Skip to main content

Beauchamp, Hollywood, and Romance

We use the word Romance in a far to narrow way. Sort of similar to how Comedy now means that something is funny. It has a broader meaning.

Instapundit linked to Peggy Noonan...

"Apocalypse No
The New Republic's editors seem to have mistaken Vietnam movies for real life."


And she says something very similar to what I've said in past posts about the Baghdad Diaries.

It's the romance.

It's heartfelt longing for the Hollywood version of Vietnam.
People *want* our guys to be cold killers, to walk that edge they could never walk, to give into base instincts. To whore and smoke opium in those SE Asia brothels. Like freaking Dear Hunter or something.

Oh *that's* real. When they read stories like "shock troops" they think, finally, someone is telling a story that is *real*.

And that's what I heard. Those defending Shock Troops talked about how real it was, how it really showed the real dehumanization of real war.

Mistaking real life for Vietnam war movies.
I've read accounts that were stark and honest about how bad it is and how it affected the person writing. Those accounts didn't dehumanize, they humanized, showing a painful reality, not this Hollywood version of morality free, repugnant, slumming.

Beauchamp describes *himself* as a caricature.

And he's judged his audience well.

Comments

Anonymous said…
They a shadow compared to humanity's truest potential.

Ymarsakar

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...