Entertainment Weekly is the one entertainment pub I can’t live without. Its comprehensive look at Hollywood and beyond is essential reading, even on the rare occasion it cranks out a clunker issue.
And it routinely prints blistering stories that few other outlets can match, like a recent feature on Mike Myers’ mercurial mindset in the runup to “The Love Guru.”
It’s also one of the few entertainment outlets that doesn’t rub its liberalism in your face. Oh, it’s in there - the great film critic Owen Gleiberman is an unabashed liberal and it shows - but it’s not the kind of ideological nonsense that other mags spew out.
But …
The latest issue totally, utterly, amazingly misreads “The Dark Knight’s” political message. It prattles on about how the film mirrors America’s image problem across the globe, missing the movie’s key point - you can’t coddle, talk to, or convince terrorists to stop killing the innocent.
Instead, it ends its sidebar about summer message movies with this sour note:
“… think twice about telling terrorists to “bring it on.” Because they will.”
Besides badly interpreting the film, the article gets it wrong twice. One - how’s the war in Iraq going these days post President Bush’s “bring it on” comment? And two, if you don’t go on the offensive against terrorism, what’s your plan B? If we leave the terrorists alone, what will prevent them from killing us? Doubt the magazine has an answer for that. It’s too busy spinning the most pro-Bush film in ages to its own conclusions.
UPDATE: Check out Andrew Klavan’s take on “The Dark Knight” in the Wall Street Journal. Here’s Sonny Bunch checking in on the subject, too. The NY Post’s Kyle Smith takes a crack at the topic, too.
(Photo: “The Dark Knight’s” pro-war on terror stance, epitomized by the wisdom flowing from Alfred (Michael Caine), is spun badly by the otherwise terrific Entertainment Weekly)
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Ken Bendor 07.27.08 at 6:03 pm
Good point, Chris…one other thing that’s been cracking me up about EW as of late (besides ranking Pretty Woman as the 37th best movie in the last quarter-century!) is how they take Hollywood to task for not hiring enough black talent or putting black actresses in “blockbusters” (citing Meet Dave as an example of such LOL), yet their staff is predominately white, and most of their covers/articles overwhelmingly goes to whites; one recent cover had the cast of the five-months-away Twilight, with two (very) white actors even I haven’t heard of…nice to know the practice of NIMBY is still alive and well in the liberal media…
cftoto 07.27.08 at 7:27 pm
Terrific point, Ken. That reminds me of Hollywood’s posturing regarding race a few years back when Halle Berry won the Best Actress Oscar. Journalists hailed it as a breakthrough in race relations for the country — but the public doesn’t get to vote for the Oscar winners - Hollywood types do. So while the public at large might have voted in a black woman as best actress eons ago, it took forever for actors to do just that. That speaks poorly of the industry, not the public at large.
Ken Bendor 07.28.08 at 10:12 pm
It’s worth pointing out that NO black actress has been nominated in the Best Actress category since Berry’s win…you think the EW staff would’ve pointed THAT out before labeling Rosario Dawson “Latina” and implying that’s not good enough for her to act opposite Will Smith…
cftoto 07.29.08 at 2:40 pm
Good point, Ken. And the diversity name game can be frustrating …
Scott 08.27.08 at 9:23 am
Hi there. I sent a letter to Entertainment Weekly regarding Margeaux Watson’s commentary that you posted here. I found your site doing a search, and I thought I’d copy the letter I sent to EW in response. In my letter below, I forgot to mention Thandie Newton, star of Mission Impossible II, the summer’s Run Fatboy Run and 2002’s The Truth About Charlie (all three opposite white male leads).
…………………
Hello,
I know this is late, regarding the July 18th issue #1002. I meant to write and recently picked up the issue again to page through and was reminded that I wanted to comment.
I have a couple comments about Margeaux Watson’s Commentary “It’s Time To Put Black Actresses in Hollywood Blockbusters.”
My first is a complaint about the major spoiler she printed. Granted, she wrote “spoiler alert” just before, but I really think (and this could be a good rule for all articles or news and notes sections) that it would be a good idea to issue a spoiler alert either in the title, or as a sub-title. Once I start reading an article, I like to continue. I generally stay away from reviews, since most movie reviewers spoil most of the plot. They can’t simply comment on the quality of the film without replaying the plot scene by scene. In a commentary about black actresses in blockbusters, giving away THE major twist of Hancock was completely unnecessary to her thesis. She could have simply stated that Charlize Theron is the female lead.
Second, while I agree to a point that black actresses (and minorities in general) should get more roles, why is it only about black actresses? Why not Hispanic, Asian, etc? Why not promote diversity in film? Even so, if we’re just staying on topic of black actresses, I’d like to point out that there are black actresses in Hollywood Blockbusters. Some examples:
Halle Berry in Swordfish, The X-Men series, and Catwoman.
Sanaa Lathan (a terrific actress) was the LEAD period (over any male stars even) in Alien vs. Predator.
Vivica A. Fox starred in Kill Bill
Jada Pinkett-Smith starred in both Matrix sequels.
I’m sure there are other examples, I can’t think of any more off the top of my head.
Margeaux Watson’s subtitle to her article (only online, not in print) states: “Why African-American women like Gabrielle Union and Nia Long need to be cast opposite Denzel Washington and Will Smith.” Did she forget that Will Smith’s co-star and love interest in Bad Boys II was… Gabrielle Union? How about Vivica A. Fox in Independence Day? Or Men in Black II’s Rosario Dawson (according to about.com, she’s mixed so I don’t know if Ms. Watson counts that). But how about “Ali,” “The Pursuit of Happyness, “Enemy of the State,” or “I Am Legend?” Looks like Will Smith has had a lot of black actresses as his co-stars, in some pretty big blockbusters.
And maybe it wasn’t Nia Long, but Denzel’s last Blockbuster type movie, “Deja Vu” had his co-star and love interest a black actress named Paula Patton. Patton (apparantly also mixed races according to some sites) also is the lead in this summer’s “Mirrors” starring opposite Kiefer Sutherland (the interracial tables are turned). The list for Denzel could include his black co-stars in “John Q,” “Out of Time,” “Remember the Titans,” and more. I don’t know the stats, but I wonder if his love interests or spouses on film have been black the majority of the time. It sure looks that way.
I agree that black women (and women of other non-white races) are missing from the Summer 2008 blockbuster season. Television is also declining in diversity, which saddens me (No CSI! I loved Warrick! But you won me back with Larry Fishburne.) But I feel like commentaries such as the one in this issue are off base given the proof I provided above. And again, why is it only about black actresses? I was glad to see the article (I forget which issue) about race on TV. We should be striving for diversity and more roles for every minority, not just black. Where are the Asians, Hispanics, Middle Eastern or Native Americans in TV and film? I’d like to see more commentary on that as well.
Thanks for your time,