On Liberal Beach

woodit

New member
This topic does not deal strictly with guns, but says so much about Hollywood’s total refusal to even consider the right of self-defense, I think I bears discussion here.

Last night I watched the Showtime production of “On the Beach.” I am a big fan of Showtime’s “Stargate SG-1,” and had hoped that the same quality and attention to entertainment would be evident here. Boy, was I in for a shock.

This movie was first released in 1958, based upon the Neville Shute book of the same name. It’s the story of Australians after a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR. The exchange wipes-out the Northern hemisphere, and the story deals with the people in Australia waiting for the fallout to reach and kill them all, too. Into this scene comes the sole surviving US Navy ship, a nuclear attack sub that has escaped the destruction. As originally written and produced, it is a spare, stark story with great emotional impact.

The remake is unbelievably bad. It has been victimized by current Hollywood far-left idiocy, including “all weapons are bad” and “all military men are evil.” Most of the performances are very good, but the rewrite is so bad that the performances are wasted.

Where to start? In this version, the US sub is a boomer, not an attack boat. The captain has a French accent (played by Armand Assante – what the ****?) He is a “good” Navy man. Why? Because he refused the order to launch his ICBMs, showing that he is really a good guy and against violence. (Right. Just the sort of person the Navy gives command of a boomer to). Once it is established that he is “good,” he is then free to have an affair with Rachel Ward’s character – Jane Fonda’s double -- he ultimate brainless, militant feminist.

To see just how bad the radiation is in the US, the sub sails -- along with a cynical, military-hating mathematician who is, of course, way smarter than any of the dumb military guys but goes so he can do their jobs for them. The submarine and the movie’s treatment of the military is so bad and so funny I missed some of the lines because I was laughing at it. The captain wears the uniform of a Navy captain but is identified as a commander. The crew wears a hysterically bad collection of Navy, Army, Coast Guard, and, I think, Explorer Scout uniforms. There is not one uniform in the movie that is militarily correct. The crew – evil military, remember – behave like stupid psychotics. Everyone – including the captain – spends most of the movie screaming at one another. Enlisted men call officers foul names and threaten to kill them. The officers are uniformly badly trained and cowardly, with half apparently in the Army, according to their insignia. The crew takes votes on what they want to do – in Hollywood’s military, there’s none of that foul military discipline, you can be sure! The captain acts exactly like someone who picks fights in bars. The simplest continuities are broken. While entering San Francisco harbor from the sea – which requires that you be moving toward the east – the OOD gives the order to come to heading 262 – which is almost dead west. Then, to make a small course correction, he orders a change of heading to 141 – a change of almost 180 degrees.

In the end (I’ll spare you more details), the crew decides they want to die at sea. The sub sails away, but wait! In the last scene, the captain appears (in a badly screwed-up dress uniform this time) to the Fonda character’s delight. He has decided to stay with her, and to hell with his crew. Hey, they’re going to die anyway, so why not get laid one last time?

This movie is astonishing for several reasons. For one, I am unaware of one single piece of film that better reveals how ignorant Hollywood has become. Ignorant of the simplest details about the armed forces; of reason; of honor; of what makes people real men and women and what does not. Two, for how it shows that it has no interest in the original intent of a writer’s work, but instead, is interested only in using the name of a good work to once again trumpet the stupid, valueless, honorless, crap that has been its almost total output for 30 years.

If this movie is any indicator, Hollywood is now officially a separate planet, and one on which self-defense and honor have no place.
 
I served in the Navy for twenty years. My parents' friends, all of the World War II generation, had a positive, favorable impression of members of the military. They didn't entirely understand the military; not understanding how I could fly jet aircraft off of aircraft carriers and not be an Air Force officer, but that is another story.

The sad thing is today military service is not viewed as a positive learning experience. Once on TFL there was a discussion on compulsory military service and it was viewed by some as something just short of slavery. However, in comparison, there is little different in the employer/employee relationship between the military and civilian life except in the latter you can walk off the job and suffer little harm. Well, maybe. As a first lieutenant told me at the Airborne School, Ft. Benning, GA, "The first time you quit is the toughest. After that it gets easier to do." It was a life lesson I have remembered everytime I have been given a tough assignment.

I have read several anecdotes where the soldier of today does not feel challenged because basic training and advanced combat courses are reduced in difficulty to accommodate the lowest common denominator. So very sad. We may soon pay on the battlefield in blood because Hollywood and the Great American Public doesn't understand what the military is for.

Thank you for summarizing the remake of "On The Beach." It sounds like it is as worthless a cinema as "Crimson Tide" was. I couldn't even sit through Gene Hackman's moronic portrayal as a naval officer, so much different than George C. Scott's portrayal of General Patton.
 
bruels:

Me, too. I'm a retired P-3 NFO. Two tours in Viet Nam. Until they died, my aunts asked me how I liked the Air Force.

Yes, "Crimson Tide" was a pre-cursor to this hideous remake of "On The Beach." There was the old white male captain of Eurpoean ancetsry -- certainly a bad man, and probably racist and psychotic to boot -- versus his young, hip, black XO who was perfect, everyone's favorite officer, and of course, right in disobeying orders. Idiotic premise -- that a crew is required to launch on incomplete or garbled orders. What crap. I sat to the end only because I'd been stupid enough to pay $8 to get in. Paralyzed by cognative dissonance.

It's probably worse than you think. We are going to get our ass kicked big time the next time we have a land war. Then, listen to the Liberals howl about how it's someone else's fault.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by woodit:
bruels:

Me, too. I'm a retired P-3 NFO. Two tours in Viet Nam. Until they died, my aunts asked me how I liked the Air Force.

[/quote]

Yep. That's exactly what my parent's friends asked.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by woodit:

It's probably worse than you think. We are going to get our ass kicked big time the next time we have a land war. Then, listen to the Liberals howl about how it's someone else's fault.

[/quote]

Naw, they'll be having all the State Schools teaching multilingual by then..

Hey, wait a minute, they're doing that now!!!

You're absolutely right, it'll come time again to blame someone else about this or that.
Though I haven't seen the movie yet, "Rules of Engagement" appears to have the same political mishmash in it. A diplomat is whining his arse off about why they're still sitting there (in helo), and later condenm's the Sarg for doing something, and not letting him have his diplomatic shot at it.

I intend to see this show, if even on tape..

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
 
After I watched "Crimson Tide" I asked my sister and her husband (neither ever in the military and both products of 1970s hippism) who was right, the Captain or the XO. They both stated, without hesitation "Why the Captain, of course!" So there is hope....
 
Back
Top