RSS Feed
Loading ...
Back in the day, Hollywood actors/actresses, and the studios, supported our troops.
Hollywood’s greatest contribution to the war effort was morale. Many of the movies produced during the war were patriotic rallying cries that affirmed a sense of national purpose. Combat films of the war years emphasized patriotism, group effort, and the value of individual sacrifices for a larger cause. They portrayed World War II as a peoples’ war, typically featuring a group of men from diverse ethnic backgrounds who are thrown together, tested on the battlefield, and molded into a dedicated fighting unit. Many wartime films featured women characters playing an active role in the war by serving as combat nurses, riveters, welders, and long-suffering mothers who kept the home fires burning. Even cartoons, like Bugs Bunny “Nips the Nips,” contributed to morale.
Off the screen, leading actors and actresses led recruitment and bond drives and entertained the troops. Leading directors like Frank Capra, John Ford, and John Huston enlisted and made documentaries to explain, “why we fight” and to offer civilians an idea of what actual combat looked like. In less than a year, 12 percent of all film industry employees entered the armed forces, including Clark Gable, Henry Fonda, and Jimmy Stewart. By the war’s end, one-quarter of Hollywood’s male employees were in uniform.
The Hollywood Canteen was founded by Bette Davis & John Garfield, modeled after broadways ‘Stage Door Canteen’.
Hollywood’s finest hour. It wasn’t about money — it was about providing an unforgetable experience for more than 3,000,000 servicemen. For most, it was a life-long memory. For others, that memory would be cut short on distant battlefields. Sgt. Carl Bell, the lucky soldier and the one millionth guest to walk through the door, received a kiss from Betty Grable.
Several upcoming Hollywood films use the damaged Iraq veteran to raise questions about an ongoing war, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Thursday Page Ones, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
“Media in general responds much more quickly than ever before. Why shouldn’t movies do the same?” said Scott Rudin, a producer of ‘STOP LOSS,’ which casts Ryan Phillippe as a veteran who defies an order that would send him back to Iraq. The film, he said, was deliberately scheduled to be released in the middle of the presidential election season.
The TIMES’s showbiz reporter Cieply is set to details how in the past, Hollywood usually gave the veteran more breathing space.William Wyler’s ‘BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES,’ about the travails of those returning from World War II, was released more than a year after the war’s end.
Similarly, Hal Ashby’s ‘COMING HOME’ and Oliver Stone’s ‘BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY,’ both Vietnam stories, came well behind the fall of Saigon.
How is Hollywood doing these days?
July 26, 2007 - 09:03 AM on July 26th, 2007
John Ford wa a flaming liberal, but he knew when to set his politics aside. He and The Duke were often at each other’s throat as Duke matured but both would band together for worthwhile causes. I can’t help but think they would be behind the GWOT and Iraq.
I think the Dems are wrong- we do need John Wayne style diplomacy.
July 26, 2007 - 09:26 AM on July 26th, 2007
Ted,
We need John Wayne!
July 26, 2007 - 12:56 PM on July 26th, 2007
Dont forget in ITS AWONDERFUL LIFE mr baileys brother is in the military now a days these hollywood leftards are rewritting history to a liberal way of thinking just like they did in the old soviet union
July 27, 2007 - 12:33 AM on July 27th, 2007
While the majority of producers, directors and actors in Hollywood are worthless liberal POS’s, there are some bright spots. Bruce Willis has offered a $1 million out of his own pocket to add to the bounty on Osama Bin Laden’s head. A number of them also go to Iraq and Afghanistan to visit the troops.
If you want to make a difference in this front, Hollywood relies on the all mighty dollar. Complain to producers and studies and organize boycotts of movies by producers, directors and actors who undermine the troops. Not just the movies that undermine the troops, but ALL of their movies. NOTHING gets Hollywoods attention like a movie with a $100 million production cost and only $50 million in box office receipts. NO investor is going to back a film with someone who has drawn that kind of negative attention. YES, there are those who will claim that is smacks of the blackballing of the McCarthy era, but my response is that it is my way of expressing myself. The celebrities have every right to express their uneducated opinions, but they also have to accept the negative response of their employers, the consumers, to those comments. I’ll NEVER knowingly watch a Hanoi Jane film. Likewise, despite liking Barbra Streisand as an actress, I’ll state my objection to her idiotic comments by withholding my patronage. Same goes for Janeane Garafalo. Except for “Dogma” and “Mystery Men” which I have on DVD, I won’t be attending any of her films. I will always go see Bruce Willis and Sandra Bullock films because their heads and hearts are in the right place.
July 27, 2007 - 04:26 AM on July 27th, 2007
On Wednesday evening, I had the chance to see the Simpsons Movie! And my conclusion is: USA! USA! USA!
Who cares about f*cking Oliver Stone, Spielberg, Coppola or Scorcese… Groening rocks!!! The best ambassador for American Culture since McDonalds and Coke!
July 27, 2007 - 01:44 PM on July 27th, 2007
World War II was a very different time.
It was two generations ago. As it is we only got into the fray when our soldiers were attacked at Pearl Harbor so no great “jump in a yell hoorah” there.
Once Harry Truman dropped the bomb all age-old warfare as we knew had ended for good. The day for hand to hand battle is a thing of the past. The message in all that is played out in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.
Time was when Hollywood was a propoganda machine for the war effort … (note the witch hunt for “Communists” immediately after by Mc Carthy’s group) … suggesting that dissenting views (not unlike how things were back in late 2001 were [b]not[/b] to be permitted.
Now, fortunately, people irrespective of their Hollywood status or “regular Joe” status speak out with fervor to denounce the murder in Iraq at the hands of the oil barons.
Fortunately even the most ardent of the megalomaniac’s advocates are dismayed at Bush’s performance as dictator and his days are numbered.
July 27, 2007 - 02:17 PM on July 27th, 2007
Eben,
You are a sick, deluded jerk. There is no US Sponsored murder going on.
You are not a Patriot, you are a traitor. Go live in Iran. We can watch your beheading on You Tube.
July 27, 2007 - 02:24 PM on July 27th, 2007
Eben…you sound like someone who is a few cards short of a full deck. I would suggest taking some history lessons because you sure do need them.
July 27, 2007 - 03:03 PM on July 27th, 2007
Post #6…Liberalism is a form of mental illness…
July 27, 2007 - 07:11 PM on July 27th, 2007
Hmmm under 2,000 soldiers, sailors and marines (the Air Force didn’t exist at the time so there weren’t any airmen) killed at Pearl Harbor validates WWII’s total destruction of entire countries, but 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11 doesn’t validate the use of force to prevent it from happening again? I’m sorry but the math simply doesn’t add up. Saddam was attempting to reinstitute his WMD program. The centrifuge buried in the nuclear physicist’s backyard is adequate evidence of that. Saddam had been supporting terrorists for years, the checks for thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers is proof of that. For additional proof there is the fact that the mastermind of the Achille Lauro highjacking was openly living in Baghdad ON A GOVERNMENT PENSION. Saddam had ordered the use of chemical weapons against his own people as is evidenced by the bodies of dead Kurds killed in the gas attacks. I have stated facts, not conjecture. There are also credible accounts of WMDs being moved into Syria prior to the coalition attack. Another interesting bit of information is the stockpiles of recently purchased (meaning post Desert Storm)and still usable chemical warfare suits and nerve agent antidote. For those who need to look it up, search for atropine. Atropine is the main antidote for nerve agents. Taking these FACTS into account, is it really so hard to believe that given the chance Saddam would’ve provided chemical weapons or as a minimum know how and training to terrorists for use against Israel, the US or both? Keep in mind considering their position in the Middle East, a WMD attack on Israel would almost certainly have been responded to with one or more nuclear strikes. That would’ve almost certainly resulted in a regional war using WMDs that would’ve left millions dead, maimed or disfigured. Mahmoud Imanutjob would’ve gotten his Armageddon. Where does anyone think the US would’ve come in on that one? For that matter with the vast majority of the middle east becoming a radioactive wasteland for the next 20,000 years, what would the loss of those developed oil resources have done to the rest of the world, even if it weren’t drawn into the conflict? It would take 5-10 years to fully develop US oil reserves. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the price of a loaf of bread when the farmers have to pay $25/gallon of gas to run the combines to harvest the wheat?