c b wrote:
Actually ,the more I think about it, it is extraordinarily advanced to
pose to an audience as large as Moore’s the notion that capitalism _as
a system_ is no good. How often do lefts criticize liberal critiques
of capitalism for not posing the issue as a systemic problem ? There's
Michael Moore on a morning talk show saying "the capitalist _system_
has got to go" !
Of course it is a good thing that this movie was made. However, he is
really not explaining what capitalism is. Basically, his analysis is a
throwback to Proudhon's notion of property as theft. That is why the
opening scenes depict bank robberies and why at the end of the movie he
tries to make a citizen's arrest of Hank Paulsen. This kind of analysis
is of course very good for movies, since it lends itself to a hero
versus villain narrative that is the underpinning of Hollywood products
going back to the 1920s. Someday somebody might make a documentary about
capitalism, but I doubt that it would be produced by the Weinstein brothers.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1129-04.htm
The Quiet American Way of Censorship
by David Usborne
The release last Friday, albeit only in New York and Los Angeles, of
Philip Noyce's rendering of The Quiet American, Graham Greene's classic
novel of 1955, was more significant than it might have seemed. Beyond
the color and intrigue of the film itself lies a story of studio
intrigue and, indeed, cowardice. This is a work that nearly never saw
the light of day, at least not in America.
(clip)
Miramax was not alone among studios reconsidering release schedules in
those nervous days following 9/11. Among other victims was Arnold
Schwarzenegger's Collateral Damage, which was put back a couple of
months. But the man in charge of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, waited far
longer than that. A couple of screenings in front of test audiences in
the weeks after 9/11 seemed to support his instincts. They gave it a
clear thumbs-down.
More extraordinary is that the decision to ditch the film caused almost
no fuss at all. Not initially, anyway. Later, even Noyce was to admit
that he considered his work to be "dead and not quite buried". He told
one paper: "I thought the battle was over."
Thank goodness, therefore, for the persuasive powers of Caine. The actor
finally blew his top earlier this year when he received word that
Weinstein had finally decided to release The Quiet American in January
2003. "January is when you dump all the garbage," he explained in one
interview. So he got on the telephone to Weinstein and pleaded. "I said,
give me a chance; maybe I could get an Oscar."
And Weinstein, reluctantly, responded. Only after insisting that Noyce
massage a couple of sequences in the film – a reference to "American
adventurism" had to go, for instance – Weinstein agreed to a screening
at the Toronto Film Festival in September. It received a standing
ovation and the critics wrote adoringly of it. It was then that
Weinstein agreed that while general release would remain set for
January, at least folk here in New York and in Los Angeles would be
given the chance to see the film this month (it opens in the UK today).
For those of us infuriated by the pusillanimity of Miramax, this is only
half-satisfying. We have not been given the privilege of seeing Noyce's
work because of any strengthening of the intellectual backbone inside
Miramax. Nobody has said "We were wrong. Of course Americans have a
right to watch this movie" or "Because of where we are in history now,
because of the Taliban and because of Iraq, this film has total
relevance". No, it's a ploy for glory. For Caine to have a shot at an
Oscar, the film has to be released now.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
