Category Archives: entertainment news

Mrs. Obama defends 'Sniper'

Michelle Obama has taken a stand in support of a controversial film about a heart-wrenching subject.

Good for her.

She came to the defense this week of “American Sniper,” the film about the late Navy SEAL sharpshooter Chris Kyle, saying the film deals squarely with the emotional heartache felt by combat veterans and their families.

First lady defends ‘American Sniper’

Mrs. Obama didn’t go after some of the critics of the film directly, although she well could have done so; perhaps she should have done so. But whatever her intention, she made a salient point about the film’s theme and the emotions it has brought to those who have seen it.

She said: “I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I’ve heard firsthand from military families over these past few years.”

Indeed, she and Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, have made the care of veterans and their families a hallmark of their tenure during the Obama administration and both of these women deserve to be applauded for the attention they have given to this important matter.

As for the criticism of the film — notably by filmmaker Michael Moore — much of it has bordered on the ridiculous. Moore, of course, referred to snipers as “cowards.” He knows nothing of which he spoke on this matter, but his comments got considerable play anyway — I suppose because of his celebrity status and his previous tangles with political conservatives over an array of other issues.

I believe the first lady has put the film in its proper perspective and that should stand as a more credible assessment of a gripping story of triumph, struggle and immense emotional heartache.

 

'Selma' lays racism bare

“Selma” may be one of the more important films of the past decade.

It tells the story of Martin Luther King Jr.’s efforts to rally a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala. It’s gripping in the extreme.

But my wife and I took the same feeling away from the film as we drove home this evening from the theater. It was the presence of the Confederate flags being waved by counter protesters who did and said some nasty things aimed at the marchers.

Proud sons and daughters of the Confederacy keep saying — with all earnestness — that their pride rests in their heritage and that it has nothing to do with race. They contend, for example, that slavery was not the reason the Confederate State of America seceded from the Union.

But those Confederate flags waving at the Edmund Pettus Bridge and in Montgomery, where the marchers ended their trek tell a different story — at least to my wife and me.

This enduring symbol of the Confederacy often is displayed by those objecting to African-Americans’ calls for equality. Why is that? How is it that the Stars and Bars has become such a symbol of groups that remain dead set against equality for all Americans based solely on the color of their skin?

We watched the film tonight with our son and his girlfriend. Our son said the film is “tough to watch,” but said it is “worth the time.” We all liked the film very much.

For me, the toughest elements to watch in the movie were the brutality inflicted by law enforcement on the marchers seeking to cross the bridge — and the sight of those Confederate flags waving amid the hideous insults being hurled at Americans who were demanding the right to vote.

Yes, indeed. “Selma” is an important piece of moviemaking.

 

Rogen seeks to clarify 'Sniper' remark

Seth Rogen’s talent as a comic actor isn’t in question.

His judgment, though, on others’ work is open to discussion, such as his commentary on “American Sniper,” the Clint Eastwood-directed film about the Chris Kyle and his four tours of duty during the Iraq War.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/ap-exclusive-rogen-responds-to-american-sniper-comments/ar-AA8uImD

Rogen likened the film to the third act of “Inglourious Basterds,” the 2009 fantasy about killing Nazis during World War II.

Rogen then compared “Sniper” to a “Nazi propaganda film,” which generated lots of reaction, almost all of it highly critical. It came from conservative media outlets and from those identified with conservative political causes.

Allow me to step in here. I’m an unapologetic lefty and I, too, disliked Rogen’s comments, along with those of filmmaker Michael Moore, who had the bad taste to say that snipers are “cowards.”

Rogen then issued a classic non-apology. He said in a statement: “My comment about the movie was not meant to have any political implications. Any political meaning was ascribed to my comment by news commentary.”

No, young man. There’s no need to tell us what you intended to convey. The message received seemed clear enough. Here’s what you ought to say:

“I messed up badly by speaking thoughtlessly about a film that has touched many Americans deeply. For my carelessness I am deeply sorry.”

GOP offers a flood of SOTU responses

Jon Stewart is a comedian, an entertainer, a satirist of sorts.

He also has a way of bringing some harsh truths to light, such as when he poked fun at the multiple Republican Party responses to President Obama’s State of the Union speech.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/jon-stewart-destroys-gops-dueling-sotu-responses-how-many-fcking-people-are-at-this-tea-party/

The “official” response came from freshman U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa. That’s fine. Ernst is a rising Republican star, having taken over a seat held by longtime Democratic liberal Tom Harken, who retired from public life in 2014.

Then came — count ’em — three TEA party responses.

Rep. Curt Clawson of Florida weighed in for the TEA party wing of the GOP. But wait. There were more.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky had his version of the TEA party response. I guess Sen. Paul represented the isolationist/dove wing of the TEA party.

And then, of course, we had Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas with his TEA party response. Cruz represents, I reckon, the loudmouth wing of the TEA party. The young man hasn’t shut his mouth a single time since taking office in January 2013. He’s become the Republican version of, say, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Stewart asked a foul-mouthed question about “how many TEA party members are out there?”

The query speaks to a potential problem facing Republicans as they prepare for the 2016 campaign for the White House. Cruz and Paul and potential presidential candidates, along with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (man, I love writing the word “former” in front of Perry’s title), Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and maybe a dozen more individuals I can’t think of at the moment.

They all represent varying wings of the GOP. They all are going sling barbs and arrows at each other. They’re going to bloody each other up, seeking to court the “base” of the party — whatever it has become.

The multiple TEA party responses illustrates what’s both right and wrong about Republicans at the moment.

They’re right to welcome a lot of voices; diversity is a good thing. They’re wrong in trying to outshout each other.

 

'Sniper' wasn't about reasons for war

Zack Beauchamp has written on Vox.com that the film “American Sniper” whitewashes the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, suggesting that it was in response to the 9/11 attacks.

Well …

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7641189/american-sniper-history

I think I’ll chime in with one more comment about the film. Then I’ll let it rest.

“American Sniper” is the story of one young man, Chris Kyle, and deployment through four tours of duty during the Iraq War. He was a Navy SEAL sniper, and he reportedly set some kind of kill record for U.S. military personnel while doing his duty.

The film tells the most riveting story possible about Kyle’s emotional struggles with being away from his young family, the post-traumatic stress he suffered and the extreme danger to which he was exposed during all those tours of duty.

I sat through the film and never once considered whether it told the complete story of the Iraq War and put the policy decisions under any kind of microscope. I do not believe that was director/producer Clint Eastwood’s intention. I believe Eastwood wanted to tell Chris Kyle’s story as accurately and completely as possible and from what I’ve read from those who knew Kyle the best — including his wife Taya — Eastwood accomplished his goal.

Zack Beauchamp’s assertion about the historical inaccuracy of “American Sniper” misses the essential point of the film.

One young man did his duty, placed himself in harm’s way, came home, and sought to return to a normal life as a husband and father.

Then his life ended in tragedy.

That was the story I saw.

 

'American Sniper' glorifies nothing

What’s with all the chatter about whether a powerful film “glorifies” an American warrior doing his duty in the most hostile environment imaginable?

Critics have contended the film “American Sniper” romanticizes the exploits of the late Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL sniper whose struggles with post traumatic stress are chronicled in one of the most powerful bits of movie-making in years.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/american-sniper-generates-off-screen-controversy/story?id=28342832

Kyle served four tours of duty in Iraq and recorded more “kills” than any sniper in U.S. military history.

I watched the film over the weekend in a packed Amarillo movie theater. At the end of the film, about the only sound coming from the departing audience were the sniffles of those who were crying.

I do not get the criticism.

“American Sniper” does not glorify what Kyle was ordered to do on the battlefield. As for whether Kyle and his teammates were “heroes,” well, yes they are. War produces heroic acts. From my standpoint, anyone who puts himself in harm’s way, exposing himself to possible death at the hands of an enemy combatant is a hero — and that standing needs zero glorification from a film to make it so.

I didn’t see any glory in what Kyle did. I saw a young man struggling with his emotions; he was torn between his devotion to the men with whom he served and the young family who were at home, waiting for his safe return.

What I saw on that film screen was the story of war in all its brutality.

 

Sir Paul … who?

Some things simply defy description. They tax one’s ability to reason things out.

Take the case of an “unknown artist” who made a record with Kanye West, the hip-hop star, husband of Kim Kardashian and the guy who burst onto the national scene a few years ago when he sought to upstage Taylor Swift the moment she won a Grammy award.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/bemused-kanye-west-fans-ask-4919529

Kanye West released a song with a guy named Paul McCartney, who’s been a pretty good singer/musician/songwriter over, oh, about the past 50 years.

West’s fans took to Twitter to proclaim that they’d never heard of McCartney, who at one time was one-fourth of the world’s greatest rock and roll band, The Beatles. He teamed with another pretty good musician, the late John Lennon, to write music that defined a generation … maybe two or three generations.

Maybe it’s a cultural thing. West’s fans are, well, pretty young. They might not expose themselves to music beyond the kind of music that West produces. Perhaps they haven’t heard about The Beatles from, let’s see, their parents or grandparents.

Or perhaps this is all a big joke, a put-on, kind of like those “Paul is dead” rumors that enveloped the planet back in 1969.

Well, whatever. I’m certain Sir Paul isn’t terribly worried about his standing in the world of music entertainment. Indeed, those unknowing Kanye West fans are aware now of Sir Paul’s influence.

***

For those who still might not know who Paul McCartney is, consider this: Paul put on a concert about five years ago in Red Square, in Moscow. His encore song was “Back in the U.S.S.R.,” which he recorded in 1968 with The Beatles. As Paul lit into the rocking number, teenagers in the Red Square crowd were singing the song with Paul — in English, knowing every word of a tune recorded decades before any of them were born.

Kanye West no doubt hopes his songs will have that kind of lasting power.

 

Rethinking this Sony film matter

Mea culpa time, kind of.

I’ve been getting beaten up over a blog I posted about whether Sony erred in making a comedy about an attempted assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. I said Sony Pictures’ biggest mistake was in making the film at all.

The chastening I’ve taken has forced me to reconsider what I wrote. Here it is:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/12/19/sonys-bigger-mistake-was-in-making-film/

President Obama said this week that Sony “made a mistake” in pulling the film from its scheduled release. He said the filmmaker should not be intimidated by a two-bit dictator. Others have noted that the United States, the strongest nation on Earth, shouldn’t be cowed by a tinhorn despot.

My friends on the left and the right have slung barbs at me for suggesting that Kim Jong-Un had a legitimate beef with the filmmakers and the film, “The Interview,” which stars Seth Rogen and James Franco.

No one likes admitting they were mistaken, but I think I’m about to go there.

Maybe I got caught up in the heat of the moment and didn’t think through the implications — all of them — in suggesting Sony had messed up.

Perhaps if I were running Sony, I would have been reluctant to depict the killing of an actual sovereign leader. Here’s the thing, though: I am not running Sony. That was someone else’s call. They had the right to make that decision.

Kim Jong-Un, therefore, didn’t have the right to bully Sony into pulling back the release of its film.

There. I actually feel better now.

 

Sony's bigger mistake was in making film

President Obama said today Sony Pictures made a mistake when it pulled a film depicting an attempted assassination of North Korean dictator/goofball Kim Jong-Un.

Well, Mr. President, from my vantage point, Sony’s bigger mistake was making the film in the first place.

http://politicslive.cnn.com/Event/President_Obama_Press_Conference?hpt=hp_t1

The film and the reaction from North Korea has been the talk of, well, the world. “The Interview” was supposed to be released. It stars Seth Rogen and James Franco and it’s about a plot to kill Kim Jong-Un.

Sony pulled the picture, cancelling its release after North Korea launched a cyber attack in response to the film. Yes, the crazy Stalinists in North Korea were angry.

Why in the world would anyone be surprised? And why would anyone doubt North Korea would respond with a cyber attack that has done considerable damage around the world?

Why, also, wouldn’t Sony have anticipated this kind of unpredictability from the leader of a reclusive state known to do just about anything to make a point?

Obama said American filmmakers shouldn’t be pushed around by nations angry over their work.

That’ a fair point.

But don’t filmmakers have a responsibility to exercise some judgment in choosing the topics — and individuals — they seek to portray?

They made a “comedy” about an attempt to kill a living, breathing leader of a nation that has acted rather dangerously before.

Therein lies Sony’s mistake.

 

What was Sony thinking?

Time allows one to think things through and to cogitate a bit on the consequences of one’s action.

Perhaps the makers of the film “The Interview” could have thought just a little bit longer about the product that was supposed to be shown to American theater crowds.

I’ve been pondering the blowback from the film, the threats of Internet hackers striking back at the producers of the film — and at the public at large. My conclusion? I believe Sony Pictures should have known with whom it was dealing when it made a “comedy” about an attempt to assassinate the leader of North Korea.

My sympathy for Sony, the actors involved and those who thought they would make a lot of money from the film is waning — rapidly.

The film stars Seth Rogen and James Franco. It’s supposedly a comedy. The main characters are plotting to kill Kim Jong Un.

Let’s be real. The entire world knows about Kim Jong Un’s weirdness. The world knows he runs a country that gives hyper-secrecy a bad name. I mean, this place is reclusive beyond description. Kim’s antics — just as those of his late father, Kim Jong Il — are, to say the least, highly unpredictable.

Why couldn’t the makers of the film fictionalized the story? Why single out the leader of a nation — and a dangerous one at that — for this kind of “comic parody”? What would the reaction be in any country on Earth if someone made a film purporting to assassinate its leader?

My conclusion is that Sony should have expected a highly negative reaction from a country that hardly anyone knows with any certainty.

Terror threats in response to the film? Well, duh! Do you think?