Why, oh why, is it that, when Hollywood is distributing something that opposes an individual's beliefs, or even tastes, the movie industry is a collective of lying thieves, yet when a movie is produced that supports this same individual's beliefs, or gratifies his tastes, the movie is sanctified as truth, and its maker is a voice crying out in the wilderness?

Black Hawk Down is entertainment. Saving Private Ryan is entertainment. Pearl Harbor is entertainment. They all have one objective and one objective only: box office. I don't care if the Joint Chiefs of Staff all put on their really good hats and the Catholic Church issues them all croziers to carry in their public appearances to state how accurate a movie is; the bare naked objective remains to pull people in. This is not done by portraying things in a truly realistic manner. How many soldiers with absolutely perfect teeth do you know, even in this land of the free and home of the orthodontists? Even though the filmmakers may have gotten the sequence of events correct, even though they may get the weapons and the handling thereof right, the dialog and all those closeups are invention, combined (in the best case) with memories of participants clouded by adrenline, and in the case of WWII movies, by age.

The object is to appeal to the emotions of the audience, not to portray objective truth. Pearl Harbor's playing fast and loose with the historic shell was an egregiously cynical reach for emotional connection -- punching up a story to give it more sex appeal -- but all movies do it to one degree or another. Saving Private Ryan's D-Day sequence stunned the D-Day veterans who saw it because it reflected their memories with great vividness, even though the plot as a whole hinged on a mission everyone has agreed would be unlikely in the extreme. The accuracy of props and key or opening scenes is only one way in which the rest of the action becomes "true" by association.

But that's OK, because it's FICTION. Historical fiction. The story is a vehicle to get the audience where the filmmakers want the audience to be. Even the Joint Chiefs, when they sit in the darkened theater, are part of the audience. Even they, when led to a conclusion that they want to reach, can be seduced into believing they are watching a documentary. Cinema is an art, and it is a craft. It is related very closely to the arts of politics, preaching and teaching. Even the documentary has its viewpoint.

Please be most careful, when viewing a work of art, to remember that it is art. You can bet the artist has never forgotten.

And just to wrap up, journalism is an art too. Please reread the article cited above carefully. "Other Somalis". How many? How many actually saw the movie? Let's see: one man said that the events were not depicted accurately (for which he, in his naivete, blamed the United States, as if Hollywood were a government propaganda organ... which it has been in times of crisis), and two guys said -- based on the movie, mind you -- that America had better watch out. This is a representative sample of Somali opinion?

I'll see your two anonymous yahoos and raise you one former Somali Prime Minister, as interviewed on NPR on January 22, 2002. You can listen to the interview on Real[buffering...buffering...]Player by clicking on the article title.

And did I mention...? He too, political artist that he is, has an agenda, and an angle. But he is at least a primary source, rather than a fictionalized dramatization of a secondary source.

Regards--
Mary Anne