Hollywood's Leftist Standard on Biographies

Who doesn’t like a good biography movie? In Hollywood they’re called bio pics and they often do very well at the box office, especially when the subject has a compelling life story. Of course, filmmakers are like any other type of creative artist in that they tend to focus on subjects that interest them.

Hollywood doesn’t seem very interested in the life stories of conservative icons unless they’re slandering them as in Oliver Stone’s hit piece on George W. Bush called “W.” which was released (sheerly by coincidence) a month before the 2008 presidential election.

071703

Stone is currently working on a documentary series about Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other fiends which is, in his own words, designed to educate the American people so we can learn to “empathize” with them. Well isn’t that just ducky? I can hardly wait to be taught how to empathize with Hitler and Stalin.

In recent years we were treated to biographies like Steven Soderbergh’s heroic homage to Che Guevara, the murderous villain whose face can be seen on numerous t-shirts at your local hipster joint. And who could forget the Ed Harris tribute to the poor misunderstood genius Jackson Pollock? He revolutionized the art world when he wasn’t getting drunk and abusing his wife.

The 1996 film “The People Vs. Larry Flynt” made some interesting points regarding the first amendment but otherwise portrayed Flynt as a victim of censorship and therefore some sort of hero. Couldn’t Director Miloš Forman find a better subject for a movie about free speech than a pornographer?

There’s a movie about Howard Stern but no movie about Rush Limbaugh, a man whose story of overcoming addiction and deafness is the very stuff great biopics are made of. There’s a movie about the Marquis De Sade but no movie (other than a television film) about the life of Pope John Paul II — a man whose leadership was pivotal in the liberation of Eastern Europe from Communism. There’s a movie about John Wayne Gacy but no movie about John Wayne — who’s as popular today as ever! Julia Child rates but not Margaret Thatcher?

Has anyone noticed that there’s not a single decent film about the life of Ronald Reagan? Is his life story not compelling enough? He only brought down the Berlin Wall, won the Cold War and led America to one of its most prosperous ages. Not to mention that prior to his political career, Reagan was a movie actor so well regarded by his colleagues that he was elected to leadership roles in the Screen Actors Guild in the 1940’s.

Am I crazy for thinking that William F. Buckley’s life story would make a great movie? Here’s a man who spoke Spanish and French as his first languages and didn’t begin to learn English until he was seven, yet went on to become known for his brilliant writing and speaking style. Buckley had tremendous wit which he displayed on television as the host of “Firing Line” for over thirty years. Imagine the challenge to an actor to convincingly imitate Buckley’s distinct mannerisms and way of speaking. Buckley worked in the intelligence industry for the CIA and then went on to found National Review, a conservative political journal of unmatched regard.

Speaking of National Review, Heaven forbid anyone in Hollywood make a film about someone like Whittaker Chambers. An American Communist and Soviet spy, Chambers ultimately defected from Communism and became one of its fiercest opponents. He was befriended by William F. Buckley and was part of National Review’s founding editorial board. He was also responsible for identifying former assistant to the Secretary of State, Alger Hiss as a Communist spy in 1948. That’s a pretty compelling story.

What’s that? You’ve never heard of Whittaker Chambers?

Maybe someone should make a movie about him.

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.