The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Does It Make Eastwood A Bigger Chump Than Griffith, Though?

Posted on | February 8, 2012 | 18 Comments

by Smitty

The Hollywood Reporter tells us that, while Clint himself may not work for Mr. Obama, his collaborators on his Super Bowl pep talk did. I thought the ad was actually well done, except for the lack of context, as private sector unions are substantially at fault for Michigan’s plight. It turns out, however, that “Two members of the creative team that produced the two-minute minute spot for ad agency Wieden+Kennedy donated their personal time in 2008 to make pro-Obama art.” I’m sure that there wasn’t any, you know, collaboration going on between those guys and #OccupyResoluteDesk’s minions.

I hope that the ad cost less than the $3.66 million spent on Andy Griffith’s ObamaCare fare. Neither dude looks cool being an Obama tool.

Maybe an enraged Eastwood will make a film celebrating American exceptionalism and liberty, if we poke him enough.

via Rhetorican

Category: Barack Obama, Celebrities

Comments

18 Responses to “Does It Make Eastwood A Bigger Chump Than Griffith, Though?”

  1. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

    Why is everybody dumping on Eastwood for making a commercial that praises America, and looks forward to a better future?  My God, if our Debate turns from which version of failure we want to which version of success, I’d be thrilled!

    Yes.  The mess in Detroit is a combination of Union Thuggery taken to it’s logical conclusion and Far Left ideas of Government intervention.  But that’s not what was being celebrated in the piece, and Conservatives look FOOLISH when they attack something that somebody ELSE does right.

    I wish OUR Presidential Candidates had put out as nice a spot during this primary season.  I’d be a LOT happier about our prospects if they had!

    It’s like when Clinton bowed to the inevitable and started Welfare Reform.  Instead of welcoming him to the debate, the Republicans HANDED him that issue by claiming he had stolen it.  He had surrendered, and we GAVE him a Victory because we were too small to accept his help.

    Have we fallen that far again?  Show me what I’m missing, and maybe I will be against a Superbowl Ad that praises American Spirit….

  2. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

    If a lot of stuff that actually happened hadn’t happened, then a lot of the objections about the ad would be removed.  Out of context, it was a superbly executed ad.  In context, it seems a lot like slick propaganda.

    The creepiest part of the ad was all the talk about us working in unison towards some goal or other.  That’s not America, except in times of (existential) war, when it really is pretty necessary.

    It echoed the SOTU calls for us all to act like a cohesive military unit.  Again, this is classic Progressive rhetoric, similar to fascism and communism for militarizing non-military life.

    But that’s all par for the course, and usually slips by the historically unaware or those who simply aren’t paying attention.

    No, the real irony (tragedy?) is that so many leftists love to talk about things like “my individuality,” sheeple and how dissent is the highest form of patriotism.  And they also like to say that we all need to do exactly what they tell us to do.

  3. Edward
    February 8th, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

    If Obama loses then this will eventually blow over.

    If Obama wins then Dirty Harry’s career is pretty much toast.

  4. Charles
    February 8th, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

    I don’t see how this ad helps Barack Obama. If anything it highlights that he is no Clint Eastwood.

  5. THR: Clint Eastwood's Chrysler Super Bowl Ad: The Untold Obama Connection. « The Rhetorican
    February 8th, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

    […] MORE: Related thoughts from The Other McCain. […]

  6. listingstarboard
    February 8th, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

    Totaly friggin sucks when one of you heroes can be bought. At the riskof being called a racist, one might consider that Eastwood has no doubt been influenced by his current much younger wife, who is of African American descent(among other nationalities) and was employed by the media as well. Eastwoods last three movies tanked, he probably needed the dough. What I find most upsetting is the fact that Clint stated in an interview in November he was against bailing out banks and car companies, Another lying Hollywood actor, big surprise.

  7. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

    I haven’t seen them, but the last two movies of his per IMDB were Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby.   Both had about a $30M budget and got $200M+ at the box office.  Not to mention some Oscars and other awards.

    Can you please explain what a movie that didn’t tank would have to do to earn your approval of success?

  8. Adjoran
    February 8th, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

    Eastwood undoubtedly was sold on the commercial as a tribute to the American spirit.  It was a mistake on his part to take it, but he was effective in it.

    Of course, like with many of the GM and Chrysler ads in recent years, the idea is presented that Detroit has recovered or is recovering.  You would almost believe it’s true.  They just don’t show all the bulldozed neighborhoods in the car ads.

  9. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 4:03 pm

     I’m tempted to read deeper meaning into the fact that the only car made by the Big Three that I really like is in its last model year…and was built in Canada, anyway.

  10. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

    Does anyone believe Eastwood was caught unawares of the production? The man is a Hollywood institution on both sides of the camera. His only commercial involvement, as far as I’m aware as John Q. Public, centers around his own film interests. So, to see him participate in one of the world’s most watched events via a 3rd-Party enterprise – particularly one that defies his earlier stated, conservative positions – is pretty curious indeed. There’s just no way he didn’t know what message was being sent and, more importantly, how. Eastwood is not naïve. He willfully lent his brand.

    So it begs the question, why did Eastwood do it? But to your question, Smitty, Griffith is still the bigger chump. He carried the propaganda much longer and further. He’s the New York Giants of Chumps. Eastwood? I guess that makes him the 49ers of ’em.

  11. listingstarboard
    February 8th, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

    Changeling, Invictus,JEdgar. Movies he produce and/or directed. Last 3 movies he was involved with were not box office winners. Put that in your juice box and suck it scarymatt.

  12. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

    Ah…I just looked at his IMDB page, and those others came up.

  13. Shawn Gillogly
    February 8th, 2012 @ 5:36 pm

    I do believe Eastwood could’ve been rolled on this. Actors are not always the most astute when it comes to the intentions of propagandists. See Jane Fonda, and Sean Penn for examples.

    Note, this does not reduce their culpability for the stupidity of selling themselves to propagandists.

  14. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

    Normally I’d agree with you. Eastwood, however, has been an actor, director, and producer. And politician.

    IOW he knows every way around messaging and the camera as there is to know. He’s been in the “communications” business for decades. He has propagandized (and I’m using the term loosely here) through film via narratives essentially his whole life. It can be argued, naturally, what the message is in his art, but it is messaging nonetheless.

    So why is he messaging for a company that has violated his publicly stated principles and that has used propagandists, literally, for Obama?

    Eastwood is much too educated and experienced to be duped.

  15. ThomasD
    February 8th, 2012 @ 8:43 pm

     I don’t think Eastwood had an inkling of how negatively any sort of cheer leading pablum from Government Motors/Chiseler Group would be received.

    That it was also so obviously  a paean to Obama’s second term should have been obvious from a single reading of the script.

    Morning in America this was not.

  16. Bob Belvedere
    February 9th, 2012 @ 8:03 am

     Perhaps Mr. Eastwood, who was raised in The West, is just suffering from Getting Old Goldwaterism.

  17. Thane_Eichenauer
    February 9th, 2012 @ 10:36 pm

    The bank heist is over, the unions won and I don’t think there is any way to rewind what was done.  Should every person who is hired by Chrysler be beaten up because of the union bank job?  Would all the hecklers be happier if Chrysler had hired Ed Begley Jr instead of Clint Eastwood?  I for one would not have been.

  18. Anonymous
    February 10th, 2012 @ 6:12 am

    Hopefully Eastwood regrets what he did (whether he admits it or not).

    But commercials that push the moral equivalency of war would annoy me regardless of how many times the company has been bailed out by tax dollars.

    Ed Begley Jr at least wouldn’t be sending the conflicting message of a conservative / libertarian (I believe that’s how he describes himself, at least) promoting typical Progressive crap.

    Is this over reacting?  Maybe.  Almost definitely if you simply look at this one little thing.  But it’s not one little thing.  It’s just the latest example of a long line of crap sending messages about how awesome it would be if we just gave in and acted like they’ve been telling us to act.