George Clooney went from being just another face on sitcoms like “The Facts of Life” and “Roseanne” to his current status as Oscar-winning, “Sexiest Man Alive” certified movie star.
But has he pushed his fame too far with his latest project, a film detailing the legal battle on behalf of Osama bin Laden’s driver?
The actor has built a reputation for being a good guy throughout his career ascent. He talks to the press, shares stories of how he still pals around with his group of buds from his less famous days and even graciously decided to appear on the last episode of “ER,” the show that rocketed him to fame.
He easily could have told the show, “no, thank you, I’ll be on the set of my next major motion picture.”
I bet the show’s producers were fearing he’d say just that.
I met Clooney a few years back on the junket for “The Perfect Storm.” He proved witty and open during the group interview – part of the junket experience – and he impressed me again when I saw him later on that day.
He was ducking into his trailer and I grabbed him before he could disappear inside. He could have been mad, or dismissive or anything “star” like. Instead, he graciously chatted with me and told me how much fun he had shooting “O Brother Where Art Thou?”
Nice guy.
Since then he’s used his growing clout for a number of impressive projects, often from his left-wing perspective. He directed “Good Night, and Good Luck,” and while the film wasn’t nearly as good as advertised, it took guts to make a black and white film on a subject matter – journalism – that’s hardly catnip for movie audiences.
And teaming with the Coen brothers on three film projects (so far) spoke volumes of his ability to discern, and cling to, the brightest minds in Hollywood.
But his latest project could seriously injure his film career. “The Challenge,” to be written by Aaron Sorkin, details the fight to procure a fair trial for Salim Hamdan, who was held at Guantanamo Bay for five years. Clooney is set to produce the film, and he’s hoping to star as Hamdan’s lawyer. He might even direct the film.
Reasonable people can debate the merits of Guantanamo policies, but can you imagine audience members – besides the three or four remaining Air America listeners – rooting Clooney on as the film heads toward its courtroom climax?
For years Clooney has espoused liberal causes, but he’s also delivered strong performances and shown a keen eye for picking thoughtful movie projects. He’s no dummy, and his ambitious streak is admirable.
This time, he may have pushed his ideology too far for most American audiences.
(Photo: George Clooney got an Oscar nomination for his turn in the legal drama “Michael Clayton.”)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
What’s the difference between this an A Few Good Men or Breaker Morant or Caine Mutiny (awesome flicks all)? … it’s a military courtroom thriller, big loud courtroom scenes, internal ethical battles, etc … My guess is no one will be rooting for Osama’s driver, but may be rooting for the attorney as he wrestles wtih his patriotism vs. his ethical obligation as an attorney sworn to every client’s right to a fair trial.
I was never rooting for the victims in The Verdict, I was rooting for the down-on-his-luck attorney.
Clooney is a smart man, he’s not going to make a film that champions terrorists. But he may make a smart, entertaining film about an attorney’s internal struggles and a country’s struggles to do what’s right while holding our heads high as a global ethical compass. I think we lost something in the world’s eyes with our treatment of prisones in this war, like it or not. Admitting we tortured prisoners ( http://tinyurl.com/da466d ) and the shame of Abu Ghraib are real divisive issues in America .. I think this is great dramatic fodder … I wouldn’t accuse him of making a left-leaning, liberal, GOP-bashing flick until you’ve at least seen it …
Terrorists, and those who drive the biggest terrorist in the world, don’t deserve fair trials in the traditional US citizen sense. Because they aren’t US citizens for one … they’re enemy combatants.
It’s the same as “A Few Good Men???” A fine film, but I don’t think a terrorist who enabled Osama B was on trial in that film. Big difference.
We only lost something in the world’s eyes because the US and global media focused so heavily on Abu Ghraib and not on the 99 percent of US soldiers doing their jobs honorably and ably … and shedding their blood to free Muslims. How many other countries can say they’ve done that of late?
And why should our country be shamed for the actions committed by the tiniest fraction of our population?
The folks at Abu Ghraib got punished … that’s how the system works.
Also note what the Variety article says … it won’t focus on the guilt or innocence of the driver. Yeah, that’s not important. It’s like the new “Che” movie — let’s leave out that he was a bloodthirsty murderer … that doesn’t enhance his icon image.
Well, heck. By drawing out that line of logic, why do we even abide by the Geneva convention (which is supposed to set standards for the handing of enemy combatants and prohibits torture)? Guantanamo isn’t a place of punishment, it’s a detention center. That’s like saying the Nazis would be right to “punish” captured allied soldiers.
Why do we even take prisoners then? Shouldn’t we just shoot them on the spot and save us the trouble of housing them? Wouldn’t that be what they had coming?
C’mon. The USA is lives by a better standard that that. Capturing someone and immediately determining that they are terrorists and initiating prompt “punishment” is barbaric, and that’s not who we are. Wouldn’t we have freaked it Russia started rounding up Georgian soldiers last summer and began punishing them?
And again, you should really see the film before condemning it.
why do we even abide by the Geneva convention (which is supposed to set standards for the handing of enemy combatants and prohibits torture)?
The Geneva convention doesn’t recognize non-uniformed combatants. That’s why non uniformed combatants during WW1 and 2 were shot as “spies” or placed in concentration camps. It has been internationally agreed that non uniformed combatants are not covered and can expect no mercy. IOWs we are abiding by the Geneva convention. Al Quida is not. Maybe you can write them a letter to get with the program. Until then not just shooting them is a relatively humanitarian solution. Especially in light of what a lot of them did in terms of purposely killing civilians.
The Geneva Convention deals with enemy troops fighting for a nation under a uniform, I believe. None of the above applies to Al Qaeda. And when was the last time Geneva Convention rules were held to Hamas-ites? (a side argument, but something worth considering the next time you hear the UN and every media outlet, for that matter, condemn Israel and say nothing about Hamas’ horrendous actions.)
You assume we routinely tortured everyone and everyone .. that it was standard practice (libby talking point alert!) Utterly untrue.
We treat the prisoners humanely, give them religious appropriate food, let them have Korans, etc. You gotta turn off Keith Olbby …
In extreme cases, we used waterboarding – Kaleed Sheik (sp) sang, finally, with key info after we waterboarded him. Would you rather US citizens have died in attacks we may have prevented without that info?
And we didn’t just round people up … we took terrorists off the battlefield. And have you read how many ex Guantanamo-ites we found again on the battlefield fighting us as terrorists once more? Does that bother you even a little?
Also, I know the whole ‘wait ’til you see the movie before you critique it’ … and usually that’s a fair way to approach controversial movies. But I’m critiquing the main storyline which is described in the Variety article …it’s very clear what the angle is … who the heroes are … etc.
I’m going to hold out before I decide if he went “too far.” I think he’s a pretty smart guy and I’m not sure he’d throw his reputation under the bus for this project.
Side note: You met Clooney??? Clooney and most of the Monkeys? Wow, you never cease to amaze me!!!
“Would you rather US citizens have died in attacks we may have prevented without that info?”
Would I rather we risk attack than resort to torture? Yes.
I’m picturing the film Minority Report, people jailed for crimes they haven’t committed yet. “Prevention through detention.”
I still believe in civil rights and human rights .. and I point out regarding the “uniformed soldiers” provision … there was a rebellious group of folks who fought a war against a colonial superpower, many without uniforms, back in the day.
Gen. George Washington led that ragtag army.
We are at war with an organized force. We must win, but we cannot give up our morals, our virtues, our way of life in the process, then they will have won.
Torture will never be acceptable. We are Americans, we don’t torture people.
Chase
Thats a nice thought. But imagine a family member of yours was kidnapped and was going to be killed unless you found them and I brought you a person who knew where they were. You’d either torture them to find out which would make you a hypocrite or you’d do nothing which would make you a traitor to your family. You can dislike torture but don’t be so quick to claim moral superiority over the rest of us.
If you believe in human rights then thats fine, but I believe you have to human to qualify. People like OBL and the like are animals, not humans.
It it’s just a movie why not? I love seeing popular actors play unpopular roles. Frankly I would have preferred Cruise played Hitler in “Valkyrie.” Playing the hero is too easy and predictable.
If Liberal means defending rights of those who treat the female worse than rabid dogs, hang homosexual in the public square, use the disabled to act as homicide bombers, use children as defense shields among so many barbaric treatments then I want nothing to do with ill- Liberal and the sickness affecting George Clooney.
Life is not a brain-damaged, heartless Hollywood movie; I’m sick of Kingdom Hollywood and the misery is produces.
Chase, you didn’t really compare Al Qaeda to Geo Wash’s troops, did you? You see no difference between those two groups?
And so if it’s a choice between a coercive interrogation tactic like waterboarding on a high level terrorist or losing 3,000 plus people or many more, you still pull the ‘never torture’ button. Wow.
By the way, I hope you and the rest of the Left will be out protesting this (from LA Times)
“Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.”
People on the left never cease to crack me up. They have the emotional make-up of children. I want the government to have the ability to extract information by aggressive means and the notion that somewhat abusive techniques should be openly off the table is rather frightening. Waterboarding a few people? hah. We’re fighting fanatics who don’t take prisoners, deny our common humanity, use ours as a weapon against us and are under the impression that 72 virgins await them in the hereafter.
We have to fight this kind of stupidity. Great Britain is a great example of just where these dingbat left-wing cretins will take us, as they’ve actually criminalized all manner of self-defense for victims of crime. That’s the mindset at work.
This has nothing to do with soldiers fighting under a nation’s uniform where the humane thing is to operate under the notion that they are no different than we are, compelled to fight at the behest of a government. That is what the Geneva Conventions are about. But what the left does is cynically use the rules of war when it serves them -regardless of how illogical it is – and blend it in with their obsession with criminal rights to assure that we are less safe but that they get to adhere to some sort of abstract, naive and infantile moral purity.
Chase said:
“Why do we even take prisoners then? Shouldn’t we just shoot them on the spot and save us the trouble of housing them? ”
Yes.
Jake, thanks, you make a good point on the mindset of those who advocate torture. Thanks.
Under all of the logic from those who advocate torture, I guess the Viet Cong were right to torture John McCain … I mean, they needed the information, right?
So if we’re allowed to torture our prisoners, is the other side allowed to torture our soldiers if they get captured, if they need information on where our troops would attack next?
Fair question.
If we stop all forms of coercive interrogation, do you think terrorists will give that fact a second thought as they slice the necks of their next victims?
Chase is typical of the mindless emotionalism on the left. Nobody has advocated torture in the context of a conventional war so your point is either stupid or disingenuous, and I’ll be honest and say that I often can’t tell which is the case when confronted with people like yourself.
As far as I’m concerned, George Clooney “crossed the line” when he publicly made fun of Charleton Heston’s alzheimer’s. Mean-spirited, tasteless, and classless. And he’s never apologized for it.
Don’t let his good looks and his smooth nice guy act fool you, Clooney is as far Left and angry as they come. He is a vested member of the shrill Hate Bush and Everything Right and American Club. And like the rest of them he misuses his art in order to advance the Liberal Agenda.
He openly admits to making “Good Night and Good Luck” in order to avenge his family members who were roughed up during that time. And dishonestly so. One look at Hollywood today with the radical anti-America kooks and the Left messaging inserted into virtually every movie anymore and the Reverse Black List in place and one can see that the Red Scare was right on. Senator McCarthy has been vindicated.
Also, Clooney is an arrogant jerk. Once, several years ago, when asked on a red carpet his thoughts on the growing noise against Lib Hollywood abusing their holdings in entertainment and using it for their Lib messaging, he didn’t deny it, rather, he replied with a smug “So what? We’re Hollywood, we’re rich and we’ll do what we want.”
Who in their Right mind would give their hard earned money directly to these people, paying them for this “entertainment” and for them to underhandedly shove their radical agenda down our throats? You’re giving your money to people who hate you and who use it against you and our country every chance they get.
Clooney stirred up controversy for his remarks about Charlton Heston, but claims he later did apologize:
“I wrote him a letter saying ‘I usually avoid making jokes at people’s expense, so I’m sending you an apology,’ and I got a really nice letter back from his wife.”
Jeff,
Thanks for that info … I was gonna list that ugly comment here but I’m glad you sent along that update on the matter.
Chase there is no moral equivalence between us and them. Bottom line. Your comparison is ridiculous and betrays your true ignorance when it comes to conflicts between civilized nations and cultures that resemble the dark ages.
Fakename Blackhawk … you’re right, there is no moral equivalence between us and them .. we are expected to be better. and I expect us to be better.
Your true ignorance is to somehow think torture of humans is ever moral. It is not.
I notice you didn’t address my question about nations at war, about torturing a real hero, John McCain .. by the Viet Cong … combatants who wanted information from him in a shooting war.
Was torture right on their side?
No. Torture is never right.