Weekly Jackass Number Fifty-Two: Viggo Mortensen
If you know who Viggo Mortensen is, chances are you’re a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson’s epic adaptation of the beloved fantasies. Indeed, Mortensen was a near-perfect Aragorn, though he followed up that triumph with the giant flop Hidalgo. Of course, it’s not Viggo’s acting talents I take issue with, but his words:
Viggo on Cindy Sheehan – I…had a sense of just how threatening someone like this would be to people who are used to running the show, in terms of perception and media information—or disinformation. It’s like she pulled an end around just by being herself, a relatively ordinary woman displaying extraordinary courage and being quite eloquent and brave, knowing she’s being savaged and hearing it and standing up to it and having her say as an individual and as a woman. The fact that she was a woman—how could this little woman do that to us?—it just galled them. I thought, good for you.
A woman? Perhaps Viggo is unaware that our Secretary of State is a woman; that Karen Hughes is one of Bush’s most trusted advisors; that Bush nominated his long-time legal confident Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Bush as misogynist? Ridiculous on the face of it (and, in a pattern that we shall see repeated, Mortensen offers no proof, not even of the anecdotal variety, for his assertions).
Viggo on Bush:I’m not anti-Bush; I’m anti-Bush behavior. In other words, I’m against cheating, greed, cruelty, racism, imperialism, religious fundamentalism, treason, and the seemingly limitless capacity for hypocrisy shown by Bush and his Administration.Q: What’s wrong with pinning it all on Bush (ooohhh – subtle question, eh? – Mark)?
Mortensen: It’s too easy, and it lets a lot of people off the hook. I think impeachment proceedings need to be started immediately but not just against him. God forbid we should have Dick Cheney as President. No. Those two need to go, and many of the others in the inner circle need to go.
Mortensen sees no need to provide examples, once again, of the racism, treason, and other assorted crimes against humanity he places on Bush’s shoulders. It’s a shame he appeared with such a friendly, unchallenging interviewer; I’d certainly love a crack at him myself.
Viggo on America:I think most Americans will look back on this period since 1980 as a morally bleak, intellectually fraudulent period of history. There will be a certain amount of shame, a feeling we were part of something wrong. People standing outside of this country can see this because it’s very obvious. It’s like looking at a spoiled brat, a kid who’s totally out of control, but because the parents are really rich and because they own the school, you have to put up with it. America is an empire in decay. But we don’t have to lash out and do damage on the way down. We can reverse some of the damage we’ve done. It’s possible.
Ahh, yes – the true sign of the patriot, the showing of contempt for the nation that freed Afghanistan from the grip of the Taliban and Iraq from the brutality of Saddam Hussein.
I could go on, and search out other interviews, but it would be a waste of my time and yours – Mortensen shows no sign of understanding any of the deeper issues beneath the surface. Instead, he’s content, with the approval of a politically sympathetic sycophant for an interviewer, to spout all the cliches about ‘imperialism’ and ‘religious fundamentalism’. There is not a single argument in view; just empty assertions for a fawning audience who think it’s just so cool that someone so good-looking is ‘so together, man’.
Contempt is the word that comes to mind – my contempt for his contempt towards the country that made him a wealthy man…
The Lord of the Rings is pretty high on the Jackass totem pole, too…
UPDATE 12/15/05 12:33 p.m.: Thanks to Leon H. at Red State for the link…
imo:
“It’s like looking at a spoiled brat, a kid who’s totally out of control,”
the rest of the world is like a petulant teenager with their hand out. when “others” say if you don’t like it then leave: well we did. we came here. and what has happened for the past 300+ years……immigration TO europe????? i don’t think so. the rest of the world is following us here………why?
“but because the parents are really rich and because they own the school,”
yep. we built it with our own money and know-how, didn’t take any UN action or any of that world0crat stuff.
“you have to put up with it.”
no. you can get off your lazy ass and do the same. you can’t you say. then see my first comment above.
Only a character as great as Aragorn could drag Viggo up from the depths–to wit, in Hildago the horse’s ass is revealed.
I can’t believe he didn’t sign that ‘worldcantwait’ thing in the NYTimes.
Viggo: The fact that she was a woman—how could this little woman do that to us?—it just galled them. I thought, good for you.
Mark: A woman? Perhaps Viggo is unaware that our Secretary of State is a woman; that Karen Hughes is one of Bush’s most trusted advisors; that Bush nominated his long-time legal confident Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Bush as misogynist?
Huh??? You completely missed his point. He is saying a small lady, a distraught Mom, is standing up to the big, bad establishment. Not a Senator, not a celebrity activist (at least not then), not a cash rich organization. To him it was David versus Goliath. The Bush Administration was scared because her story was getting traction, an unknown woman from nowhere. This has nothing to do with misogyny. That Condi Rice is a woman is completely irrelevant to his point.
Viggo: I think most Americans will look back on this period since 1980 as a morally bleak, intellectually fraudulent period of history. There will be a certain amount of shame, a feeling we were part of something wrong. People standing outside of this country can see this because it’s very obvious. It’s like looking at a spoiled brat, a kid who’s totally out of control, but because the parents are really rich and because they own the school, you have to put up with it.
Mark: Ahh, yes – the true sign of the patriot, the showing of contempt for the nation that freed Afghanistan from the grip of the Taliban and Iraq from the brutality of Saddam Hussein.
Viggo thinks America is spoiled, out of control, and making up the rules because it can (“parents…own the school, you have to put up with it.”). He is right that many people outside of the US believe this. They think there are two sets of rules: one for America, and one for everyone else. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, which most countries opposed, was an example of this. To this list you can add Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, our aggressive stance vis-a-vis the UN, etc.
You can disagree that America plays by its own set of rules more than most countries. It’s an interesting discussion. But instead you just question Viggo’s patriotism, then bring up Afghanistan and Iraq! But Iraq, as I said, would help prove his point: America doing what it wants, the world be damned.
And let’s be clear about one thing: America, like all countries, does most things out of pure, unbridled self interest. Let’s not kid ourselves that we freed Afghanistan from the evil grip of the Taliban because we felt bad for normal Afghanis. Or that we took out Saddam so Iraqis can taste freedom.
Finally, patriots criticize America. In fact, I would say it’s unAmerican not to speak up when you think the US is wrong, or failing to live up to its fundamental beliefs. Viggo may be mistaken in his criticisms, but disparaging his patriotism is an easy way to end the debate without addressing any of his points.
Joe, I’m not saying that patriots blindingly accept everything their country does; of course, dissent can be valuable – but automatic dissent is as blind as automatic acceptance. The idea that the true patriot is the one who dissents is hollow; I certainly feel no shame about the Iraq War, and neither do millions of others – my point is not that I’m right, or that Viggo is right, but rather that Viggo asserts these things as if they are self-evident.
If you are trying to convince me of the wrongness of American unilateralism, you’ll have to do better than Kyoto, the UN, and the International Criminal Court.
Your point about Viggo and Cindy Sheehan is a very tortured reading; reading Viggo’s quote a third, fourth, and fifth time does nothing but convince me further that Viggo intended to ridicule Bush as unable to deal with an uppity woman…an absolutely false charge…
“I’m against cheating, greed, cruelty, racism, imperialism, religious fundamentalism, treason, and the seemingly limitless capacity for hypocrisy shown by Bush and his Administration.”*
*Please let Vigo clarify…
‘But I don’t want to pass judgment on anyone in Hollywood who has cheated on their spouse,I do not wish to disparage an actor being paid 20 million for a movie-they deserve it,my problem is with religious fundamentalist of the Christian persuasion-not Scientology, treason-when it applies to republicans(as dems are incapable of doing it) and hypocrisy in regards to the holding of an absolute view of good and evil, except when it is applied to democrats and republicans.’
(It would help if the actors would put their educational backgrounds on their bio’s, but the ones who have a college degree are discouraged for making the Huffington Post look …well…uneducated.)
I am not trying to convince you of the “wrongness” of American unilateralism. I am pointing out that America often acts unilaterally. And more so than most other countries. At least that is the perception internationally. Which was one of Viggo’s key points.
But Joe, Viggo said more than that; he not only said that the perception was that we were gung-ho yahoos, but that it was the reality:
I think most Americans will look back on this period since 1980 as a morally bleak, intellectually fraudulent period of history. There will be a certain amount of shame, a feeling we were part of something wrong.
That’s unambigious…
Let me guess…he is also against Islamic extremism, but figures they only killed 3000 in america, whereas we killed 30,000 in Iraq…in his black and white world, America is far worse.
Joe,
as soon as you figure out that all countries are self interested, you might realize that every country in the world functions unilaterally.
or you can keep convincing yourself that the world really cares about the world, and Americans are unlike everyone else, as we are richer than other countries, so it inherently means we are greedier than other countries-and thus more self interested.
Viggo has bought into that dream, you are just echoing it.
Would you care to explicate the jackassery of Lord of the Rings?
Well, Viggo as Aragorn – but I think I’ve confused my LOTR references here – I guess Sauron was the Lord of the Rings, eh?…
I wonder if Joe (and Viggo) feels that in sacrificing our blood and treasure in order to free the world not one, two but three times in the past century (including the Cold War), we of course were acting unilaterally.
Then we can add in Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti – the list is indeed endless of places where we went out of a humanitarian concern, and there was no material or self – interest in sight regarding our motives.
I guess we should’ve told the Indonesians to bugger off when they asked us to help them after the Tsuanami hit last year, or told the African countries suffering from the AIDS crisis that we couldn’t give them any of our drugs – because again, there wasn’t really anything of value to us in doing so.
God, what a bunch of heartless bastards we all are – right, Joey? Where on earth did you learn your History – at The Sorbonne?
Referring to the following list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars
the only time the US has acted unilaterally since World War II without direct provocation was Operation Just Cause (Panama).
In every other war, the US appears to have had at least one ally, if not many more.
Granted, I may have missed one.
As far as I know, France, in the second half of 20th century, has acted unilaterally much more often, from Algeria in the 60′s to the Ivory Coast in 2003.
unilateral=self interest.
Wonder if Joe could take the time to explain how the following countries acted unilaterlally, as well…
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Estonia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Mongolia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
Thailand
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
(List is from Jun 04) sorry Spain.
Hey Vigo, Norway is on the list…I guess the Norwegians do tend to be unilateralists…
Cheap shot, Mark.
On any given day, half a dozen celebs are making inane remarks. His job isn’t to be coherent or know anything about politics or the world — it’s to look good while reading words others have written.
Now, politicians, reporters, commentators and academics are all perfectly fair game.
But. since we’re commenting on Viggo’s inane remarks, today…
He’s calling for President Hastert??? I mean, I have nothing against Dennis Hastert — I think he’s fine at the job he’s got, but that’s a far cry from being President. And the dark days began in 1980?? So… the late ’70s with gas rationing, stagflation, and the hostage crisis was Viggo’s Golden Age??? Holy Cr*p! I used to think people who yearned for a return to the ’50s were revisionist. And… the Fall of Communism was morally bleak?!?!
But… again… why not pick on someone in a heavier weight class, like Madeline Albright on Sunday chastizing Republicans over their new ad (the one that’s nothing but Democratic party leaders talking) and saying “Tim, there is not one Democrat who wants us to fail in Iraq. … to be maligned as not patriotic… is unacceptable.” So much to do with that — point out that Howard Dean, the nominal head of the party, has been calling for us to withdraw in defeat; point out that nothing in the RNC ad mentioned patriotism, and that constantly screaming “I’m not unpatriotic!” whenever anyone criticizes you for anything is liable to make someone start to wonder if perhaps you might be unpatriotic — such sensitivity must come from somewhere. She even goes on to rehash the “imminent threat” meme; the “sanctions were working” meme; falsified intelligence; “war of choice”; and “no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein” — and she does all of this in about twenty seconds of air time.
This from the woman who used to represent you and me to the world. **shudder**
…not to mention she once danced with Kim Jong (aka “Fearless Leader”) at a diplomatic reception, and thought it was a great moment in our relations with North Korea.
She really is starting to look like the twin sister of Helen Thomas these days – sounding a lot like her, too.
dmac-thanks for that vision of Albright dancing with Kim.
It sounds like something that was left on the cutting room floor of Doctor Strangelove, part deux.
A few comments to finish this off:
1. But Joe, Viggo said more than that; he not only said that the perception was that we were gung-ho yahoos, but that it was the reality:
Once again, you refuse to address what someone has written, then “rewrite it in your mind” to become “gung-ho yahoos” or “misogyny” etc. Then you can claim another “moonbat” (LGF) or “Jackass” (D08). Viggo said America acts like a spoiled, rich child. That we, more than most countries, ignore international rules and norms whenever we like. Yes, we tend to dress it up a bit (ignoring the UN, pretending we don’t use torture), but the end result is the same. And the key here is Viggo’s point that most people outside of the US see this behavior from the US clearly. And this is true. This point was never addressed. You can claim most of the world is wrong and the US is right, but then you would be more or less confirming Viggo’s point!
2. Mark: Your point about Viggo and Cindy Sheehan is a very tortured reading;
You right-wing types really have a problem recognizing torture. Viggo said: The fact that she was a woman—how could this little woman do that to us?—it just galled them.
A little women. Women have less power than men throughout the world. So it was more about David versus Goliath than misogyny. His main point was that it was not a powerful Senator (Kerry?), investor (Soros), etc. who finally made them panic, but a “little woman”. A nobody.
3. mtl: Joe, as soon as you figure out that all countries are self interested, you might realize that every country in the world functions unilaterally.
Maybe that’s why I wrote this in my previous post: And let’s be clear about one thing: America, like all countries, does most things out of pure, unbridled self interest. Heh.
4. Aaron: the only time the US has acted unilaterally since World War II without direct provocation was Operation Just Cause (Panama)…etc.
Firstly, thank you Aaron for actually addressing one of the concerns raised by Viggo! Finally! Firstly, I agree with you in the sense that a literal interpretation of “unilaterally” clearly shows that the US rarely acts unilaterally. I suppose even with Kyoto, or by maintaining the death penalty, or by refusing to sign up to the International Criminal Court, we were always joined by a few countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and other bastions of democracy and freedom).
Even in Iraq, there was a coalition. But there is clearly the perception that the US is the head of the “bad group”. Let’s take two examples: (1) Iraq. Worldwide opinion was against military action. Most countries wanted us to wait. The “coalition” we put together (see mtl’s comment) was tenuous at best. In fact, for fun, pick a couple of those countries and see where support for the war in Iraq is with ordinary people then and now. Also see how many people were sent to fight. You’ll quickly notice their contribution was almost purely political, a cover for the Bush Administration. The exceptions are probably UK and Australia. (2) Kyoto. The recent talks in Montreal were portrayed as the US against the world in the international press. It was terrible PR. By the way, I think Kyoto is practically worthless. It will do almost nothing to stop global warming, and the costs are horriffic. However, the Bush Administration has done nothing to explain why it opposes Kyoto, nor has it proposed its own solution. Nothing. It just flirts with the idea that global warming is a ruse. Where is the leadership on this issue? What’s our plan? Who knows?
5. mtl: Wonder if Joe could take the time to explain how the following countries acted unilaterlally, as well…
Well, that sounds like a good argument, unless you are even slightly familiar with politics in those countries. Let’s take the Czech Republic. This was a poll taken before the war began: http://www.sweb.cz/stop.valce/irak11.htm I’ll translate for you: Většina obyvatel České republiky, 72 procent, neschvaluje útok Spojených států a jejich spojenců na Irák. A majority of Czechs, 72%, are against an attack by the United States and its allies on Iraq. I can guarantee you more Czechs today view the war in Iraq as a huge mistake. Also notice that it was “the United States and its allies”……. So this coaition wouldn’t have existed without US leadership, a point that is not lost on the world. Go ahead, pick any of the countries on the list, including the UK (!) and now even the US (!), and see how popular the war is with citizens, then and now. Bottom: just because the Czech Republic, or Romania, or Mongolia, sent troops, do not assume their citizens believe it to have been a just war or a good idea. In most cases they don’t, and by huge margins.
Joe, we’ll agree to disagree, I suppose; my final point is that just because I didn’t say what you want me to say doesn’t mean I didn’t address Viggo’s points, shallow and trite as they were…btw, Joe, millions of Iraqis go to the polls today – are you, like Viggo, feeling ‘a certain amount of shame’? Pride is the word that comes to my mind…
Joe, millions of Iraqis go to the polls today – are you, like Viggo, feeling ‘a certain amount of shame’? Pride is the word that comes to my mind…
Hello Mark. I am very happy that Iraqis are voting. Only a Jackass can say this is a bad thing. However, it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the war, to state that it wasn’t worth the price, that it would have been better if the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam themselves, etc. Yet still recognize the good that has come out of the invasion.
By the way, you are doing it again! Viggo did not say he feels shame that Iraqis are voting!! He said:
I think most Americans will look back on this period since 1980 as a morally bleak, intellectually fraudulent period of history. There will be a certain amount of shame, a feeling we were part of something wrong. People standing outside of this country can see this because it’s very obvious. It’s like looking at a spoiled brat……
He specifically said the period from 1980 until today. He did not say anything about the elections in Iraq! You are misrepresenting what he said to prove your point that he is a “jackass”.
Do you think someone can believe the war was a mistake but still be happy that Iraqis have a chance to create a real democracy?
Why does it always have to be so black and white? He is ashamed by some of the things the US does, ergo, he must feel shame that Iraqis are voting! What kind of logic is that?
Joe-
You seem to confuse elite European opinion with that of the whole world.
Ask the Kurds their opinion of the war. Ask the Iranian youth their opinion of America. Compare eastern Europe’s opinions of us to their opinions of France, Germany or Russia. Ask the people of any former-European colony in Africa their opinions of America, Europe and the U.N. and we come out head-and-shoulders above (especially if you ask in a former French colony).
Ask people anywhere in the world what country they’d most like to live in, and the U.S. will come in second (after “my country”) in nearly every country on Earth.
It is simply not true that we deviate from “international norms” more than most other nations — rather, because we are the largest, people are looking more closely, and screaming loudly about much smaller “deviations” than they would even notice in another country. Witness the outrage at the (apparently untrue rumor about) dropping a Koran in the toilet — a single possible incident insulting one religion by a very junior representive of our government. Compare to the outrage at France forcing all young muslim girls to take off their head scarves in school — an action by the whole government restricting the free exercise of that religion. Or witness the brazen unilateralism of Belgium as it arrogates to itself the right to try foreign leaders for crimes against humanity. Or look at the direct taxpayer support of churches in many European countries, religious instruction in the public schools, and even towns barring muslim communities from building mosques (including a mayor commenting that no mosque would be built in his town until a Christian church was built in Mecca). Or look at the rash of violence against jews and synagogues taking place in Europe — consider the international outrage the destruction of a single mosque anywhere in the U.S. would inspire.
It is perhaps possible to make a case that religious tolerance is not the international norm — it is much harder to make a case that any other nation provides more religious freedom than the U.S. does.
Alright, Joe, I was only teasing you…I’m glad you are happy about the Iraqis voting, too – and believe me, I do think you can honorably oppose the war…I don’t believe Viggo blindly accusing Bush of treason (something you’ve neglected to mention) is an honorable form of opposition – but enough, I’m tired of talking about Viggo, I’d rather talk about the future of Iraq…
Mark,
Fair enough. The future of Iraq is a much more important topic that Viggo. But I don’t think he’s a Jackass. Far from it.
Clint: I’m afraid that the opinion of the US in the world has fallen quite a bit the past four years. Not just in western Europe. There are probably countries/areas where this hasn’t happened (among the Kurds, perhaps in Israel, India, perhaps a few others). But overall, the trends are not good:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
Anti-Americanism in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, which surged as a result of the U.S. war in Iraq, shows modest signs of abating. But the United States remains broadly disliked in most countries surveyed, and the opinion of the American people is not as positive as it once was. The magnitude of America’s image problem is such that even popular U.S. policies have done little to repair it. President George W. Bush’s calls for greater democracy in the Middle East and U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Asia have been well-received in many countries, but only in Indonesia, India and Russia has there been significant improvement in overall opinions of the U.S.
Lots of people want to live in the US. They think it’s a vibrant country, great for business. But overall opinions of Americans, or rather US policy, are not good. Just like you may enjoy a trip to Paris, but that doesn’t mean anything about your views of the French government or their foreign policy.
Mark: I don’t believe Viggo blindly accusing Bush of treason (something you’ve neglected to mention) is an honorable form of opposition
Here I completely agree.
Joe, one more thing; I appreciate people who come here and disagree with me as much as I appreciate the ones that agree with me (well, okay, maybe a little less – but I appreciate them!). By challenging my assumptions and my sometimes lazy logic, your critiques force me to try to avoid such blunders in the future (and yes, I blunder quite frequently – but hopefully with less frequency as time goes on)…
OK, Mark, fair enough. And I take back the “LGF” comment. That was a low blow…
We all make assumptions about other people based on very little info. It’s worse here on-line, because we only have time to post a few paragraphs about what we believe. So it’s impossible not to simplify, to fill in the blanks for the other person.
We all become a parody of ourselves. Like the “dems” portrayed on right-wing talk radio, or the “Repugs” discussed on left-wing forums. It’s hard to find a little space in the middle, since you’re usually drowned in a sea of partisan cacophony.
Even though we certainly disagree about whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq, I can assure you we agree that failure is not an option. To have Iraq deteriorate into civil war would be a HUGE setback for the war on terror. Hence my serious concerns about this venture. Sadly, I fear there is little we can do now. It’s going to be up to the Iraqis.
If the elections go well, if Sunnis can feel part of the government, and if the religious extremists can be isolated (the last one is a big IF), then there’s hope. I put our chances at 25%. We’ll see.
Hey, no harm, no foul; I hope you’re overly pessimistic on the chances of success, but at least we have the same goal in mind…
Pew is a known recipient of the wealth of George Soros, and has also admitted that their research methods concerning countries other than our own contains quite a few flaws in their protocols. Language translation, leading questions, and assumptive queries often lead them into incorrect conclusions. Also – they called the last election for Kerry, with him winning by a substantial majority.
That pesky exit polling, you know…
Joe-
“…only in Indonesia, India and Russia has there been significant improvement in overall opinions of the U.S.”
It’s worth noting that these are three of the largest and most important nations in the world. That 71% favorable opinion in India (up from 54% before the War) is a huge triumph of Bush diplomacy.
Also, unless the accompanying table of data is wrong, that conclusion (that only those three countries…) is completely false. In fact, only in Turkey can we say that our popularity decreased in the last year. And the cause seems obvious: we championed a federalist constitution for the Iraqis which recognizes a Kurdish state within the Iraqi nation.
It’s hard to understand how the author of that summary statement was able to consider the enormous jump from 27% favorable to 42% favorable in Lebanon and from 1% to 21% in Jordan over the last two years not to be significant improvement — especially as those are all of the Arab countries included in the table.
Final thought (thanks for the interesting data!) — we’ve heard often that President Bush has squandered the post-9/11 outpouring of support from the World. The Pew statistics you cite show only Russia having a more favorable view of the U.S. in 2002 than in 2000. Interesting.
Break it down for him Clint. =)