A Bullet To The Gut-Check, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #312 | @MDWorld
Sylvester Stallone has an odd take on movie promotion. The day his latest flick came out, Walter Hill’s Bullet To The Head, Sly issued a statement revealing he’s in favor of new national gun control laws.
“Who … needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you’re carrying out an assault … You can’t hunt with it … Who’s going to attack your house, a fucking army?” Granted, two decades ago Stallone backed the Brady bill which included a ban on assault weapons, since expired.I can hear the hamster-hung gun nuts howling hypocrisy. After all, Stallone starred in more gun-toting action flicks than there are stars in the sky. Yes, indeed, he earns his living shooting big-ass guns in major motion pictures. And just as asteroids didn’t threaten the Earth, Godzilla never really attacked Tokyo, and if you truly believe a man can fly you shouldn’t be allowed near open windows, there’s a reason why these stories are called “heroic fantasy.” Honest, Brad Pitt did not really kill Adolf Hitler, although that might come as a shock to Tavis Smiley.
Other, even less intelligent bipeds will proffer Stallone doesn’t honestly believe that, he was simply following the orders of his Hollywood masters who are, after all, liberals each and every one. Yeah, including the bankers who shoot craps over $100 million budgets – a liberal bunch if there ever was one, right? Then again, since all the bankers are Jews and the Jews were the masterminds of the Newtown Massacre, my sarcasm is lost on that gaggle of sanctimonious, silly and learning-disabled people. Besides, Sy was raised in New York, the überleft Hymietown. Say no more.
Stallone is 66. He’s still bankable. His next movie co-stars Robert DeNiro – it’s called Grudge Match and is a sort-of geriatric fantasy sequel to Raging Bull. So a boycott (either tacit or implicit) of his movies won’t likely hurt his career or his legacy. But his lucid, logical and from-the-heart analysis of the non-military need for assault weapons will earn him some respect from those who dismiss him as just another mindless oaf of an actor.
When he steps into the ring to fight DeNiro, at the very least I know I’ll be seeing the work of a man with the courage of his convictions and that great American “this is what I believe and I don’t care if you don’t like it” moxie.
Like John Wayne and Gary Cooper, Sylvester Stallone speaks his mind and lets the chips fall where they may. Good for him.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times. Gold also joins MWD’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
![[Facebook]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
February 4th, 2013 at 11:52 am
Apparently some people do hunt with “assault” rifles. Of course, it’s not very sporting. Sort of like “fishing” with dynamite, which is generally frowned upon and mostly illegal. Dynamite and other explosives are very tightly regulated, since there seems to be little debate over whether or not unregulated explosives represent a significant public safety risk.
I think focusing on “assault” weapons is a mistake. Unless you’re shooting from a distance or trying to penetrate body armor, semi-automatic handguns are just as effective as semi-automatic rifles (and many of the “assault” rifles aren’t all that accurate at much of a distance), and the vast majority of gun deaths in this country are from handguns. Universal background checks for all gun sales would be a good start.
February 4th, 2013 at 12:06 pm
At least Stallone realizes it’s a movie and doesn’t play the same character ‘in real life.’
February 4th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Of course you can hunt with assault weapons. For example, in September 1925 two gangsters affiliated with the late Dion O’Bannon’s North Side Gang, Frank McErlane and Joe Saltis, used one of O’Bannon’s many, many Thompson sub-machine guns to attack Al Capone’s man, Spike O’Donnell. They were unsuccessful, but it was believed this was the first use of a Thompson in a gangland slaying attempt.
A year later, while Capone was in his “exile” in Cicero, a motorcade of eight to ten cars each wielding one of the North Side Mob’s famed Thompson guns had a little parade firing, one car after another, one thousand bullets into the Hawthorne Hotel restaurant. They missed the lunching Al, who was shoved to the ground by his bodyguard Frankie Rio. However, many bystanders were wounded and Al paid their hospital bills.
This took the weapon of mass destruction to a new level. Capone retaliated by killing O’Bannon’s successor Hymie Weiss across from Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral, where the bullet holes were still in evidence when I was last there about 20 years ago. Amusingly, the hit took place just about in front of O’Bannion’s flower shop — the store remained in business into the 1970s. Bugs Moran took over the North Side Mob, and it took Al another four and one-half years to scare Bugs out of business on a snowy Valentine’s Day.
Outside of the Cathedral shooting, nobody was killed in the above-noted attacks. I do not think assault weapons are very effective as tools for the hunter. Deer, urban, whatever.
February 4th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Mike: That’s the problem with the term “assault weapon”. The vast majority of legal guns in that category are semi-automatic, as were virtually all such weapons used in mass murders such as Columbine and Sandy Hook. The Thompson sub-machine gun is, of course, full-auto. With a full-auto weapon, aiming is completely optional. Just spray the general vicinity of your target. AFAIK, the National Firearms act of 1934 already strictly controls civilian access to fully-automatic weapons.
February 4th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Thanks to former Cook County Sheriff Richard Elrod, I’ve fired a Thompson — a much later (and lighter) model than O’Bannon bought for his workers — and it’s not so much that aiming is an option: once you start, it isn’t even possible, Great fun. It’s a shame they arrived to late (mostly) to be used by our troops in the trenches.
But… and less nostalgic but more important… why hasn’t the NRA been agitating to void out the National Firearms Act? Semi-automatics should be legal, but full-automatics not? 100 bullet clips should be legal, but 100 bullet barrels not? That doesn’t make sense. If anything is going to stop the armed forces from conducting a simultaneous raid on all American citizens to seize our guns, the only hope we have of saving our nation from itself is the fully-automatic weapon.
Wayne LaPew fucked up.
February 4th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
OT(1)…but tangentially relevant to this comment…”Like John Wayne and Gary Cooper, Sylvester Stallone speaks his mind and lets the chips fall where they may. Good for him.”
Mike, I feel the same about Spike Lee and the stance he took against Quentin’s latest foray into exploitation. And you can be dang certain he’s gonna lose a heckuva lotta chips for speaking his mind.
OT(2)…”Where-in-the-world-is”…Carmen San Da Whitster?
Back to the regularly scheduled programming.
February 4th, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Spike Lee’s entitled to his opinion. He certainly heard from a lot of other people after he made Bamboozled, which I — for one — liked.
February 4th, 2013 at 7:07 pm
I loved BAMBOOZLED, although it made me feel guilty for liking tap dancing so much.
February 4th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Martha, check out any Nicholas Brothers routine. That’ll cure ya.
And it’ll make you doubt all that “gravity” shit.
February 5th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Spike Lee does not speak for all black people but he sure thinks he does.
February 5th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Alice…not sure where that came from, but just as points of clarification…
1. I’m pretty sure that Spike recognizes the truth that Black folks are not monolithic in thoughts or actions. And point of fact, this is a direct quote…”I cant speak on it ’cause I’m not gonna see it,” he tells VIBETV. “All I’m going to say is that it’s disrespectful to my ancestors. That’s just me…I’m not speaking on behalf of anybody else.”
2. Here’s a link to that portion of the interview… http://www.vibe.com/article/spike-lee-slams-django-unchained-im-not-gonna-see-it
3. I don’t speak for all Black people either, but I happen to TOTALLY agree with his (as well as another noted film producer/director Albert Hughes) assessment and criticism of both the film and it’s director’s seemingly soul rooted penchant for verbally denigrating Black people under the banner of entertainment.
4. My reason for bringing Spike’s name into this thread was in response to Mike’s list of actors who were willing to speak their truth to power…just like Spike has done…except that (imo) he stands to lose a whole lot more in doing so than those that Mike referenced.
February 5th, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Forgot to add…
5. I’m not ever going to watch DU either.
February 6th, 2013 at 8:01 am
Depiction is not the same as approval.
Right and left are united in this, united in being dead wrong. And moronic.
When the gun nuts confuse Stallone the actor with the gun-totting characters they play, they’re doing the same thing as the PC police when they go after Tarantino.
Stallone’s movies depict gun use, so “obviously” Stallone must approve of guns. Tarantino’s movie depicted racism and the word “nigger”, so obviously Tarantino approves of racism. And George Orwell approved totalitarian governments, since he made a career out of depicting them. Oliver Stone must have really liked the Vietnam War. Bram Stocker approved of vampirism.
If you find yourself tempted by violence after watching an action movie, the problem is with you, not the movie. You are a sick motherfucker if you think about killing people after watching a movie. If you’re afraid of becoming a racist just because you typed or said a certain word, then you might have deep problems regarding race anyway.
Americans apparently are regressing to pre-modern ideas that imbue certain words and images with the magical power of summoning the things they represent. If I say “nigger” I’m transformed into a racist, Shazam-like. If I depict violence in a movie, I cause violence in real life, apparently.
I’m not going to see Django Unchained because the price of movie tickets is outrageous here. But I’ll probably get the DVD.
February 6th, 2013 at 10:57 am
You’re also a sick motherfucker if you think about killing people BEFORE watching a movie.
I never understand why certain words are evil but euphemisms are okay. The euphemism is used in the exact same context and it immediately triggers the “real” word.
The most dangerous racist is the one who calls black people… black people. He’ll never use the word nigger — possibly not in private, possibly not even to himself. You will never see him coming, but don’t you dare try to apply for a job with him or drive past his squad car or order a drink from him. Except that you’ll never know.
I greatly enjoyed Django and I recommend it. A caveat: I’m a Tarantino fan. Your mileage may very. Most gutsy role Sam Jackson ever turned it — so good I’ve forgiven him (but him alone) for The Spirit.
February 6th, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Rene,
Re: your ‘PC police’ statement…I think you’ll agree that it’s far easier to overlook or minimize a thing when it doesn’t apply to one’s life or family, yes?
I imagine that if you had particular pride in your heritage and the struggles that your ancestors had to overcome to make inroads into the mainstream, seeing said culture constantly being referred to as ‘wop’, ‘dago’, ‘guinea’ or any other negative pejorative or repeatedly being visually denigrated in ‘art’, such actions might not be found to be quite as easy to brush off with just a wave of ‘Oh…it’s just ‘artistic license’.
And I can imagine that would be quite (and justifiably so) the uproar among the Jews (and world citizenry) if they were constantly being referred to (oh let’s just say 110x) with casual disdain or visceral hatred as ‘coal baby’,'oven ready’, or ‘Aushwitz bait’ while being shown in the most abject and humiliated circumstances. OH…and let’s not leave out having a character of Jewish heritage cheerfully and with familial love for the Kommendant help out with the ‘process’.
But on second thought, can’t you just see such a movie receiving all kinds of acclaim and support? Yeeeeah, I can see it now. Cause what would my ancestors…or my children care about that?
February 6th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Reg, I get your point. I’m full of Jewish heritage and embrace my Ashkenazi culture. I also like Mel Brooks and not for a moment did I think “The Hitler Rap” was a documentary. For that matter, I think “Blazing Saddles” was an amazing commentary on racism — it didn’t accurately reflect the significant role black people played in settling the west, nor did it accurately reflect anything else.
Such is the freedom of our culture. Django (which I’m not trying to get you to see; I respect your position) is first and foremost a love story, secondly a heroic fantasy. At what point does its scenario become unrealistic? When, at the very, very beginning of the movie, they get the date of the Civil War ludicrously wrong.
Compare Django to, say, Boardwalk Empire (and I may be the first person on Earth to do that). Boardwalk Empire takes real characters and mixes them with fictional characters, changes the name of the lead character but keeps his overall identity pretty straight, and then engages everybody in activities in which they never, in the real world. participated and weren’t even around for at the time.
Boardwalk Empire, despite its massive variance with reality, is — in my opinion — an excellent series. But for all its intentional abstractions, it is a far cry closer to accurate than the much honored Gangs of New York, which is so completely bullshit the historical timeline could have been written by Gene Roddenberry on acid.
And Gangs of New York was a lot closer to reality than David Mamet’s The Untouchables, which had more truth in common with Life Of Brian than the Al Capone era.
Oh. And Yankee Doodle Dandy? Yes, there was a George M. Cohan. The rest of the movie is largely bullshit. But, damn, it’s great.
February 6th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Mike,
We’re cool, bruh. Yeah, I understand that the movie is supposed to be framed as a love story…it’s the brick, mortar, and plumbing work with which I’ve got problems.
My major frustration is with the fact that there are MILLIONS of REAL love stories from Black creators (not to mention the whole human spectrum) that are absolutely beautiful, powerful, and life affirming but never get close to being green lit…because………………………………….
So let’s work on that piece, whaddaya say?
February 6th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Sounder? Gee, that was only about 35 years ago.
I know we’re cool and it’s okay for friends to have different opinions. Sometimes, it’s exciting.
I’m reminded that Jack Kirby once did a black romance comic magazine for DC which they then decided not to publish. To be fair, I think that was probably more because his other two magazine (In The Days of the Mob and, ummm, something like Ghost World) bombed so badly they killed ‘em before the second issues. This would have been an interesting book. I’m not sure that from a storytelling perspective a black romance story would be all that different from any other romance story, but Jack had quite an empathy for low-income neighborhood lifestyles. I reference Yancy Street and how half of his characters grew up with the Bowery Boys. But it would have been surreal, as was DU.
February 6th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Re: Sounder…SEE?! Exactly my point, right? First of all…ENUFF already with the majority of the so-called ‘relevant’ Black movies being framed in the past!!! You know, that time when’s we’s all subjugated and stuff.
It’s as if the so-called Black experience is capped off in that era. Virtually no visibility in a real and vibrant sense in the modern era…and as far as the future is concerned? Fuhgeddaboutit.
One of the most vibrant love stories I ever saw was Love Jones (based in Chicago of all places). A smart, witty, sexy, and adroitly acted (Nia Long, Larenz Tate, Isaiah Washington, etc) and directed (Theodore Witcher)movie that gave such a positive view into the predominant expanse of the (then) modern African American middle and upwardly mobile segment of the culture. And it made money. Two things to note…it was made 15 years ago, and the director was never given another project.
So where are the modern love stories, dramas, future framed thrillers or thought provoking sci-fi movies that would elevate culture across the board, but just happen to be crafted or predominantly acted by Black creators?
After all…it is 2013… Kind of past time to burn the sheets and let some freshness in, isn’t it?
February 6th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
p.s. What I forgot to add about Love Jones…was that it was a beautifully crafted story that was accessible and relatable to everyone (irrespective of culture or ethnicity) that cared about…LOVE.
February 6th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Now just imagine what could be done with The Homemade Time Machine.
Rimshot!
February 6th, 2013 at 4:29 pm
90% of the time, there’s only one reason “Hollywood” does or does not do something: they believe there will not be sufficient return on investment, or there will. They may be wrong, they are often wrong, and the way they justify their decisions seems insane to those of us with a condo in the real world… but it’s their $100,000,000 and in business the golden rule is “he who has the gold makes the rules.”
Small “g” only, sadly. I’ve got a large “G.”
The remaining 10% of the time is just petty bullshit: one guy doesn’t like another, there’s a perception the talent involved is “unreliable” or, you know, insane… personal shit.
I am fully, and dramatically, aware that the “that person is unreliable” damnation is disproportionately applied to black people than it is to whites. It was far harder for me to get a fair rate for guys I worked with like Malcolm Jones, Denys Cowan, Trevor Von Eeden, Tom Artis, and (hard as it may be to believe) Michael Davis (well, hell, let’s be real here: PARTICULARLY Michael Davis) than it was for all them white guys. That’s just a fact, and anybody who denies that hasn’t walked in my shoes.
By the way, I also found Hitchcock to be, first and foremost, a love story. Moreso than Django, but that’s probably because all that blood and violence in DU was less subtle than in Hitchcock. Or, to look at it another way, it was a lot more subtle in Hitchcock than in DU. I really enjoyed Hitchcock. Great story, greater performances, nice touch.
February 6th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Mike,
Very timely article timely article I just found that speaks to the truths and myths on the science you dropped regarding the mentality of Hollywood when it comes to so-called ‘Black’ film projects.
Your response also hit on the key element that I made a point of raising…Love Jones made money. And the theatrical market analysis for 2011 established that African Americans spend more at the box office than our White cousins. So clearly there’s gold (small g) in them thar pockets. Soooo, with that being the real story what’s the real deal that Black creators can’t get green lit?
BTW, I didn’t want to miss commenting on how ahead of the curve the great King Kirby was (and how grateful I am to him) with regards to his kicking open the door by bringing forth the Black Panther. To hear that he also crafted a Black romance project is chocolate icing on the cake. Mad respect for the Kirby.
But it also serves to highlight the strength of the monster. The only way that a Black romance could ALMOST get out the gate into the mainstream distribution channels was that a White author write it…40 years ago.
It’s 2013…and the channels are still pretty much closed.
February 6th, 2013 at 6:23 pm
My guess is that Love Jones didn’t make enough money to overcome Hollywood’s misconceptions. Which is amazing. The following argument applies to all media, but none more than Hollywood. It’s a one word argument.
Demographics.
Hollywood, do your research departments not survey race? You know, that optional question at the end of the survey that white people make optional because they’re embarrassed? On an annualized basis, how many dollars are spent on entertainment (movies, cable, home video, streaming, books, magazines, comics, music, etc.) by people in the black community? How many BILLIONS of dollars are spent annually?
Here’s the worst of it. When discussing black community entertainment spending, the argument I’ve heard time and time again ALWAYS has the word “bootlegging” in it. Them black folks. They’re all thieves, you know.
This, of course, is where I begin to lose it.
Because, to my experience, the dialog gets even worse when we discuss the Hispanic community.
And Hollywood is so liberal, isn’t it?
February 6th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
BOOTLEGGING???!!
Man…I just can’t…
Maybe the Mayans were right…TANJ
February 7th, 2013 at 5:38 am
Reg -
You are right in that I never really endured racism first hand, even though I do have some black and indian blood in me, like a lot of Brazilians.
But again I say: depiction is not approval.
I’m not amoral while reading or watching stuff. But what gets to me is the politics of the text, let’s say, instead of the politics of specific characters INSIDE the text.
Many times, the works that truly mean to attack and degrade minorities don’t have shocking scenes or shocking words at all.
Did you ever read AMERICAN PSYCHO? It was attacked by feminists when it was released, because it had some scenes of protagonist Patrick Bateman murdering women in some ridiculously grisly, detailed ways.
The attacks were very unfair, IMO. The scenes are disturbing stuff, yes. They were meant to be. But if you read the whole book, it becomes obvious that Bret Easton Ellis isn’t attacking women, his character is, but his character is supposed to be an inhuman monster. What Bret Easton Ellis really is attacking, and very savagely, is Wall Street yuppies and Conservative Reaganites.
He is showing us what is the logical extreme of the Conservative mindset of the self-made, self-serving, self-sufficient superman. A monster that sees women as objects.
Conversely, I’m 100 pagess into THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway. Maybe I’m wrong, because I have to read the whole novel first, but just from these 100 pages, Hemingway seems to me a real sexist prick, unlike Ellis, even though in Hemingway’s novel there is no women being ripped to shreds or called degrading names.
In Hemingway’s novel, all the females are portrayed as malignant harpies capable of incredible cruelty, except for the occasional minor character who is just ditzy. And here is the difference. Bret Easton Ellis DEPICTS misogyny. Hemingway’s novel JUSTIFIES misogyny, by depicting women as that cruel. The text itself seems to be misogynist, not only specific characters (though I may be wrong, I still have to read the whole novel).
Now, you can say the mere depiction of something is evil, because some people will get twisted pleasure from reading about Patrick Bateman killing women. Well, yes, but if you get a hardon from reading about women being killed, then you’re a sick fucker, and it’s not the book’s fault that you’re a sick fucker.
I’m not interested in how many times the word “nigger” is said in DJANGO UNCHAINED, or how many scenes there are with black people in degrading circunstances. What I’m interested in is the politics of the movie itself. Are the characters that use the word “nigger” portrayed as heroic and in the right? Are the black characters portrayed as deserving of the horrible circunstances they are in? Does the movie seems to make a defense of slavery? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I would have a real problem with Quentin Tarantino.
One more thing. Based on those 100 pages, I’d say Hemingway was a disturbed man with real problems with women. But it is still a fascinating novel. People should read it. Even though certain things in the novel leave a bad taste in the mouth.
February 18th, 2013 at 1:02 pm
I never did understand the idea of condemning a movie (or other entertainment) for its supposed content, while at the same time stating that one is never, ever going to *see* the content. Of course the word “nigger” is used – it would be an untrue depiction of the time if it weren’t. Question: Is this then presented as a *good* thing? Is it anywhere near as casually racist as, say, “Gone With the Wind”?
As for the question of firearms, so-called “assault weapons” and massive magazines aren’t a good idea if you’re resisting corrupt government forces, either. Do you really imagine your Vietnam-War-surplus AK-47 with its 30-round clip is a match for the might of the Mirror Universe US Army? Or is it more likely that staying in one place, firing away with all that ammo, is going to make you a target for some nice mortar rounds?
No, if you’re fighting government forces, your only real option is asymmetric warfare – guerilla-style, striking from concealment, firing a very few well-aimed rounds, setting off a bomb or two, then slinking back into the darkness. Rambo-style shootin’ is all very well for movies, where you have plot armor, but plot armor doesn’t exist in anything like reality…
So, as we can see, there’s really *no* very good justification for big magazines in them there scary-looking (but actually horribly inefficient) assault rifles. If you’re hunting, or defending your home, and you can’t hit your target in less than ten rounds, you need to go home, hang that weapon back on the wall, and go take some shooting lessons before you hurt somebody you didn’t want to.
February 18th, 2013 at 2:11 pm
“Of you’re fighting government forces, your only real option is asymmetric warfare.”
Which, of course, is exactly how we won the first Revolutionary War. It really pissed off the British, who felt we weren’t fighting fair.