Nothing tells you more about Hollywood than what it chooses to honor. Nominated for best foreign-language film is "Paradise Now," a sympathetic portrayal of two suicide bombers. Nominated for best picture is "Munich," a sympathetic portrayal of yesterday's fashion in barbarism: homicide terrorism.
But until you see "Syriana," nominated for best screenplay (and George Clooney, for best supporting actor) you have no idea how self-flagellation and self-loathing pass for complexity and moral seriousness in Hollywood

UGH. So this is the new right-wing rant? Hollywood is out of touch with the rest of the God-loving country? Fuck that.

But expect to see this same argument played out, ad nauseum, on every news and semi-news channel until oscar buzz dies down. They do it every year. Last year they said all the movies portraying rich people were out of touch with middle class americans. Now they say that movies with political themes such as, oh, I dunno.. Brokeback?... Were out of touch with straight, patriotic, non-questioning, content Americans.

I am so proud of Hollywood this year for getting some real thought provoking stuff out there and not some war-time blockbuster bullshit. If Hollywood was so out of touch they wouldn;t have people lining up to see their movies, buying their rags in the grocery store, and doting on celebrity and movie buzz blogs while at work. Gimme a break.

The explosion, which would have the force of a nuclear bomb, constitutes the moral high point of the movie, the moment of climactic cleansing, as the Pure One clad in white merges with the great white mass of the huge terminal wall, at which point the screen goes pure white. And reverently silent.

Absurd. Fabulous job missing the point entirely and then dressing it up as you wish. That is, as an anti-american, pro-terrorism screed. As if it's that simple. The audince is supposed to like that character so that they are devastated when they see what he becomes. We're meant to follow the path of a good-natured man who is changed into something else. Certainly, we're meant also to understand how certain actions and policies of our government provide fodder for the radicals to convert people like this kid. But I think we're supposed to see that, regardless of what actions precipitated it, the truly pernicious element is that terrorists are created, not born. To stop and consider that perhaps some of America's activities could be aiding in that creation isn't anti-american. It's called *thinking*.

Ideologues like Krauthammer would prefer to believe in a black and white world of good vs. evil where you're always either one or the other and born that way, because it simplifies morality. If there's any one thing that a liberal does believe in it's that morality (among other things) is not necessarily simple in every case. That we're willing to self analyze in the pursuit of truth isn't treasonous. It's what allows people, and nations, to locate and correct their own faults. I categorically refuse to accept this propostion, that my willingness to admit fault is equivalent to moral ambiguity, which is, in this America, tantamount to self-loathing, america-loathing. It's a ridiculous and simple minded cast, put forth by fools who can't tolerate even the notion of complexity. "We need labels and boxes!" their minds scream. "Us" "Them" "For" "Against" "Good" "Evil" "Right" Wrong" "Left" "Right". That's all bullshit. The average man seeks out simple answers as a way to cope with an overwhelming world (see, for example, Religion). The Right plays on this dishonest viewpoint, to the detriment of our way of life, to the deaths of our soldiers and to the utter dissolution of what our country once stood for.

For shame.

The explosion, which would have the force of a nuclear bomb, constitutes the moral high point of the movie, the moment of climactic cleansing, as the Pure One clad in white merges with the great white mass of the huge terminal wall, at which point the screen goes pure white. And reverently silent.

Absurd. Fabulous job missing the point entirely and then dressing it up as you wish. That is, as an anti-american, pro-terrorism screed. As if it's that simple. The audince is supposed to like that character so that they are devastated when they see what he becomes. We're meant to follow the path of a good-natured man who is changed into something else. Certainly, we're meant also to understand how certain actions and policies of our government provide fodder for the radicals to convert people like this kid. But I think we're supposed to see that, regardless of what actions precipitated it, the truly pernicious element is that terrorists are created, not born. To stop and consider that perhaps some of America's activities could be aiding in that creation isn't anti-american. It's called *thinking*.

Ideologues like Krauthammer would prefer to believe in a black and white world of good vs. evil where you're always either one or the other and born that way, because it simplifies morality. If there's any one thing that a liberal does believe in it's that morality (among other things) is not necessarily simple in every case. That we're willing to self analyze in the pursuit of truth isn't treasonous. It's what allows people, and nations, to locate and correct their own faults. I categorically refuse to accept this propostion, that my willingness to admit fault is equivalent to moral ambiguity, which is, in this America, tantamount to self-loathing, america-loathing. It's a ridiculous and simple minded cast, put forth by fools who can't tolerate even the notion of complexity. "We need labels and boxes!" their minds scream. "Us" "Them" "For" "Against" "Good" "Evil" "Right" Wrong" "Left" "Right". That's all bullshit. The average man seeks out simple answers as a way to cope with an overwhelming world (see, for example, Religion). The Right plays on this dishonest viewpoint, to the detriment of our way of life, to the deaths of our soldiers and to the utter dissolution of what our country once stood for.

For shame.

yes
plus as a Brit i would point out that some non-Americans are not necessarily being anti-American if they disagree with certain things that certain Americans do (even if those Americans happen to be the executive). Over here it is a standard practice of certain people dismiss it that way and i know the same is true in the States. It is a way of dismissing an argument and not dealing with the points raised.
sometimes the truth is simple; 2+2=4, and sometimes it is not; how should i behave as a moral being in a world of starvation and disease, should i quit my job and go and work with the poor when if everybody did that the global economy would collapse; how much of my own income is it moral for me to keep when I earn less than $20,000 a year or if I am Bill Gates? if love is good why do some say that love between two people of the same gender is wrong? why did slavery happen? why did the Holocaust?

"We need labels and boxes!" their minds scream. "Us" "Them" "For" "Against" "Good" "Evil" "Right" Wrong" "Left" "Right".

we live in an analog world
it is not 1 or 0 but rather how many real numbers are there between 1 and 0? answer infinite see Georg Cantor
sometimes morality is analog

Nothing tells you more about Hollywood than what it chooses to honor.

Nothing tells you more about a columnist than what he chooses to oversimplify.

Consider a few rules:

1. Don’'t divide the world into "them" and "us."
2. Keep your sense of humor.
3. If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.
4. For every human problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.
5. Simply because a problem is shown to exist doesn'’t necessarily follow that there is a solution.

Or these:

6. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
7. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.
8. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.

Or these:

9. Get mad, then get over it.
10. Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.

It's worth noting what "political message" films he chose to ignore, perhaps because they didn't necessarily confirm his thesis: "Good Night, and Good Luck.", "The Constant Gardener", and "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room."

About "Syriana", Decius wrote:

I didn't really think that any of the people in the movie were heroes. I thought that was the point.

This is where Krauthammer exposes his assumptions about the director's approach to filmmaking. In his view, the message of a film is communicated by what it says. Of course, sometimes a film's power derives from what is left unsaid, or by its "negative space."

Krauthammer continues:

On the very night the Oscars will be honoring "Syriana," American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that "Syriana" shows America slaughtering.

Maybe Krauthammer really understands the "no heroes" thesis, because with this statement he has demonstrated it quite effectively.