So, I sent the following letter to the Editor at the Washington Post
Since, apparently in Mr. Krauthammer's mind, as a population, Americans are all so simple-minded that we couldn't walk out of JFK without being "taught" by the film the proper history of the incident, I'd just like to remind him and the Editors of the Post that some of us do not take the medium of film as a teacher of history.
Rather, some of us think that film can be used to raise questions, to challenge commonly held notions. A point that seems so far beyond Mr. Krauthammer's narrow-minded way of thinking considering the just plain stupid last sentence:
"Osama bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction."
Of the 3 March 2006 piece.
I'm just guessing here, but apparently Mr. Krauthammer's does not believe that film, in this never ending age of the war on terror, should raise questions or challenge people to think about the world in which we live. I make that assumptive conclusion since Mr. Krauthammer's tendentious "reviews" of Munich and Syriana were so incredibly partisan and off base.
At any rate, I'm thinking we could get someone in Hollywood to channel Leni Riefenstahl and do a modern day of Triumph of the Will updated for Mr. Bush for you. Maybe the director could film one of his town-hall styled stops with the pre-screened audiences.
And no, lest someone feel so inclined to make the enormous leap in logic, I'm not comparing Hitler to Mr. Bush. I'm just comparing propaganda tools to propaganda tools.
Or, and this is just a thought, we could be able to convince Hollywood to churn out a spate of World War II era propaganda films. Even better though, for Mr. Krauthammer's apparent 'film must toe the party line' point of view was the Hollywood effort to re-fight and win Vietnam in several Regan era films.
Such films might warm the cockles of Mr. Krauthammer's conservative heart.