated through the world's most powerful medium. Your defenses of the films, and of Hollywood in general are backed up by nothing but your own take on the function of movies. Your pompous assertion that Pilger needs to do more research is ironic.

I'd travel to protest the oscars, even from NY! Who's withj me?

Lexo:

And you are guilty of the same sin that Mr. Pilger is doing; painting a big red "X" on a film(s) because it doesn't appeal to your notions of right and wrong. That is your right, and I shall not dispute it.

But when you air your opinions in a public forum, as this is, and then invite commentary, why are you surprised that someone doesn't agree with you?

My intent is not to defend Hollywood and the entertainment industry. I regard most of it as dreck, particularly that which passes for television, which has a bigger impact on perceptions of Americans abroad than film does.

But I do call out Mr. Pilger (and you, by extension) for what is a narrow view tailored to his particular prejudices. As Sophie noted above, "ranting at American cinema isn't going to fix human nature."

If I have an issue with a film's message, I go looking for explanations from the filmmaker on why he chose to do it that way. That is what I meant by "doing more research." I may still disagree with what was presented, but at least I have an understanding of where the notion came from.

My biggest disappointment with this country as it stands today is that we have created the ultimate library in the World Wide Web, but so few use it as it was intended; as an assistance to research. Of course, there's a lot of misinformation out there, but there's a lot of correct information as well; you just have to sift for it. Our country has been so "dumbed down" that we don't want to hear any opinion that doesn't match our own.

And no, I'm not trying to be hypocritical of Mr. Pilger. As I said, there's a number of good points in this editorial. But there's so much venom in it that it only appeals to those who agree with it wholeheartedly. There's no attempt at all to meet in the middle.

I thank Zach Roberts for his comment, as it expressed more eloquently the point I was trying to get across in my first post: "this is sadly why no one reads Pilgers, Chomsky's or Klein's work in Peoria... and this is why us liberals will always lose."

I love reading Pilger, but bless his heart, he has absolutely no ear for even the most obvious sub-text, the very mode by which art/truth survives, even the Hollywood kind, in the belly of the beast. I think of two recent movies, hardly independents, "The International", and "In the Valley of Elijah". In the first the action hero emerges bloodied but victorious, aren't they all (it's the genre), only to realize the "cartel" has him checkmated in a fixed game where he loses even in his moment of triumph. In the second the "Good American" tormented by furies worthy of Greek tragedy beholds in muted horror the pathology of the American Empire and its children. Of course by far most art (read here movies) is mind rotting junk that serves the interests of the masters. Hasn't it always been so. I don't think it would be any different in a culture of the left, no matter how much better off most of us would be in such a culture.

Well Harry,

Much of your response makes no sense in regards to what I posted so I'll go back to your point about research. Pilger has OBVIOUSLY researched his very valid critique of this films. Also Harry, the Film maker's explanation is not where one looks when having a critique of a film. I went to Howard Zinn when I knew something was foul with my Public high school education, not the text book publisher.

You put out the blanket statement that we go to the movies simply to "escape out weary worlds". We go to the movies for many different reasons, one big and important reason is to see art. Pilger is calling out a sad state of affairs that is currently at it's epoch of sadness. Art continuously gets marginalized if it's not conducive to corporate marketing. A film that stirs up genuine critical discourse is rarely deemed commercially viable not because the people of middle America are stupid, but because such films are threatening while being un-inviting to product placement. The only liberals who are doomed to lose are those who are arrogant and out of touch.

Let's not forget that the best selling American black Author is Ice Berg Slim, who never wrote a commercial sentence.

Thanks, John, we need someone to pull the covers on the underlying mythos that impels America imperialism. Kudos.

Forgiveness of Colonialism/racism/imperialism/thuggery is exactly what Pilger is criticizing! Rightfully so I might add.

One can't honestly make a film about forgiveness through a linear narrative film that lies about the crime.

Blind Side, Avatar, and Invictus all contain themes related to the absolution of White people.

Good liberal whit people continue to find ways to distance themselves from there own guilt through films like these.

This is exactly why the far left wing of our party is just as dangerous as the far right wing of their party. EVERYTHING is an indictment!

Criticism is important, and comesfrom those who seek to build a more honest space in which to question.

Indictment comes from the institutions of power, and are often motivated by the same factors that create bad films.

We need to be hyper critical of all mass information, especially film. Why is it so acceptable to attack Cable News for ignoring facts, but not mass promoted cinema?

I did not know that "Up In The Air" used people that really had experienced the dehumanizing degrading experience of being laid off and done by a commercial speciality corporation. So another hollywood film making corporation profits benefits from the real experiences of these assaulted maltreated employees. A real paradox.
How about a film showing employees organizing and fighting back.
This film does show the detached sociopathic behavior of the Clooney character, and the nature of our corporate driven economy. All part of our GNP free market driven economy..

It's all backwards.

Progress, forgiveness, absolution....We should be working towards these things in the real world. I want to see that played out in policy, not art.

Art is not the place for this. Art is place for us to all be forced to learn about ourselves in regards to the ol' human condition. For us to question, evolve through truth. No matter how difficult. Art is where we can do that.

In "Up In The Air" George Clooney's character should have died of guilt by the films end, or be crippled by it. This would have been an honest look into the darkness where humanity and advanced capital co-exist. Instead there is forgiveness. Things are hard, but we all move on and find hope where we can find it. I.E his young, banal co-worker.

In "Blind Side" does Sandra Bullock adopt any children who don't have obvious NFL potential? why not? A better film would have asked.

There are opportunities for true growth through film,but we are being denied them, and the artists capable of delivering them are either marginalized, ignored,or under extreme pressure not to tell the truth.

In regards to the statement: "At first I thought "Invictus" could not be taken seriously, then I looked around the cinema at young people and others for whom the horrors of apartheid have no reference, and I understood the damage such a slick travesty does to our memory and its moral lessons."

Perhaps you were sitting next to me and my wife - young looking (white) 30 years old, eating our popcorn, enjoying Morgan Freeman's interpretation of Nelson Mandela. My wife was born and raised in South Africa, growing up and living through the apartheid. As far as I could tell the film did no damage to our memory...because it was a film. We didn't pay $10 to reestablish the memory of apartheid - we went to see actors act. And eat popcorn. Chill out.

When I saw the title of this article was "Well, Duh! You're just figuring this out?" That said, I liked Harry's response a lot more than Pilger's original - and thanks to both for being so thought-provoking.

I have to add, one more time, that these are NOT just films..........that arguement is absurd. IF that were the case, and Im not even sure what that means, they why have any discussion......they are just films. I guess that means, oh, they have no meaning and hence no importance and we should just eat our popcorn, for five dollars a bag, and ""enjoy"" them. The entire point is that films DO have meaning. They do reflect cultural values and they do effect us. In fact, I suspect film and TV affect us rather profoundly......but i feel as if the critics of pilger are angry because they want to remain in a bubble and not have these nasty critical types cause them to think at all.

A final thought. When someone says a critic is trotting out cliches.............they rarely specify such alleged cliches. Interesting.

Anon. 19:25, you partially beat me to the punch... Hollywood likes to turn out "feel good" movies in their times... during the depression era, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", good right up to the end, where Claude Raines repents-Hollywood feel-good with a totally unrealistic ending, NO senator of the US would ever do that. "It Happened One Night" where the poor man meets the rich man's daughter and in the end rich daddy gives his blessing? "You Can't Take It With You"... The intent behind all these films was to convince Americans that politicians will feel guilty and repent if they're being really bad, and that the rich folks are really magnanimous and generous and the depression was really an accident.
Now we're excited about the environment, let's have some feel-good the-environment-wins films and everyone can feel better about destroying the planet.
Although I can't comment on the specifics of the films in question I thought the article hit home and did it well. Hollywood is more lock-step with the propaganda machine than any other entity in the country, and despite all this "it's just a film and entertainment" it isn't. It is a lie, but when it gets repeated often enough it becomes the truth.
Stop and ask yourself how much those John Wayne WWII movies, etc., contributed to the myth of American exceptionalism? The "good" guys always win, and "we" are always the good guys? The author recognizes something beyond the grasp of many here, that even what we call "entertainment" influences us, and to pretend that isn't so is to fall for the propaganda.

Braed and Circuses.
That these films "are what the public wants and expects" as "entertainment", is the crux of the matter. It is part of the on-going, perpetual brainwashing the establishment has been using to achieve exactly the "patrotic" mindset that we are so wonderful and can do no wrong except by mistake. Every atrocity exposed is a "mistake" or an "accident", never criminal by intent, despite all the evidence available. Apparently our leaders are unable to tie their own shoelaces, muchless manage their responsibilities, the economy, police, military, etc, etc...
It is all duly planned and designed to serve the puposes of corporate/political imperialism.
If we are to create a decent world we need to change our mindset, refuce the top-down authoritarism of a government "Of. By. and For the People".
Yeah, right.
~John L.

Fantastic article giving everyone something to think about

Thanks John and Solidarity

A

I support your proposition, John. Damn right. But Deerhunter? I always presumed I don't see reruns on TV is because it is anti-war -- it really gets nastily in amongst Americans and what they were doing in Vietnam ... and how they didn't understand it (and maybe never will).

Gunfighter Nation

-Richard Slotkin

Twas ever thus; dry your eyes and don't be discouraged when our hallowed illusion makers turn out to be nothing more than over-paid self-centered con artistes. Further, as the Great Oz said, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." The whole thing is a Big Show, baby. God damn America (and even though you did get a featurette of your own theatrics on 911) at least the last 60 years have given you the luxury of watching - and making artistic commentary on - the Big Show on other country's stages. So enjoy the hand-wringing over the woes of Empire while you can, cause history's not a big fan of cultural/economic/military monopolies.

Has anyone ever read Stendhal's the Red and the Black. It refers to the two branches that the government uses to control the masses. The black symbolizes the military and the Red the Church. One rules through power, the other through brainwashing or propaganda. The media has replaced the church when it comes to mind-control. The media is owned, controlled, and run by wealthy corporations and elites. There is a reason why we see shows that are titled: Survivor, Fear Factor, and who wants to be a millionaire and not shows titled Brotherhood of man, Help One Another, or what would Jesus Do. Capitalism depends on creating animosity among working people. Otherwise people would unite and demand higher wages and a higher standard of living. So it is common sense you see shows like Survivor that encourage dissent among working people and not shows like Brotherhood of man. How can anyone be so naive as to believe that corporations would invest money in shows and films that are against their financial interests. One must remember that Hollywood not only represents big moneyed interests, it is one itself and as an employer, it too, doesn't want to pay higher wages. In Nazi Germany, war films and films dealing with economic issues were forbidden to make. Instead the Nazi made banal comedies and extravagances. Where did it learn this from? The American Media. Hitler once said the world leader he admired most and showed him the way to power was Woodrow Wilson? Why? Because of his effective use of the media. When World War I began there were draft riots. Through the influence of films, radio, and newspapers near the end of the war, not only were draft riots quelled, but young men actually started volunteering in droves. Since the beginning of the Iraqi or Afghanistan war, how many big budget anti-war movies have been made? 0. However, how many for-war movies have been made?

I'm a member of the Director's Guild. I voted for Bigelow for the DGA director award because of her ability to put out a film depicting men in war. She, head and shoulders above other women directors has been able to capture what motivates men in war, and just men in general. I see lots of film directed by women who just don't get the guy right in the film. He'll often come off as weak and sobbing or, brutish and abusive. These are the two poles most women place men at. Most of the time he just comes off as cartoonish. Its the same with women authors. Bigelow's ability to capture "the guy" is what garnered her my vote. I voted her the award for the best directing of a guy's guy in a guy's film.