Sorry, MovieBob, but sometimes skewed knowledge can be worse than none at all. The problem with "revisionist" history nowadays is that most people don't know the basic history being revised. For example, Oliver Stone may argue that he is merely trying to put Hitler in "context" by giving his "side" of the record a fuller hearing. Unfortunately, as you point out, many people don't know many facts on the anti-Hitler side of the ledger. So if all they see is Stone's defense, then they will conclude Hitler indeed wasn't such a bad bloke after all. It's like revealing only one side of a mathematical equation. An observer will get the wrong answer. And in this case, the side Stone will emphasize is by far the less weighty one, greatly skewing the results.

I just Googled the professor, Peter Kuznick, that is cited as the writer of Stone's new miniseries. Here is his Rate My Professors page: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?t...

A few choice comments:

"Fun class. Kind of a joke. A very revisionist history course but if you keep an open mind it's pretty fun. It's cool how he ties pop culture to history. The books are not necessary but good reads if you're interested. You can get an A and put no work into it if you want. Half of his speakers cancel."

"Peter Kuznick teaches a polemic, not history. He then expects you to exclude anything resembling a polemic from your papers. His lectures are not structured and make no sense the way they are laid out...."

"Terrible class! I was expecting this class to be amazing but it quickly turned into one giant conspiracy! Interesting that he thinks because he is a professor he can just create historical facts without providing any reliable sources! He is so wrapped up in himself he is blinded by his own ego! I left this class not believing anything he said."

(That last one sounds just like Oliver Stone.)

One final observation: There are 40 ratings on his page, but his "hotness" total is: 0.

Let me see if I've got this straight: Hitler wasn't really such a bad guy. And Stalin wasn't really such a bad guy because he fought against Hitler. But if Hitler wasn't a bad guy, then why does fighting Hitler serve as an excuse for Stalin's monstrous crimes? However, if fighting Hitler is exonerating, then shouldn't America be excused for its monstrous (in Stone's eyes) crimes because, after all, America also fought Hitler?

It's so nutty, it would make my head spin -- that is, if I took Stone's line of "reasoning" remotely seriously. Oliver Stone, master of the theatre of the absurd.

As Hollywood self-servingly trumpets one "record-breaking" box office return after another, one should always remember that these totals are not adjusted for inflation. Here are the real box office records:
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

So I doubt Avatar has a chance to be the actual biggest-grossing movie of all time. That distinction belongs to Gone With the Wind ($1.485 billion domestic gross, in today's dollars) followed by the original Star Wars ($1.309 billion). Adjusted for inflation, Titanic ($943 million) is ranked 6th all-time.

For Avatar to place in the top 10, it would have to make a total domestic gross over $800 million. Pretty unlikely, I'd say. Of course, you'll never hear this from the Hollywood press, which are mere extensions of the studio PR machines. Why hamper a feel-good business story with actual context?

Speaking of context: Like most mindless-spectacle Hollywood product, Avatar is doing even better overseas than Stateside. (I'm sure the anti-American subtext doesn't hurt there, either.) But one should keep in mind that the studio only sees about 50-60% of these returns, as middlemen distributors keep a larger share.

MovieBob: Well, at least we've got you on record endorsing corporal punishment for children.

To the larger point: I think the reason the rest of the media are invoking separation of church and state is that they believe the media are a branch of the current government. (They certainly act that way.) And so, in their minds, Brit Hume's comments were a violation of the Constitution.

An open letter to President Obama: Here is a simple plan for how to resolve the problem of Gitmo. It takes advantage of a bizarre contradiction in your moral compass.

Step 1: Release Gitmo prisoners to the border area of Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Step 2: Launch unmanned Predator attack on Gitmo prisoner drop zone.

Problem solved! (Don't worry, I don't expect a public expression of thanks. The knowledge that I helped you destroy terrorists while keeping your conscience unsullied is reward enough.)

I second your thoughts on A Face in the Crowd. One of the wonders of that brilliant film is that it never tips its ideological hand. Lonesome Rhoads could just as easily be a leftist as a right-winger, just as demagogues come in all shapes and flavors. The movie is a cautionary tale about putting a demagogue on a pedestal, and no demagogue stands higher in the eyes of the media today than Obama.

Great art is a Rorschach test, everyone sees something different. A great critic acknowledges that, and doesn't try to compartmentalize it in order to score points with his ideological compatriots.

maatkare - Really? I have full digital Time Warner in LA too, but no sign of TCM-HD anywhere, on my TV or in their channel listings. Pray tell, what channel number is it??

The Snowman is a sadly underappreciated masterpiece, at least in the U.S. My European wife says that they showed that every year at Christmastime, and it was a family tradition to drop everything and watch it. The Snowman is an achingly beautiful, bittersweet story that will put a lump in your throat no matter how many times you've seen it.

I love how he also says, "I'm not a real poet" -- then proceeds to read his poem on national TV.

That's like someone saying, "I'm not a real pilot" -- just before he takes off in an airplane loaded with passengers.