Maggie Gyllenhaal's 9/11 remark sparks outcry

[MellowOne]

NEW YORK (April 27) - Maggie Gyllenhaal has waded into sensitive political waters by raising questions about Sept. 11 and American foreign policy. The 27-year-old actress, who stars in a new film about the 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, said in an interview last week that the United States "is responsible in some way" for the attacks.

A fan Web site devoted to Gyllenhaal was overwhelmed with criticism, forcing the site's editor to remove the ability to post messages "because it's gotten too outta hand."

In a statement issued Monday by her publicist, Gyllenhaal said Sept. 11 was "an occasion to be brave enough to ask some serious questions about America's role in the world. Because it is always useful as individuals or nations to ask how we may have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to this conflict.

"Not to have the courage to ask these questions of ourselves is to betray the victims of 9/11."

more....

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/celeb/article.adp?id=20050426152709990006&ncid=NWS00010000000001

"I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way."
-Maggie Gyllenhaal in NY1 interview about her new 9/11 film

[e75]

1. duh

of course America is responsible, we elected the man who ordered it. She was probably overwhelmed by sheep guided there by con leaders like limbaugh

[impeachthescoundrel]

3. Only one disagreement with your post

The man responsible wasn't elected.

[clem_c_rock]

27. BINGO - YOU BEAT me to the punch

Come on - everone on earth seems to be able to see some form of complicity by the Bush administration except Americans.

Sometimes denial is the first thing you have to overcome.

[ET Awful]

2. Odd, Maggie says it and people throw a tantrum,

Falwell and Robertson say America brought it on themselves and that it's the fault of lesbians and gays, and not a peep from the peanut gallery.

[fishwax]

45. yeah, it's a wonder isn't it

Falwell and Robertson say what they did right after the attacks, but somehow the left is the "blame america first crowd"

:puke:

[MellowOne]

4. America doesn't want to know

This weekend I watched "JFK" with Kevin Costner, the film about Jim Garrison. The whole time I was thinking, government cover-ups are impossible to prove. The evidence of Kennedy's assassination was overwhelming but the country refused to believe.

The same is true for election fraud and 9/11.

[MadHound]

5. Actually most of the country did, and still does believe

That the JFK assasination was a conspiracy. The polls I've seen in the past few years run around 75% believing in a conspiracy around the JFC assasination. In fact the government reluctantly declared that JFK's assasination was the result of a conspiracy back in '79. The trouble is that these voices and findings have been ignored and drowned out over the years, until the American public has come to believe that nothing will be done to put the case to rest, and after forty years they are now overwhelmed with apathy and the more immediate matters of living in an out of control crony capitalist society.

I imagine that the 9/11 conspiracy is going to follow the same course, with a vast majority of Americans believing that it wasn't a simple terrorist attack, and possibly some obscure governmental committee finding that it wasn't the simple terrorist attack we've been led to believe. But it will all get buried by time, apathy, and the rush of other events.

Meanwhile, we can continue to expect attacks that we're "crackpot conspiracy theorists" for daring to search for the truth.:eyes:

[MellowOne]

7. Maybe I should have said

America didn't know what to do about the JFK cover-up.

But they did have to close down Maggie's website because of all the hate.

[carnie_sf]

12. The most interesting thing

about the JFK conspiracy to me was the makeup of the Warren commission. Gerald Ford, George HW Bush etc.

[MellowOne]

24. Jim Garrison

Call the Warren Commissions Report fiction, I say ditto for the 9/11 Report.

[driver8]

35. Exactly -- people don't want to hear the truth...it might interfere with

the coverage of Michael Jackson or American Idol.

When did this country get so fucking stupid??

[grumpy old fart]

46. um, I wouldn't give much weight to an Oliver Stone version of reality...

plenty of good conspiracy investigations, running in all directions, out there. JFK makes just too pat a case...as it's meant to, of course.

[Cooley Hurd]

6. One would have to be brain-damaged to NOT see her point...

...and NOT agree with her. Of course, that is, if you actually believed that they "hated us for our freedoms.":eyes:

[slor]

8. Maggie Gyllenhaal...

I will make a point of seeing all of your films from this day forward!

[lectrobyte]

36. Secretary was a great movie. She rocks!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

10. Well, now THERE's a substantive rebuttal

Okay Maggie, Hightide1977 says you're ugly, so your opinion is invalid. So there!

[Hightide1977]

11. Exactly!

Thanks for getting my post.

I can't stand ugly celebrities.

:)

[junkiebrewster]

16. You Sir (or Ma'am)

need to see Secretary, post haste. It WILL change your opinion.

On a slightly related note, has anyone ever noticed how these people get so worked up about what celebs say and then end their argument with, "Well, his/her opinion doesn't matter. He/She/it is only an actor." If the actor's opinion is so invalid, why does it have their knickers in a knot?

[LTR]

42. Very good point!

Consider that all those wingnut radio guys are nothing but failed disc jockeys (Limbaugh), bartenders (Hannity) and hippie botanists (Savage). Any journalism degrees here? Zero, zip, nada.

If you're an American, you are given the constitutional right to say whatever the hell you want. And Maggie brings up some very good points that somebody should be talking about.

[gratuitous]

21. Thank you mods

An even dozen posts. Probably a personal record for our friendly neighborhood interloper. Though I had him/her alerted by post 3, so the last 9 shouldn't count.

[smirkymonkey]

41. I can't stand ugly Americans.

[Cooley Hurd]

13. She's a very talented actress, not to mention...

...adorable!


Ugly?:eyes:

On edit: Buh-bye...:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

15. Wingers don't even have taste in their mouths.

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Ugly?

She's hot as all git-out.

You smoking crack?

[MercutioATC]

19. Have you seen any of her movies?

She can actually act. I think she's attractive anyway, but talent is always a huge plus.

[shockra]

20. Um...

Not to defend your post or anything, but Maggie and Jake are the children of director Stephen Gyllenhaal.

http://imdb.com/name/nm0350455/

Getting a job in Hollywood is a lot easier if you have a father with influence.

[loudestchick]

50. Actually, I think her mother, Naomi, has the more impressive credentials.

Just saying.:hi:

[lateo]

22. I'd hit it...

[Misunderestimator]

37. God, how I hate that expression...

...and like you actually think she'd let you "hit" her. :eyes:

[AP]

14. At least it's nice to know she's not a right winger after starring in...

...that awful, conservative movie Secretary.

[conflictgirl]

30. What?! In what way was that a conservative movie? nt

nt

[AP]

31. It pretended that giving up your job is empowering.

It made domesticity seem like an accomplishment.

Giving up an income is never empowering.

[chefgirl]

39. I hate to nit pick, but

If THATS the message you got from that movie, it either went totally over your head, or you weren't paying close enough attention.

Conservative is the LAST word I would use to describe that movie.

For the record, there are many, strong, intelligent women who believe that the type of submission that movie portrayed, IS empowering, for a variety of reasons.

Im just sayin....:shrug:

-chef-

[AP]

43. What happens in that movie?

What is the last scene in the movie? The woman becomes a housewife sitting on the porch of a home in the suburbs. She has no career and nothing to do. But she has the fiction of being empowered by being at the receiving end of a sado-masachistic relationship. If you think that's liberal...

To me that movie was telling women that everything in your life can make you powerless, but if you're willing to subject yourself to degreadation by a man who really gets turned on by degrading women, you have power over that man.

That's bullshit. You may have power over that man, but that sure is the most useless kind of power there is. You're better off having a economic power and your dignity.

Just because a movie choses as its subject something that church-goers might prefer to think doesn't exist (S&M) doesn't make a movie liberal.

A liberal movie about S&M would be a movie about a women whose career is selling S&M to customers with whom she has no personal relationship, where she can easily draw the line between her professional life and her private live, and where she is clearly the one with the economic power in her client relationships. Secretary was about a woman who gives up her job enters into a personal relationship with her S&M partner, is financially dependant on that person, and is cut off from ALL power other than being a housewife to the guy who degrades you. That's a conservative movie cloaked in the veil of being about alternative life styles. It troubles me that a lot of impressionable women so that movie and thought, hmm, this is an independent film about something that's different, so the argument it makes about relationships must be legitimate. Women who watch Secretary need to spend a little time with the original La Femme Nikita and Buffy and Veronica Mars so that they can see some liberal representations of women.

[chefgirl]

47. Methinks your personal issues are clouding your judgement.

There are plenty of other forms of power besides economic power, and I'm NOT only talking about sexual power.

You said:

To me that movie was telling women that everything in your life can make you powerless, but if you're willing to subject yourself to degreadation by a man who really gets turned on by degrading women, you have power over that man.

(What if the woman in question is not only willing to, but PREFERS to? There are women who derive GREAT power and fulfillment from exactly that. Perhaps you're unaware of that, which is why I suggested that this movie might have gone over your head)

That's bullshit. You may have power over that man, but that sure is the most useless kind of power there is. You're better off having a economic power and your dignity.

(To YOU, maybe it is bullshit, but I assure you, to many women, economic power is NOT the be all and end all of their lives. It might also surprise you to know that those very same women DO derive dignity from submission.)

A liberal movie about S&M would be a movie about a women whose career is selling S&M to customers with whom she has no personal relationship, where she can easily draw the line between her professional life and her private live, and where she is clearly the one with the economic power in her client relationships.

(There is far more to S&M, for many people, (actually the relationship in that movie was D/s) than a business transaction, and it would seem to me that the truly liberal position would be to respect THAT womans choices as much as a woman who decides to walk the path of the 'economically empowered')

If thats not your cup of tea, thats all well and good, you are entitled to you opinion, just as the women who related to the character in Secretary are entitled to theirs.

I dont care to threadjack any further, and apologies to the OP, so if you REALLY feel you have more to say about this, feel free to IM me.

-chef-

[AP]

48. "Methinks"? Who talks like that?

Answering your questions:

(1) I think the movie has to work really hard to convince women that preferring degredation and economic powerlessness means that you have power, and I think that, ultimately, the argument was not very convincing at all. I wasn't sold.

(2) They should make a sequel to Secretary. One year later: no career, no love, tired of degredation. Where are you now? Not in a good place. She'd be better off with economic power than the hollow, ephemeral sexual power she THINKS she has.

You cannot end a movie with a marriage (one of the most conservative institutions there is) and a woman without a job sitting on the porch of a house in the suburbs, with the husband going off to work, and with a relationship based on the degredation of that woman, and think that the movie is making a progressive argument about relationships.

Basically, the movie is making an argument that you can be in the most conservative of relationships imaginable, but if there's a kinkiness to it, then it's OK. That's the way I read it. It's OK that we had different readings. Mine is as legitimate as yours.

Could you do me a favor of outlining your argument a little more clearly. I'll be open minded. Go ahead. What do you think the movie is arguing. I know you've said that there are women who see that kind of relationship as power. OK, I'll accept that. But could you make that argument in the context of the film? Why is she so desperate to get married? Why the wedding dress, chaining herself to the desk, and ending with that scene of ultimate female domesticity?

If the argument of the movie is that D/s relationships are actually powerful for the s, then is the movie putting her at the recieing end of so many conservative relationships (married, unemployed, secretary, etc.) to make the point that you can have NOTHING, but the (power?) of submissiveness, and then you have a great deal? Is that really a good argument?

Do you know s's who are submissive in EVERY aspect of their lives and are having satisfying lives?

I really think the movie, as I said, just tries to convince people to be at the recieving end of everything and that that's good. Secretary is like if the Matrix were about taking the red pill and not the blue pill (did I mix that up?). It's the equivalent of trying to argue that Neo was a hero for staying plugged in and having the delusion of happiness.

[chefgirl]

49. ok....

:eyes:

-chef-

[AP]

51. I edited that last post...

...don't miss the part about the Matrix, and my request for your reading of the film.

[liberalmike27]

17. Just

I just saw a media bias thing on C-Span 3, and interestingly Tucker Carlson was talking about how quiet Democrats were leading up to the war. We see why in this example. You can't even imply that we might have done something that caused these people to be horribly pissed off at us, or the media will pound you to a pulp. Is it any wonder that the Democrats didn't want to come under the pounding of the consolodated rich mans media hammer?

[BlueUnionMan]

23. They Weren't Quiet...

They weren't quiet, they were supporting it. Why do we all have such bad memories here when it comes to Dems. OVERWHELMINGLY most Dem Senators voted in favor of the war and CONTINUE to support it.

This was the most confusing part of supporting Kerry. Kerry posed sort of anti-war in the primaries but he basically supports the action in Iraq.

During the election my fellow liberals all acted as if Kerry was the anti-war candidate who would get us out of Iraq. He promised to do a better job in Iraq than Bush, not to get out.

Most of us posting on this site want us out of Iraq but there is not one major Dem (and Kucinich is not a major Dem) is in favor of that.

[Auntie Bush]

25. What's so difficult about believing it was a disaster to go there in

the first place...but NOW that we're unfortunately there we must have peace or the whole Middle-East will erupt in a Holy war and drag us into it....and that would be far worse. Yet, I still ache for our troops to come home now! :cry: GEORGE bBUSH** is the worlds biggest asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish we had an Icon for asshole. I need it regularly.

Rethugs are for war and distruction...Dems are for peace and reconstruction.

[AVID]

26. One smart woman!

Gonig to movie store today to check out some of her flicks.

[Kerrytravelers]

28. AOL shows people think actors should shut up.

<http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/celeb/article.adp?id=20050426152709990006&ncid=NWS00010000000001>

This is where we are at, folks. Disagree with RWers, and you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion.

When is it going to end? Once our side is completly shut down and dissolved. That is their ultimte goal.

[bvar22]

29. Go Girl!!!

Yummmm!

"Not to have the courage to ask these questions of ourselves is to betray the victims of 9/11."


UNAMERICAN!!!! She believes in Cause and Effect!

[MsTryska]

32. Oh MY GOD!

why does Maggie Gyllenhal hate America?!?



seriosuly tho - she does make movies that wingnuts either watch or should be watching, so it's no skin off her back.

[femme.democratique]

38. Like The Secretary? Maggie G. is awesome....

and I doubt right wing nutjob freepers would be watching that one!

[MsTryska]

40. hee hee...looking at my post...it seems i

dropped an "n".


it should have been "Neither watch Nor should they be watching."


*lol*

[rebel_yell]

33. stay strong Maggie...

You're a beautiful and talented person. Don't let em get to ya. You're better than them

[MellowOne]

34. Here's a link to AOL message board

A mix of good and bad but interesting.

http://boards.aol.com/movies/artlist.mbl?boardId=367615

[smbolisnch]

44. Those people are insane. RE: Jewish people........

"He didn't die; you all MURDERED him. I saw The Passion and I know my bible."



Ok. :eyes:

[Catherine Vincent]

52. I shall remember this woman's name.

Anyone that dare speak the truth about the disaster in the White House deserves my support.

[MellowOne]

53. My thoughts exactly

Celebrities do have a platform. People will listen to them before an average Joe.

People do listen to celebrities if they admit it or not. I would like to hear more speak up like Maggie. But many are afraid it will harm their careers.