Jonah Goldberg Endorses Hollywood Values
Jonah Goldberg argues that because Hollywood often portrays torture positively, it must be morally acceptable to most Americans, at least under those scenarios in which it's portrayed in TV and movies.
Right or wrong, I think the average American assumes that some rough stuff goes on behind the scenes and that's okay. One reason for that assumption is that Hollywood tells us so every day…
Harrison Ford in the Tom Clancy movies would never torture wholly innocent and underserving victims for the same reasons he wouldn't beat his kids or hurl racial epithets at black people. But given sufficient time to lay out the context and inform the viewers of the stakes, as well as Ford's motives, the audience not only understands but applauds his actions. Of course it's just a movie. But the movie is tapping into and reflecting the popular moral sentiments. Think of these scenes as elaborate hypothetical situations in the debate about torture and interrogation that are acted out and played before focus groups of normal Americans.
First, whether or not the average American is okay with utilizing power drills and electrical prods to interrogate suspected terrorists is sort of beside the point in determining whether or not such techniques are moral. Or effective. In the past, there has been mass support in this country for plenty of government policies that were neither.
Second, I don't know that rooting for a character in a Tom Clancy good-versus-evil action flick equates to moral approval for everything that character does in the film. Audiences root for the hero because the film has designated that character as the person you're supposed to root for. When moral questions like torture or state surveillance are presented with a bit more sophistication than that of a flag-waving Clancy film—take the The Dark Knight if you want to stick with blockbusters—audience reaction can be a bit more ambiguous.
Third, from Archie Bunker to Tony Soprano to Omar Little, the entertainment industry is great at eliciting sympathy and approval for flawed, even deviant characters. For example, I'd imagine that like me, a lot of people were rooting for Omar Little to exact his revenge on Avon Barksdale's crew in The Wire's first season. That shouldn't be interpreted as moral approval of vigilante justice in the real world.
But getting directly to Goldberg's point: Haven't conservatives been explicitly arguing for years that Hollywood is openly hostile to the values of the average American?
(Hat tip to Trey Garrison, who posts his own response to Goldberg here.)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hollywood is corrupting the morals of our yoots!
"Second, I don't know that rooting for a character in a Tom Clancy good-versus-evil action flick equates to moral approval for everything that character does in the film. Audiences root for the hero because the film has designated that character as the person you're supposed to root for."
Sorry, but Goldberg has the better argument. When people walked out of Patriot Games, they were thinking, "Wow, Harrison Ford kicked ass!", not "I'm feeling ambivalent about Ford's anti-hero. He caught the bad guys, but I wish he hadn't used excessive force."
For example, I'd imagine that like me, a lot of people were rooting for Omar Little to exact his revenge on Avon Barksdale's crew in The Wire's first season. That shouldn't be interpreted as moral approval of vigilante justice in the real world.
Would you really claim that Omar's revenge wasn't justified? They did kill his boy, after all.
Now, killing String...that was fucked up.
The average American is not particularly troubled by prison rape. Why would he be concerned by arguably less horrible things administered by the government towards terrorists?
Good thinking, Jonah.
Using Goldberg's impeccable logic, to the effect that we can use Hollywood to attack the irrational prejudice against torture, we can also use Hollywood to attack the irrational American prejudice in favor of Mom and apple pie.
Has Goldberg been arguing that?
Blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter what contrivances they concoct for the big screen. As far as national security is concerned, I don't want to know how the sausage is made, I just want the inevitable investigation into the sausage-making techniques to further inflame partisan bickering and bring the Obama Administration's agenda to a grinding halt. If Hollywood wants to set the whole thing to showtunes and turn it into a musical, I might just whistle along.
Also, thanks for all the warningless spoilers on The Wire. There's another DVD set I can toss in the trash, you bastards!
I saw Inglorious Basterds in a blue university town. They loved the movie (complete w/ violations of the Geneva Convention against German conscripts and not just high ranking Nazis), then went home to write good liberal condemnations of the Bush administration for torturing prisoners. What of it?
This is kind of why I found The Dark Knight morally incoherent. They constantly set up little moral dilemnas where Batman has to decide whether to torture someone or illegally wiretap them. Yet half the time they are kind of letting him get away with shit that would be illegal at Guantanomo, but then having him say 'But no, I'm not going to torture people!'. As if beating a guy's face bloody isn't considered torture already.
I don't think many conservatives have ever argued that Hollywood is hostile to every value held by average Americans.
Hmmmm... I wonder if cheering for Walt in the Breaking Bad series is a subtle endorsement of murdering narco-traffickers who eliminate their drug-dealing rivals in vats of acid?
In Austin, they cheered the scene in Independence Day where they
SPOILER ALERT!!!!
nuked Houston. Do Americans therefore favor nuking their own cities?
PapayaSF,
So Americans approve of the values Hollywood pushes when they coincide with Jonah Goldberg and are offended when they don't? Mighty convenient.
Judging by the success of high school sex movies for generations (Superbad being a relatively recent example), Americans also approve of teen drinking, drunk driving and teen sex.
The fact that many consider the Godfather movies to be the greatest movies means people love violent criminals.
Jim Treacher,
Interesting question.
I looked at some of Goldberg's other posts on the subject of Hollywood movies, and found various messages presented by these films, messages which, according to Goldberg's most recent article, reflect the values of the American people:
American businessmen are 'murderous'
The Central Intelligence Agency trains and brainwashes its killers and then tries to kill them when they are no longer useful.
Has Goldberg ever said that? Or is this guilt-by-association time?
Generally there is still a limit to what Hollywood can get away with, and many conservatives have argued that Hollywood actually costs itself money by making movies that are too much agitprop and contrary to average American values.
You're right of course that mere average American approval doesn't make things moral. Strange that you made decent points and then got to the "real" point, which was useless guilt-by-association.
Weird, because Jesse Walker wrote an article in Reason a few years back saying that, yes, "Dirty Harry... channeled the rage of right-wing populists, drew yet more rage from liberal critics," and that the fact that "Harry was embraced by audiences even as he was attacked by critics" does signify something about moral approval of vigilante justice and, significantly, a rejection of the Miranda decision and what it represented. Tevi Troy argued similarly in Reason a few years further back, saying that such movies were "black-and-white morality plays" that "set[] forth clear-cut conceptions of right and wrong," and that such films were clearly grounded in the public's perception "that the American justice system had gone soft on criminals and that real cops could no longer adequately deal with crime."
Then, by your argument, Radley, you're a hypocrite-by-association, since other libertarians in Reason have argued that, yes, such films have had serious implications about Americans willingness to have cops and vigilantes break the rules to bring in criminals. Such an argument would be dumb, though.
Right, everyone knows that films only indicate something important about what Americans think about values when they coincide with what Reason collaborators think, like with Jesse Walker's article on comic book movies that Radley linked to, or Jesse and Tevi's earlier articles on vigilante movies.
Everyone's a critic.
Hand me that drill!
at eliciting sympathy and approval for flawed, even devious characters.
Me thinks you meant deviant...
Me thinks you meant deviant...
You're right.
Thanks.
'Has Goldberg ever said that? Or is this guilt-by-association time?'
Judge for yourself.
"""Has Goldberg ever said that? Or is this guilt-by-association time?"""
I don't think he's saying Goldberg said that. I think the question is Radley's, and he's comparing it to the point Goldberg was making in the linked article.
Mr Thacker,
It appears Mad Max pre-butted you at 8:02. In any case, the fact that housewives, a group that tends to be averse to male adultery and violence, tend to gobble up daytime soap operas that celebrate those things left and right, should give one pause about defining even American opinion about morality from the crap we tend to watch.
I have seen The Color Purple several times but I still have no interest in sex with Oprah or Whoopie.
Danny Glover smackin me around some? A definate maybe.
"In Austin, they cheered the scene in Independence Day where they
SPOILER ALERT!!!!
nuked Houston. Do Americans therefore favor nuking their own cities?"
They do, but only if giant flying saucers full of psychokinetic aliens are parked above said city.
Which reminds of Louis Farrakhan, who actually thinks a giant flying saucer is (invisibly) parked over Chicago right now as we speak. So by extension, Louis Farrakhan wants to nuke Chicago!
Johnny Longtorso -
Are you following your fellow movie-goers home and watching them through their windows? Or did they announce their intentions on their way to the exits?
fuck you Goldberg, JACK RYAN DOES NOT TORTURE. when he has killed people, it was only to protect his own or others' lives. I've been reading Tom Clancy since I was like 10 years old and Jack Ryan has NEVER used torture in ANY book.
John Clark/Ding Chavez, maybe, but they're the icemen for CIA.
The 'better living through torture' message of many Hollywood movies is, to my mind, morally equivalent to the 'adultery saved my marriage' message of *The Bridges of Madison County* - and about as realistic. It's part of the same corrupt culture.
In the Bad Old Days of the Hays Code, there was plenty of violence. But there was an important difference from today - it was the *bad guys* who engaged in violence for pleasure of out of pure utilitarianism. The good guys used violence as a last resort, or to chastize *really* bad guys with a bit of fisticuffs (eg, John Wayne using his fists to beat up a traitor). There had to be a *lot* of provocation before the good guys used violence and inflicted pain. The satisfaction (if any) that they derived was generally the satisfiction of doing justice.
Today's movies are different not only in the vividness of the on-screen violence, but in the fact that the good guys are often shown to indulge in bad-guy style abuse. And that's defining 'good guys' broadly (the nice gangster versus the less-nice gangster, for example).
Even the clearly-delineated good guys get to shoot off the toes of the bad guys they're interrogating (Guarding Tess), gun down unarmed baddies in cold blood (Mel Gibson in one of the Lethal Weapons), etc. And when the movie deliberately avoids having any goody-goodies, then the gloves are *really* off.
Surrounding all this, the characters derive a degree of pleasure from their violence which even ol' John Wayne would have to consider excessive. Not that John Wayne didn't enjoy smacking down or shooting the baddies, but I don't exactly see him *masturbating* to the violence like some of his modern successors.
Jonah Goldberg needs to be waterboarded until he confesses to killing Christ and eating christian babies.
I'm rooting for Sobotka to take out that crazy Bacchanalean bitch Maryann in True Blood. Maybe that means I approve of torture, but only if the torture is done by somebody who came from an alternate reality?
Mad Max, given your above opinion on modern movie violence, I take it your handle is ironic.
My wife is a big fan of the show "The Closer", but I can't stand it. (Only partly because of Kyra Sedgwick's gratingly bad southern accent). She uses some really aggressive, dishonest, and often slimy tactics to get criminals to confess. My wife asked why I didn't like the show. Doesn't she always catch the right criminal? My response?
In real life, sometimes the cops are wrong.
Tulpa,
It's an ironic gesture. Just like the concept of a tulpa doesn't seem particularly libertarian.
At least I didn't go with my original idea for a handle: Leatherface Stalin.
Hell yeah!
That's where you had to start.
At least I didn't go with my original idea for a handle: Leatherface Stalin.
Apparently Papist Avenger was already taken.
I'd like to know why Goldberg is slandering Tom Clancy. I can't recall a single Clancy movie where one of the good guys tortured a bad guy for information.
Stormy- not in the movies, but a few times in the books the "dark" character, John Clark has tortured to get information. however, in Without Remorse he tortured a murderous drug-dealing pimp in order to get information to shut down an entire drug ring in baltimore (this was pre-wire too!). And in Sum of all Fears he tortures Ismail Qati, a terrorist involved in detonating a nuclear bomb at the super bowl, killing both the secdef and secstate. and also his subordinate, Ding Chavez, does some minor fake-torture in Rainbow Six. and come to think of it, an entire coast guard crew participates in a mock execution of a murderer/rapist in Clear and Present danger. and I guess in the latest shit book, The Teeth of the Tiger, an entire vigilante organization is created, with Jack Jr. working with them to kill terrorists overseas. I guess I contradicted my point though.
so I guess it's justified SOMETIMES in Clancy's books? but our hero Jack Ryan (along with others like Ed Foley, Dan Murray, etc.) haven't been a party to torture- and various characters from within the FBI comment on how distasteful it is.
"Sorry, but Goldberg has the better argument. When people walked out of Patriot Games, they were thinking, "Wow, Harrison Ford kicked ass!", not "I'm feeling ambivalent about Ford's anti-hero."
Probably because he wasn't an anti-hero, nor was there any questionable moral choices he made.
This was the movie where he shot a terrorist in self defense, tortured nobody, then killed some more terrorists who came to his house to kill him. Not a lot of shades of gray there.
The audience cheers for Dexter too.
Omar comin' yo! Omar!!
The American public loved Birth of a Nation, too. Right along with that scumbag Woodrow Wilson.
Even if Goldberg's thesis were true, it would only prove that the American public has a lot of scumbags in it.
I bet MNG would love a movie about a Robin Hood type figure who kidnapped heartless conservative doctors and forced them to perform life-saving surgeries for poor people. That would prove only that MNG has authoritarian and slavedriving "moral" instincts, and not that this is a policy we should consider.
Audiences self-select. You only attend a movie in the first place if the general overview of the movie you hear sounds like something you'd like. A 24 style fantasy will attract an audience predisposed to cheer such a fantasy.
For disclosure purposes, I'd like to note that I am a huge fan of violent films myself, too.
It's not possible to draw straight lines between those films and any particular moral code, however, for the simple reason that epistemological questions complicate the moral questions whenever you're dealing with issues surrounding vigilante violence or violence that occurs without due process or legal controls.
For example, in the first Death Wish movie, we witness for ourselves a perfect and indisputable visual record of the crime, and know exactly who the guilty criminals are. When Charles Bronson catches up with them one at a time, they're instantly recognizable and we're absolutely sure they're the same men. So when Bronson attacks them, we cheer. The movie neatly eliminates all the messy epistemological issues of certainty and uncertainty that muddy the waters on the question of vigilante violence. The moral universe created by the Death Wish films would be quite different, if Bronson occasionally killed the wrong man, because of mistaken identity, or if copycats of Bronson's activity appeared who killed minority males at random because they thought they were all criminals. Because those types of events never happen in these films, we can disregard the films as moral guides - for the simple reason that a world where the epistemological rules are different from our own has no useful moral lessons to teach us.
But given sufficient time to lay out the context and inform the viewers of the stakes, as well as Ford's motives, the audience not only understands but applauds his actions.
Directly related to my argument is the fact that Goldberg thinks that this sentence makes his argument, when it actually invalidates it.
Basically Goldberg is saying here that you can get people to approve of certain courses of action if you show them lots of facts they couldn't possibly know with certainty if they were making the moral decision in real life.
Omniscient beings face different moral choices than non-omniscient beings.
If you completely changed the nature of reality and the nature of Man and made each of us omniscient, we would have to devise a new moral code because the one we have would no longer be appropriate.
And that's what these movies do - they completely change the nature of reality and the nature of Man, by making it possible for us to be utterly and completely certain. Films that don't do that - that hide some of the facts from us, so we can't be sure what's going on - generally don't end up presenting us with easy little scenarios to cheer for.
So whats wrong with vigilante justice?
In our modern day "justice" system, it's the only justice you're gonna get.
I think that the point here is that if Obama is hoping to use this as a distraction from the problems his administration is facing, he's not likely to get much traction. I don't think Mr. Goldberg was arguing for the morality or legality of the interrogation techniques either way in that post.
Also, if on the actual Planet Earth the Hollywood scenario of a ticking time bomb ever happens (which, to date, it has not), we have ways of dealing with it-- a presidential pardon and/or prosecutorial discretion.
The fact that one can come up with a good fictional scene where a murder is justified doesn't mean that we should stop prosecuting people for murder.
"Jonah Goldberg argues that because Hollywood often portrays torture positively, it must be morally acceptable to most Americans, at least under those scenarios in which it's portrayed in TV and movies."
This would be a much stronger article if in fact Goldberg made this argument. He's actually making a narrower point about Hollywood and public perception.
Near the end of Patriot Games (movie) Ryan shoots a disarmed man in the kneecap to get info on the kidnappers.
This would be a much stronger article if in fact Goldberg made this argument. He's actually making a narrower point about Hollywood and public perception.
He makes exactly that argument.
In fact, I would go further and say that although Goldberg specifically denies that he's drawing any moral conclusion, it's pretty obvious that he's celebrating the fact that torture is accepted and cheered in some contexts in American entertainment.
What more narrow point do you think he was trying to make?
One of my favorite movies that is slightly vigilante is Slingblade.
The more I watch it, the deeper it gets. A brilliant flic all around if you ask me.
Fluffy, I think that he's pointing out that there is a disconnect between the things people watch and what they put up with in real life. I'm much more upset by dirty cops in real life than I am in the movies. I don't think you can fairly read from Goldberg's post that he thinks that torture is okey-dokey because he watches violent movies.
Fluffy, I think that he's pointing out that there is a disconnect between the things people watch and what they put up with in real life.
Right, but I think he's resolving that disconnect in favor of the movies.
IIRC, Goldberg was simply arguing that it was bad politics to prosecute the CIA interrogators, and that Obama was (Democrats were) fooling himself if he thought otherwise.
It wasn't a defense of the techniques themselves.
And in and Update, Goldberg also acknowledges that in the movie you have moral certainty as to which is the bad guy, and what he has done. At Gitmo, we have the fog of reality.
Bubba,
That's fair. Goldberg could be saying, "Even if these CIA guys broke the law, you won't get a conviction, because the American public cheers torture in movies and that attitude will lead at least one juror to vote to acquit no matter what."
I think he's going a little beyond that, and is touchdown-endzone-dancing with glee that this is the case, and his touchdown dance is an endorsement. But that's not unequivocably supported by the text, so maybe we should give Goldberg the benefit of the doubt.
Damn it, Bubba, because you said that Goldberg added another update I went to the Corner itself, to see if there was second post, and my eyes were subjected to the shit that stained the URL there.
Andy McCarthy is a fucking piece of shit.
He gleefully links to an article about how a leftist protestor was sentenced to two years in prison for constructing Molotov cocktails.
Last time I checked, the government lacked the Constitutional authority to make it illegal to possess Molotov cocktails. If a right-wing religious group were shipped off to prison for possessing handguns, McCarthy would be up in arms about how the 2nd amendment was being violated.
In addition, supposedly the protestors constructed Molotov cocktails because they were angry that the police had seized a trailer contained homemade shields they had constructed out of garbage cans. On what legal authority could the police execute such a seizure? It's not illegal to possess either a trailer or shields made out of garbage cans. Every police officer in the chain of command that conducted this seizure should be in prison for theft. Since our legal system apparently allows police officers to steal with impunity now, I'm not really angry if citizens are building Molotov cocktails. The internet is FULL of people openly stating that they are buying guns so they can be ready for confrontation if Obama tries to take our rights away. If they can buy guns to protect their rights, why can't they build Molotov cocktails to protect their rights?
Also, if on the actual Planet Earth the Hollywood scenario of a ticking time bomb ever happens (which, to date, it has not), we have ways of dealing with it-- a presidential pardon and/or prosecutorial discretion.
There has been verifiable ticking time bomb scenario.
In 1918, the Austrio-Hungarian dreadnought Viribus Unitis was sunk at Pola Harbor by an Italian "human torpedo". The Italian crewmen were captured before the limpet mine exploded, hence the "ticking time bomb" was a reality for the crew of the battleship. None of the Italians were tortured or otherwise treated inhumanely to force them to reveal the location of the explosive device, which sank the battleship in due course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Viribus_Unitis
I bet MNG would love a movie about a Robin Hood type figure who kidnapped heartless conservative doctors and forced them to perform life-saving surgeries for poor people.
Someone already pretty much made this movie. It was called John Q.