take your interval

Self-labeled life long liberal (< understatement>I think he writes plays, too< /understatement>) David Mamet has had a change of heart. It seems conservatism is his new home:

I found not only that I didn’t trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for “the Corporations”—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

And I began to question my distrust of the “Bad, Bad Military” of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not “Is everything perfect?” but “How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?” Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

Now, in my experience, anything Mamet writes is worth reading and anything he directs is worth seeing. This commentary in The Village Voice is no different.

While I don’t agree with everything he says, his view on the innocuousness of corporations, for example, since their unfettered growth and political power are signposts on the way to fascim, I do agree with his general outlook. Namely, that the marketplace is better at solving problems and providing opportunity than an interventionist government. It was an interventionist government that designed and empowered the modern corporations in America, granting them the same rights and privileges as citizens under the law, and insulating their leaders from the consequences of their actions wherever possible. Here are a few more examples of good intentions gone wrong.

I may have missed it but I didn’t find where Mamet shared his view on personal liberties. If he’s stayed on the left in that regard, I think he’d fall under a more libertarian label, but who knows?

In the end, I still care more about Mamet’s next movie (Red Belt looks interesting) than I do his politics, but it’s worth taking note whenever a member of the entertainment business shares a well-thought out political position (regardless of what that position is).

You know as well as I do that the title had to be a pun. Just be thankful I avoided the other one.

More and more, history seems to be catching up to the present, as Oliver Stone’s next project, ‘Bush,’ may find itself in theaters before its subject is out of the White House (producer Moris Borman says the script was completed before the WGA strike). Known for his dramatic, if not completely accurate, biopics and as part of the great satan, Stone plans to use key events in the President’s life to reveal the path that brought him to the Office.

While Stone’s opinion of President George Bush has been less than positive in the past, the director plans to present the current President honestly and fairly, describing his filmmaking role to Variety as a ‘referee:’

“Here, I’m the referee, and I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It’s like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I’ll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors.”

While I’m a fan of Stone’s, I’m not sure how ‘fair’ it is to push the film out before the November election. The last thing this country needs is for a candidate to gain or lose votes based on their opinion of ‘Bush.’ Their opinion of Bush, on the other hand…

Josh Brolin will play the President, following career-redefining performances in Ridley Scott’s ‘American Gangster’ and the Coen brothers’ ‘No Country for Old Men.’ While I was convinced that it was his performances in ‘Planet Terror’ and ‘Grindhouse’ that landed him the role, Stone claims it was the actor’s ‘old-time movie star swagger’ that got him in. Um…Brolin, not the President.

I’m looking forward to this film, as much for its content as its creator. Then again, I wasn’t disappointed by Alexander, so my opinion doesn’t count for much.