Yglesias reminds me that I've been meaning to write about "The Kingdom," a movie starring Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jason Bateman, and Jennifer Garner (!) about the aftermath of a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. I should disclose that in general I'm a pretty terrible critic because, well, I love movies and am generally entertained by most I see to at least some extent. That said, "The Kingdom" far exceeded my expectations. I figured it would be a fun shoot-em-up, with some embarrassingly jingoistic overtones and obvious cultural screwups.
To my pleasant surprise, the characters (both US and Saudi) were generally understated and realistic, and the movie did a remarkably good job with the cultural stuff. Matt says was he baffled by the end's "ideological swerve," but I really never got the sense that this was a rah-rah presentation at any point. Yes, there was the familiar tale of ground-level people fighting against a pernicious bureaucracy (which, I should say, resonates with me significantly because of my experience at DIA), but I definitely didn't feel like there was a hard power fetish going on.
If anything, the film did a great job with the very real political and bureaucratic impediments to taking action in certain types of international arenas. Foxx's character does some deft maneuvering to get a small investigative team into Saudi Arabia following an attack on an American (civilian) compound, at which point the team immediately comes face to face with . . . more political and bureaucratic impediments. In a rah-rah movie, the characters would force/will/shoot their way through the barriers; in "The Kingdom," they think and manipulate through what they can, and the rest . . . just stay barriers.
The one big problem -- which is endemic to this kind of movie, and frankly I don't think it could have been done any other way, but it's still requires suspension of disbelief -- is that the team of four (plus one or two Saudi allies) become a crack commando team when they come under fire. But even this -- and to a much greater degree, the impact and success of a team of four with regard to the investigation -- reflects the value of good training. The movie presents the Saudi investigation as essentially a CYA operation, whereas the Americans (and, again, a few local allies) want to actually *solve* the case. This is, I think, an entirely plausible rendering of a situation like this, as is the effort by sniveling bureaucrats to cut short the investigation after some minimal, threshold successes (to avoid any further problems).
As for the end, I thought it was excellent. Without giving too much away, it reflected not Victory and Triumph by the Americans, but a far more realistic observation about the intractable nature of these conflicts and problems. That kind of ending in a major Hollywood blockbuster makes me wonder if the US may really be coming around, recognizing that these issues aren't just a matter of forcing conflict and asserting ourselves at all costs. Maybe even that -- and this will be shocking, I know -- we're doing counterproductive things ostensibly in service of our security.
That thought got another little bump as I walked out of the theater and saw a poster for a movie titled, "Rendition," with the tag line, "What if someone you love . . . just disappeared?" Maybe we're really starting to turn the corner with this stuff. One can hope.
My goodness. Don and Tim Wildmon are really running out of ideas. This is the latest knickers-in-a-twist action alert -- Have you patronized blasphemy lately? -- shaming Hollywood, of all places, for "using God's name as a cuss word." Isn't Hollywood already a den of sin and deviance? Why is the AFA wasting bandwidth with this idiotic appeal:
Did you know that there was a time when the entertainment industry was bound by a code that forbade them from using any blasphemy in a movie? The "Hays Code" stated:
Pointed profanity--this includes the words "God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ" (unless used reverently), "H*ll," "S.O.B.," "d*mn," or every other profane or vulgar expression, however used--is forbidden.
Hollywood is no longer restricted by the code. Many of today's movies don't simply blaspheme the name of Jesus. They go one further. For example, the award-winning Blow, directed by Ted Demme, is a typical R-rated film. The name of Jesus Christ is blasphemed eleven times in the movie. Three of those times, for some reason, the "F" word is used in the middle of His name.
So, how can you (as one person), make a difference and influence the powerful Goliath of the entertainment industry? The answer is in your own hands. In 2005, roughly $8.8 billion was spent on movie tickets in the U.S. How much of $8.8 billion do you think came from those who call themselves Christians? According to The Barna Group, it was a massive $6.94 billion. Over 70% of the box office intake comes from people of faith.
With more than 170 million professing Christians in America, we have a powerful sling that can hit Hollywood between the eyes and leave a deep impression on its money-making mind. They are causing an entire generation to hate Christianity, and to use the name of Jesus Christ to express disgust.
On the AFA web page for the alert, there's a hilarious video where an interviewer asks people if they would go to see a movie where the Lord's name is taken in vain, and almost everyone said they would, proving to the AFA that Americans - even "Christians" -- have had their minds polluted by the devil-loving moviemakers out there.
Don and Tim also ask if you want to find out if you're heaven or hell-bound, asking readers if they want to take a test to determine whether you are a good person.
Also, take a look at an amusing list of Blaspheming Movies, including: The Invasion, Rush Hour 3, Bratz: The Movie, The Bourne Ultimatum, The Simpsons Movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Transformers and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.
