erik lundegaard

Movies posts

Monday September 22, 2008

Why 'DC: 9/11' is the New 'Reefer Madness'

Remember that SNL skit from 1986 with Phil Hartman playing Pres. Reagan? Various visitors come into the Oval Office and Reagan bobs his head and offers jellybeans and homey anecdotes, but when they leave he snaps fingers and barks orders at subordinates who just can’t keep up with his overwhelming energy and intellect. It was a great play on our perception of Reagan as a president who was, in fact, losing it.

I thought of this while watching, DC 9/11: Time of Crisis, a Showtime movie from 2003, written and produced by British-born Hollywood conservative Lionel Chetwynd, which first aired, amid controversy, in September 2003.

I know. Life’s short, why waste two hours? DC 9/11: Time of Crisis, with Timothy Bottoms as George W. BushUnfortunately I’m writing an article about presidents on film to coincide with the release of Oliver Stone’s W., and DC 9/11 is part of the price you pay.

But I quickly began to see the humor. SNL came to mind when Pres. Bush (Timothy Bottoms), on Air Force One, switches to commander-in-chief mode and starts barking orders at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (John Cunningham): “Hike military alert status to Delta! That's the military, the C.I.A., foreign, domestic, everything! And if you haven't gone to Defcon 3, you oughtta.” He barks orders at a submissive Dick Cheney (Lawrence Pressman). He tells everyone, over and over, that Osama bin Laden will pay:

  • “We’re gonna hunt down and find those folks who committed this.”
  • “Whoever did this isn’t going to like me as president.”
  • “We’re going to kick the hell out of whoever did this. No slap on the wrist this time.”

I like the “this time.” The movie has an overwhelming and injured sense that, before Pres. Bush, the United States was spit upon daily by the wretched refuse of the world. But Bush makes clear, in a phone conversation with Tony Blair, that things have changed: “I want to bring damage, inflict pain. Enough to let them know there’s a new team here.” He tells Cheney: “It’s a war. Just a different kinda war. Needs a new playbook.” Football metaphors abound. Chest-thumping abounds. Boys who never went to war get to use the words of war.

But it wasn’t until Rumsfeld raises the specter of Saddam Hussein that I saw the true brilliance of DC 9/11. This is a movie that actually glorifies the worst foreign policy decisions we’ve ever made. It’s like finding a 1964 film celebrating the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Here’s the dialogue from the Sept. 13 cabinet meeting after Rumsfeld raises the question of Iraq:

Powell: The mission is the destruction of al Qaeda. Hussein isn’t your man.
Rumsfeld: He is if we’re talking about terrorism in the broadest sense. We know he never stopped developing weapons of mass destruction...
Cheney: Al Qaeda lacks weapons. That’s why they used our own aircraft. You put Hussein and bin Laden together...?
Bush: Is that an immediate threat?
Cheney: The enemy is clearly more than UBL [bin Laden] and the Taliban. If we’re including people who support terrorists, that does open the door to Iraq. But unlike bin Laden, we know where to find them.

There are more meetings. Bush becomes more certain, more messianic. Rendition and domestic spying are implied. You’re either with us or with the terrorists. In the Sept. 15 meeting, Powell warns Bush that if we go after someone besides al Qaeda our allies may fall away and leave us isolated. Bush replies:

“At some point, we may be the only ones left standing. And that will have to be OK. That’s why we’re America.”

Powell says bin Laden attacked us, not Saddam, and Wolfowitz replies:

“Only because he was unable. But he’s got the arms. He’s been developing everything from nuclear weapons to smallpox to anthrax. A whole range of weapons of mass destruction. ... All he’s lacked is the means to deliver those weapons to our shores. Well, UBL has shown him he’s got a system of delivery.”

Here’s what’s awful. The reason our foreign policy mistakes were disastrous are there in the script for anyone to see — and they were visible back then. 9/11 did require a new playbook. We were attacked by a loose organization that could hide, rather than a nation-state that couldn’t. Yet our ultimate response was to attack a nation-state because, in Cheney’s words, “We know where to find them.”

Which is the very reason we shouldn’t have attacked them. That was the old playbook. It’s still the old playbook. And we still don’t get it.

DC 9/11 is either so funny it’s sad or so sad it’s funny. It should become a cult classic like Reefer Madness: a propaganda film that, through its over-the-top idiocy, proves its opposite. It’s also a good reminder of what once constituted conservative spin. Remember Bush as action hero? As cowboy? This movie gives us that again and again. “[Saddam] is surely developing WMDs,” Bush says. “Wanted: Dead or Alive,” Bush says. We’re going to “rid the world of evil,” Bush says. “This will decidedly not be another Vietnam,” Bush says.

Posted at 07:52 AM on Sep 22, 2008 in category Movies, Politics
Tags: , , , ,
1 Comment   |   Permalink  
Friday September 19, 2008


Maybe it's because it's Friday and I'm tired after the long week, or maybe it's the idiocy of the presidential campaign finally getting to me (I'm looking at you, John McCain), or maybe it's my age (I'm looking at you, Erik Lundegaard), but after the long day and the short bikeride home, I found, in my pile of mail, the latest Entertainment Weekly with Anne Hathaway on the cover. Their head and subhead?:

ANNE HATHAWAY: A PRINCESS NO MORE: Post-scandal, she bounces back with an edgy new role. Is Oscar next?

I looked at it for a second and thought, “This is the kind of thing that just makes me want to stop living.”

Posted at 07:19 PM on Sep 19, 2008 in category Movies
Tags: ,
No Comments yet   |   Permalink  
Monday September 08, 2008

Boys are Back in Town

It was nice seeing the boys of “Entourage” again last night, but the episode turned out to be unintentionally ironic.

Basically it revolved around the short shelf-life of a Hollywood career, how you’re only as good as your last flick, and for Vinnie Chase, who is the star of the biggest box-office hit of all time (presumably Aquaman), his career is shaky after the Cannes disaster of his Pablo Escobar biopic Medellin. Indeed, the episode begins with an “At the Movies” drubbing of the film by Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips, and the main drama involves luring Vinnie from his Mexican hideaway for a lunch with a producer...who, it turns out, just wants the meeting so the star he really wants for his picture, Emile Hirsch, will lower his price.

What’s ironic about this? The critics who did the drubbing, Roeper and Phillips, have been replaced on “At the Movies,” while Emile Hirsch’s career is not as hot as it once was after the critical and box-office disaster of Speed Racer.

It almost makes you think they did this intentionally.
Posted at 07:15 AM on Sep 08, 2008 in category Movies
No tags
No Comments yet   |   Permalink  
Sunday September 07, 2008

"I Believe in Al Pacino"

I get the feeling that this thing is going to be mostly politics for the next two months, and for that I apologize, but you do what you gotta do. Friday I donated to the Obama campaign again. Yesterday my friend Andy and I registered voters (mostly voters whose addresses had changed) in south Seattle. You do what you gotta do.

But before the next round of political talk, here’s a snippet from an interview with Javier Bardem in today’s New York Times. Good stuff:
You grew up in Madrid, loving American as well as Spanish films.
That’s true: I don’t believe in God but I believe in Al Pacino. The other day I was watching Dog Day Afternoon again, and I see a man who is so true, so interesting, and I understand more about the world from his performance. And you go, “C’mon, it’s only acting.” Well, wouldn’t you say that a good book or a good painting allows you to see the world in a different way? When I see a great performance, I feel more alive.
Posted at 08:49 AM on Sep 07, 2008 in category Movies
No tags
1 Comment   |   Permalink  
Monday August 25, 2008

“The Lundegaards”

Speaking of Fargo, I came across Kirk Demarais' site, and paintings, via Jeffrey Wells' Hollywood Elsewhere column. Kirk has a few other cinematic family portraits — the Torrances, the Freelings — but for obvious reasons this one hit home:

Thoughts on other cinematic family portraits Demarais should do? I like the happy family portrait before the tragedy, which is why the Griswolds doesn't work for me. The family should also be middle-class, because such paintings are (or were) middle-class staples, which lets out, say, the Corleones.

The Jarretts from Ordinary People maybe? The Burnhams from American Beauty? The Hoovers of Little Miss Sunshine?

Posted at 09:50 AM on Aug 25, 2008 in category Movies
Tags: , ,
No Comments yet   |   Permalink  
All previous entries
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard


All previous entries