This stuff just can't be made up. On the heels of recent liberal criticisms about Lone Survivor being jingoistic and right wing propaganda, Harvey Weinstein, the overlord of Miramax, has come out and declared that he's going to make a movie that he's going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we're going to take this head on. And they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them.
About whom is Mr. Weinstein talking? Well, the NRA, of course.
Mr. Weinstein has the right to express his opinions. That is undeniable. But there are troubling inconsistencies with Mr. Weinstein's viewpoint. First, he carves out an exception for Jews who should have been able to defend themselves from the Nazis had they had the wherewithal to do so, conveniently ignoring the fact that because of a national registry, the Nazis were able to confiscate the Jews' weapons. It's a slippery slope one which Mr. Weinstein doesn't want to step, because there are countless examples of why people need guns for self-defense that would render his argument a nullity.
But those arguments have been aired myriad times already. By now, any American with a pulse and an eighth grade reading comprehension should be able to rattle off the reasons for and against gun control. No, Mr. Weinstein's bigger problems come with his hypocritical stance.
Here's a partial list of movies on which Mr. Weinstein was the executive producer:
Reservoir Dogs
Kill Bill, Vols. 1 $ 2
Inglourious Basterds
Pulp Fiction
Rambo
Django Unchained
Sin City
I've seen some of these movies, but I haven't seen all of them. But from what I know of the movies I have seen, and what I've read of the movies I haven't seen, is that there's some serious gunplay in them. In fact, one might even say that there's the glorification of gun violence in the movies. Only two of them -- Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained -- would fit the exception articulated by Mr. Weinstein. The rest of them are gratuitously violent films that have no moral or ethical underpinning allowing for the use of firearms.
So Mr. Weinstein, because he's a poobah in the movie industry and has an anti-gun proclivity, is allowed to make a propaganda film attacking a group that supports a right protected by the Constitution, yet the makers of Lone Survivor, from the author to the people involved in the making of the film, have to justify their product...and Hollywood yawns. Admittedly, the First Amendment is a protection against government infringement of speech, so this isn't technically a First Amendment issue. Yet, it's irresponsible at best for Hollywood to sit on the sidelines and say nothing of the liberal bloggers attacking Lone Survivor or Mr. Weinstein attacking the NRA. I'm well aware that fear may be a large part of the silence involved in the latter, since Mr. Weinstein can throw his considerable power around and ruin careers of those who dare to disagree with him. But this is the same set that rightfully reviles the McCarthy Era. To not speak out against these outrages is cowardly.
Parenthetically -- and this is directed at both sides of the aisle -- there needs to be less ad baculum and ad hominem argument. Ted Nugent unsurprisingly spoke out against Mr. Weinstein's plans, but in so doing referred to Mr. Weinstein as a fat punk. Similarly, pundits are attacking Chris Christie for his weight. It would seem that unless someone is rail thin, his size is fair game for his detractors. Women get this all the time, unfairly so, and it has no place in civilized discourse. By raising the issue of Mr. Weinstein's weight, Mr. Nugent has discredited both himself and his message. I agree with Mr. Nugent on the substance of his argument against Mr. Weinstein, but I distance myself from his references to Mr. Weinstein's weight. Mr. Nugent should also be well advised to familiarize himself with Godwin's Law.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment