Why I won’t be watching the Oscars or three nominees for Best Picture anytime soon

Or: How I turned leftist outrage into bitchy pop culture criticism

Or: Why I hate the game and the players, too

By Damon Krane
February 22, 2013 – Blog
February 24, 2013 – Z Net


I like movies. I even like seeing them in the theatre. But I didn’t catch many of last year’s releases. So even though I kind of have a thing for Emma Stone — Come on, even Jonah Hill and Michael Cera are cuter for being in Super Bad! — I won’t be watching this year’s Oscars. Why would I, when I haven’t seen any of the nominees for Best Picture or Best Screenplay?

I didn’t go to see Argo because I was suspicious of its timing. I mean, why would a 33-year-old story about U.S. good guys in the Middle East — indeed, IN IRAN of all places — be released now?

Yeah, yeah. I know. Argo was inspired by a 2007 article in Wired magazine, and the Wired article reportedly was based on fairly recently declassified source material. And no, I’m not going to argue that the CIA lobbied Ben Affleck to make the film.

I will argue, however, that Hollywood is smart enough to know there is a huge audience of American moviegoers desperate to throw down some cash to be reassured that the Bush years were simply a brief anomaly in the otherwise unbroken historical panorama of virtuous American grandeur. That is, if that pesky, little bump in the road even happened at all – Bush who?? And certainly our current president is not a mass murderer of men, women and children so long as he doesn’t carry himself like a bumbling hick from Texas!

Pardon my buzzkill, but I have no desire to help anyone make a buck off the pathetic national cop-out that’s enabled the continuation of the Afghan War and the Obama Administration’s proliferation of extrajudicial murders via drone strike.

But isn’t Argo just a great story? Perhaps. But so was Planet of the Apes. That doesn’t make timing and broader social context any less of an issue.

I didn’t see Zero Dark Thirty for pretty much the same reason. Well, that and I’m not a masochist. If I wanted to watch a celebration of torture and of highly trained assassins who just as easily could have apprehended an unarmed terrorism suspect and had him put on trial (you know, like the Allies did to those accused of even more horrendous Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg), then I’d turn on Fox. Or, just as well, I’d listen to Obama’s comments on the matter. Why give up $10 when I could just stick my finger down my throat for free?

The deletion of Osama bin Laden makes such nice bookend material for the post-9/11 era that many Americans fail to see that the last thing it represents is closure. It is instead an undeniable testament to the continuation of that era in terms of ongoing — indeed, increasing — violent American lawlessness and unbridled executive power.

And poor, poor Chris Pratt… I’ve loved you in Parks and Recreation, Chris. But your involvement in Zero Dark Thirty reminds me of Curtis Armstrong’s explanation for why he reprised his role as “Booger” in Revenge of the Nerds 3 – a film the iconic 80s actor himself lamented as the second sequel to brutally bastardize the majesty of the original Nerds.

“Well, I’m an actor,” Armstrong told his audience at Pittsburgh’s Andy Warhol Museum in December 2011. “And actors are whores.”

So maybe you should go back to living in that van you told Dave Letterman about, Chris. You might find a more dignified existence there.

Booger and Me
(The author and actor Curtis Armstrong after Armstrong’s talk at the Andy Warhol Museum, December 2011. Photo by Justin Krane)

Finally, there’s Lincoln. In case you were wondering just how far back Hollywood producers have to reach to rekindle those feel-good, profitable myths of American virtue, the answer is apparently somewhere on the order of 150 years. Yes, it seems Hollywood has mined World War II for all it’s worth and now, after the Argo-nauts’ brief detour through the late 1970s, is headed straight for the mid 19th Century. Just don’t mention what the U.S. government was still doing to this continent’s indigenous population back then, and everything will be fine.

Ha! Of course it’s not like that little genocide has any bearing on America’s present mentality. I mean, it’s not like the Navy SEALS who killed bin Laden gave their target the code name of a famous Native American resistance leader or anything!

During and after Lincoln’s time, the U.S. government was hunting the real Geronimo. At least when that enemy of the state was finally located previous presidential administrations had the relative decency to imprison him for the last quarter century of his life, rather than having him summarily executed and quietly turned into fish food, as our current Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief and darling of the Nobel committee likely would have preferred. (Indeed, Obama would probably have had enough Audacity of the Sick Joke to evoke Martin Luther King, Jr. in the process.)

Oh, but while I’m still on the subject of Lincoln, I’d be surprised if some of Lincoln’s earlier advocacy of white supremacy made it into the 2012 film. Like, say, when Lincoln was campaigning for the Senate in 1858, and declared, “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…” (See Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.)

Of course, if this aspect of the iconic president is omitted, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Yeah – see, apparently, in a deleted scene from Back to the Future 3, Marty McFly schooled Honest Abe on the error of his ways before teaching him a few Chuck Berry riffs and dodging sex-starved, all-American cutie Leah Thompson – because, well, she was really Marty’s mom, and that’s sure as hell the only reason anybody would wanna dodge a horny Leah Thompson, circa 1985!

Anyway, our hero Marty couldn’t stop that dastardly bully, John Wilkes Biff, from offing Lincoln – but those nasty little comments about white supremacy? Problem solved. If you don’t believe me, just try to find them in your high school history books. It’s like they were never even there!

In case you missed the underlying cautionary tale of my fantastic little jaunt through 1980s movie nostalgia, let me make it as hard to miss as a big ol’ fake rubber shark riding shotgun to Michael J. Fox in a tricked-out, time-traveling DeLorean DMC-12. If we can’t trust our history textbooks when it comes to accuracy, then we probably shouldn’t be looking to Steven F-ing Spielberg. I mean, should we really expect the producer of “Back to the Future” to be anything less than a major proponent of historical revisionism!?

[ba-bahm, chhh!] Thank you, thank you. You’re too kind.

Now who wants some more soma with their popcorn?

In her February 18 piece, liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd makes the point that Argo, Zero Dark Thirty and Lincoln can’t even get their own stories right. She rightly criticizes Oscar nominees “who bank on the authenticity of their films until it’s challenged, and then fall back on the ‘Hey, it’s just a movie’ defense.”

But Dowd neglects to mention the cherry-picking of the stories themselves.

Perhaps that’s because there’s nothing like a Democrat in the Whitehouse to get respectable liberals to dumb down their critical faculties. Or perhaps it’s because Dowd’s employer, The New York Times, might not want to bring up the issue of cherry-picking. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that “the paper of record” had to halfway admit its complicity in the Iraq quagmire, having published multiple stories and pro-war editorials based on cherry-picked intelligence reports and official lies, all of which those intrepid journalists had swallowed so eagerly – maybe “without fear or favor,” but certainly hook, line and sinker.

Gee, I wonder why some people are just soooo eager to forget those Bush years?

What’s more, I’d be willing to bet the falsifications Dowd mentions are but the tip of the cinematic shit-berg. I can’t say for sure, though, because as I mentioned earlier, I’m not an aspiring bulimic. And since I’m not criticizing these three films in terms of their scripts, casts, lighting or scores, so much as I’m taking issue with their choices of subject matter, the timing of their releases and their likely contributions to our broader cultural context and some horrendous U.S. foreign policy, I still don’t feel compelled to barf my way through any of them. But, yeah, I’ll probably gather up the Dramamine at some point. And when I do, if I find any clever attempts to subvert a collective desire to hide from our complicity in recent American atrocities within some comforting fantasies of past national virtue – and, finally, that last refuge of scoundrels, patriotism – then I’ll punish myself with a marathon viewing of every episode of 24.

At any rate, despite Dowd’s superficial treatment of her subject, her February 18 column still is worth reading.

In fact, if you want to lose some more respect for Tony Kushner, peep Dowd’s column for the Lincoln script writer’s refusal to correct an unfortunate inaccuracy before the film gets shipped off to America’s school children! Forget about those gay angels from Kushner’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 1993 masterpiece, the famed playwright turned screenwriter might just be after a Nobel Prize this time around as he plays a minor role in the latest production of Assholes in America.

Sadly, as much as we might like to believe the curtain finally fell on Assholes back in 2008, the events of the past four years prove that the show must go on – at least as long as our institutional structure demands it, and a lack of popular activism allows it. Meanwhile, by helping Americans hide from the grim realities of the Obama era with releases like Argo, Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty, our entertainment industry might just expand the new, three-part production of Assholes into the next Project for a New American Century.

Unlike its predecessor, the neo-con think tank of ill repute, this new, grand design of our military-news-and-entertainment-media-industrial complex won’t have the audacity to openly advocate U.S. imperialism. It will just lull us into idiotic complacency with comforting fantasies of our innate goodness, whispering to us sweetly a seductive siren’s call: “Come on, just look the other way. Believe this instead. We know that’s what you really want…”

I think I can hear it already.

As for me, I never knew I could transform indignant leftist outrage into bitchy pop culture criticism. Maybe there is a writing career out there for me after all! (Are you listening, TMZ?) But a career in Hollywood? I doubt it.

Maybe I’ve just got Chris Pratt’s old van to look forward to.


-Damon Krane is a U.S.-based freelance news reporter, opinion columnist and essayist with a history of involvement in grassroots left-wing organizing and liberatory pedagogy. His favorite films include It’s a Wonderful Life and The Spook Who Sat by the Door.

This entry was posted in Book & Movie Reviews, Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Why I won’t be watching the Oscars or three nominees for Best Picture anytime soon

  1. damonkrane says:

    For a more optimistic (but still critical) take on recent Hollywood trends regarding US foreign policy, see Robin Anderson’s post, “Oscar rights some historical wrongs, creates some new ones,” for the blog of media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) at http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/02/26/oscar-rights-some-historical-wrongs-creates-some-new-ones/ . Anderson contrasts Argo with Zero Dark Thirty and argues that, while Argo has some problems, the film’s victory over Zero Dark Thirty in the Best Picture category nonetheless represents a critical repudiation of Hollywood’s role as propagandist for the so-called War on Terror – a role that began with Black Hawk Down and has carried over to Zero Dark Thirty. Anderson also argues that since the torture depicted in Zero Dark Thirty did not produce key intelligence, as the film falsely claims, the film’s use of torture can only be for the purposes of entertainment. Finally, at its most optimistic, the piece argues that since ZDT’s depiction of torture has been revealed and widely criticized, the film may have inadvertently opened up further public debate on the issue.

  2. Pingback: Interview with Former InterActivist Editor Damon Krane | Damon Krane

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s