Slandering America for Fun and Profit

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Feb. 1, 2010

I just saw “Edge of Darkness,” Mel Gibson’s latest film. If I were a film critic, I would make a snide remark about the edge of dullness. I would mention Gibson’s enforced absence after his drunk-driving arrest and his anti-Semitic rant. I would note that in this case, absence did not make the heart grow fonder.

But I am not a film critic. My point is not the film’s artistic merit, or lack thereof. My point is that it is the latest and worst in a long line of Hollywood films that slander America.

The film shows Gibson as a police detective whose daughter is murdered. It turns out that she had uncovered a terrible secret and was killed to shut her up. And what was the secret? Did it involve a plot by Muslim fanatics to crash airliners or set off bombs? Are you joking? The typical Hollywood villains in recent years are not real foreign enemies, but fictitious American evildoers.

The plot involves (surprise!) a big corporation, which was hired by (surprise!) our own government to construct nuclear bombs out of foreign-made material. Why? So that when they are exploded in this country, the evidence would indicate that we had been attacked from abroad.

Anti-military, anti-capitalist, frankly anti-American films are nothing new. But what is new is a major studio film stating bluntly that our own government is planning to attack us with weapons of mass destruction, for the purpose of justifying our going to war with some country somewhere. This is as close as anyone in the mainstream has ever come to claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

In other words, we need not fear extremist Muslims − we attacked ourselves. But what about the bombings in Bali, Madrid, London and Mumbai? Did the Indonesians, the Spanish, the British and the Indians also attack themselves? This goes beyond the incredible and reaches the delusional.

“Edge of Darkness” is a blood libel. In the Middle Ages, the Jews were accused of using Christian blood to bake Passover matzos. This false charge resulted in multiple massacres. And today, for a similar purpose, extremist Muslims accuse the Jews of using Muslim blood to bake Purim cakes.

A blood libel is a terrible sin in itself. But even worse, it leads to attacks on those who are falsely accused. If Hollywood films were seen only by Americans, they would evoke contempt for our own nation. But they are seen worldwide. Do we want to advertise ourselves so repulsively? Do we want to alienate our friends and enrage our enemies?

What is Hollywood thinking? Or is it thinking? Do film moguls care about the likely effects of their products? They whine about corporate polluters, but they are the real polluters. Polluting the body is harmful enough, but polluting the mind is even worse. Someone with a polluted body may get sick or even die. But someone with a polluted mind may kill thousands, as we discovered on 9/11.

Though this blood libel is the worst example, lesser slanders against America have been emanating from Hollywood for decades. True, there are occasional exceptions, such as “The Hurt Locker.” But such films stand out because of their rarity. The vast majority of Hollywood films show our nation, our government, our military and our religion in a most unfavorable light.

● “Seven Days in May” is a 1964 film about a military coup that almost overthrows the president, because he wants to sign an arms-reduction treaty with the Soviets.

● “The Package” is a 1989 film about a military coup that almost kills the president, because he wants to sign an arms-reduction treaty with the Soviets. Sense a pattern here?

● “First Blood” is a 1982 film about a mentally disturbed, unemployed veteran who is irritated by police and goes on a killing spree.

● “The Hunted” is a 2003 film about a mentally disturbed, unemployed veteran who is irritated by police and goes on a killing spree. Yes, there’s a pattern.

● “Full Metal Jacket” is a film about Marines in which the drill instructor holds up Lee Harvey Oswald to his trainees as a model marksman. In reality, our military has always been loyal to the civilian leadership − though the reverse has not always been true.

● “In the Line of Fire,” “Under Siege” and “The Rock” contain that Hollywood staple, the crazed ex-military or ex-CIA man who runs around killing people.

● “American Beauty” depicts the retired Marine next door as a sadistic, homicidal neo-Nazi.

● “Three Kings” and “Buffalo Soldiers” show U.S. soldiers as thieves. The latter title besmirches the nickname of the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry, which patrolled the Southwest and were made up of black troopers. Apparently Hollywood believes that being anti-military allows it to insult the memory of brave African Americans.

● “Spartan” involves an Army officer who tries to rescue the president’s daughter from kidnappers. But the girl is a political embarrassment, so our government decides to let her die – then tries to kill the hero to shut him up.

● “Courage Under Fire” describes how our troops shoot their female officer, then abandon her to be captured by the enemy.

● “The General’s Daughter” depicts a female officer who is sexually harassed, then murdered. But the Army attempts a cover-up, though she is a general’s daughter.

● “Syriana” contains only one sympathetic character − a suicide bomber who blows up an oil terminal.

● “The Constant Gardner” depicts pharmaceutical companies killing Africans. Good guys blow up oil terminals and kill people. Bad guys build oil terminals and develop life-saving drugs. Talk about an inverted moral compass.

● “Man on Fire” shows a hero so disturbed by his work for the CIA that he becomes a suicidal alcoholic.

● “The Bourne Identity” and its sequels involve a hero so disturbed by his work for the CIA that he develops amnesia. There’s a positive view of government service.

● “Jarhead” shows Marines as irresponsible juveniles. In fact, young people in the military tend to be more mature and responsible than their civilian peers.

● “Rendition” shows American agents seizing an innocent citizen of Middle Eastern ethnicity, then torturing him to extract information he does not have. There’s a positive view of the war on terror. Excuse me, now it’s called “overseas contingency operations,” words hardly designed to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies.

● “Brothers” is a film about an officer reported killed in Afghanistan. His brother arrives to help the widow and her two young children. The brother falls in love with the woman, and the children quickly accept him. But the officer was captured and remained alive by killing a fellow Marine. When the officer comes home, his wife greets him coolly, and a daughter blurts, “Why couldn’t you stay dead?” The officer brandishes a pistol and winds up in the psychiatric ward. There’s a positive depiction of the brave American and his loving family.

And I haven’t mentioned the films that show American business people as bloodthirsty killers (“The Pelican Brief,” “Michael Clayton”) or spreaders of lethal pollution (“Erin Brockovich,” “Michael Clayton” again). Of course, Christian clergy are shown as fools at best and murderers at worst (“The Godfather Part III,” “Sin City”).

Long, sad experience taught me to expect Hollywood to slander America. But I did not expect a blood libel. I intend to be more selective in my film viewing in the future. I intend to avoid films made by purveyors of paranoia and merchants of hate. I intend to avoid films that excuse our enemies and blame our friends.

I have no time or money to waste on people who slander the economic system that enriches them, who libel the nation that gives them freedom, and who defame the troops who risk everything to defend that freedom.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com