[C.J. Griffin]

Hmmm... I wonder if Hollywood will also glamorize Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, or Pinochet? Nah. After all, right-wing despots are bad; their leftist counterparts are simply misunderstood.

Hollywood To Glamorize Mao Tse-Tung

By Staff
May 25, 2007

Hollywood filmmaker Steven North is causing controversy after announcing he is to make a positive portrayal of late Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung.

North, who produced the 2004 Tv adaptation of A Christmas Carol, is financing Challenging Heaven, a biopic of the Marxist leader, who ruled the Asian nation from 1945 until his death in 1976.

Human rights groups allege millions of people died under Mao's regime. And despite the controversy surrounding Mao's rule, North is set on making a positive portrayal of his life.

He says, "This is a very positive portrayal of Mao and we are hoping that once the script clears the approval process, China will come up with services and support."

Chinese author Jung Chang, who co-wrote Mao: The Unknown Story, fumes, "I am appalled, as I am sure will be all the Chinese who suffered and lost loved ones under Mao."

Source

[droodle]

I guess all of Hollywood is behind this.

[C.J. Griffin]

Not necessarily. Although it is quite telling that such a script is even being considered for approval. Had he submitted a script that lionized Franco, Pinochet or that big ole meanie Joe McCarthy, I have a feeling he'd be drummed out of Hollywood. And could you imagine the reaction had it been Hitler or Mussolini that he chose as his subject instead of Mao? Holy shit...

It will be interesting to see if it is indeed approved. North sounds pretty optimistic about it.

[droodle]

hollywood is one actor?

quite probably there are communistproducers, as there may be fascist producers. /care

[the monkey]

Pretty sickening, I hope the consumers will reject this movie by not seeing it.

[Goranhammer]

This is bound to be a hit for all the wrong reasons. Hollywood has lost its soul, becoming a city that Jerry Springer would personify. It's Occam's Razor here, just as it was with Fahrenheit 911 and The Passion of the Christ - if it's controversial, it sells.

Portraying the mastermind of the mass-slaughter we refer to as the "Great Leap Forward" as some sort of benevolent ruler is going to do nothing but attract an audience the way Howard Stern attracts an audience. People that think Mao was great will watch it (and probably beat off to it, the way they beat off to The Communist Manifesto) and the people who hate him will watch it just to see how blatant and crass it can be to paint this man in a positive light.

A bunch of ignorant peasants hacking up anyone with an IQ above 70 being glorified is something only the most vile of the vile could do. Hollywood sounds like a hell of a starting point to me.

[Gork]

Unless I'm wrong, Mao began his "career" as a Marxist. Marxism, ideally, would result in everyone holding hands and frolicking through a field wearing love beads. But absolute power corrupts absolutely. For Marxism to achieve it's goal the ruler would have to dissolve the government and become just another citizen. Never mind that everyone would also have to be nice to each other just because, and no one would ever steal or kill, and humans would cease to posses human nature. Just about everything in Marxism is impossible, but perhaps the most impossible is to have a society where no one wants power.

I wouldn't be adverse to a Maoist telling me that Mao started off with the best of intentions, as long as they admit that somewhere along the line he became a brutal despot who destroy the lives, rights, and happiness of billions.

Incidentally, The Last King of Scotland begins by painting a positive picture of Idi Amin and shows his downfall into depravity and ruthlessness.

[Far-Right Sage]

This just goes further to show the political bias that exists in mainstream American culture.

Mao can be glorified, and Stalin can be written off as a hero. A few may complain but is their overall disgust? No.

What if someone made a movie glorifying Hitler? There would be riots from New York to San Francisco.

[Eauz]

They should really leave Marxism to the books and articles and maybe some documentaries, as mass media is just going to screw things up, and make it sound like something it really isn't.

Hmmm... I wonder if Hollywood will also glamorize Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, or Pinochet? Nah. After all, right-wing despots are bad; their leftist counterparts are simply misunderstood.

Well, this is only one film by Hollywood, while many propaganda and anti-communism films have been produced in the past. I also remember that a German film production tried to get the normal guy out of Hitler, by showing his life.

[Far-Right Sage]

I also remember that a German film production tried to get the normal guy out of Hitler, by showing his life

What's wrong with that?

[Eauz]

I was only explaining that not all films made are showing left-wing people (if you could even call Mao that) in positive light.

[Far-Right Sage]

left-wing people (if you could even call Mao that)

I'm Mao's not a leftist, I'm Howard Dean.

[Eauz]

Then you must be Howard Dean.

[Far-Right Sage]

Then you must be Howard Dean.

As long as we're making bogus claims, I contend that Hitler was a Communist.

[Eauz]

Mao definitely had interest in marxism, but what he boiled down to being, was a nationalist. He had strongly anti-Western and anti-imperialist even before he became attracted to Marxism.

[Far-Right Sage]

Mao definitely had interest in marxism, but what he boiled down to being, was a nationalist

By that standard, Tito wasn't a Communist or a leftist either.

Come on.

[Gork]

"Communism" implies that there's at least the intention of a classless, cashless, communal society where all goods and services are shared. This has never happened except a couple of times in the 60s and in Amish communities. Other than that, in the civilized world, all attempts at peaceful anarchy have failed miserably.

If Mao never intended to transform China into a communal, classless society (some would contend he did, some he didn't), then he was never a Communist, or a Marxist. He was a socialist who employed Marxist ideas about overthrowing the government and controlling the populace. If he never intended to take the last step of dissolving the government, money, class, and any other barrier between people, that's like calling a pile of whipped cream and hot fudge a sundae.

[Eauz]

By that standard, Tito wasn't a Communist or a leftist either.

They were communist, I agree, but their goals were nationalist at heart. Their goal was to develop their nation from a feudal backward nation, into a developed nation. On a personal level, we could say they were left, but they were no different from other developing nations in this regard.

[The New Manifesto]

Hmmm, ive never thought of Moa or Tito in that light before. I will see this movie, but just because i want to witness the transformation of a dictator to a new symbol for communism(Mao was much to Authoritarian for my liking)

[Gork]

What's scary is, after an argument at a street fair with some naive kid manning the local commie booth, I read their rag, they were talking about Mao as a hero. Communists would do themselves a service if they distanced themselves from any politician or ideology that has failed to produce the end result.

Communists shouldn't talk about Mao as a hero any more than Democrats should talk about Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton as great presidents.