Here are two good pieces about the Sean Penn film The Interpreter, another example of Hollywood’s politically correct self-imposed blindness.

First, Greg Crosby at Jewish World Review: Terrorist denial.

The terrorists in the story, as originally written by two screenwriters, were to have come from a fictional Middle Eastern country. Throughout the 90’s the script bounced from producer to producer, each claiming the story just wasn’t ready to be filmed in its present form. Finally Kevin Misher became interested in the project and the plot was reworked.

Because of the 9/11 attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists in 2001, Misher didn’t want to make the terrorists in his movie Middle Eastern. “We didn’t want to encumber the film in politics in any way,” Misher said. So now the assassination plot involves a fictional African country called Matobo. Matobo — great name.

Did you get that? He didn’t want to “encumber the film in politics.” What is he talking about? Middle Eastern terrorists have been blowing people up all over the world for years. Are there terrorists that come from other regions? Yes. But the preeminent terrorist danger to the civilized world right now happens to be oozing out of the Middle East, not Africa, not Northern Ireland, not Antarctica. Besides, in the original treatment the Middle Eastern country mentioned was also fictional. Why is it okay to have terrorists from a fictional country in Africa, but not from a fictional country in the Mid East?

Is Misher afraid of offending Middle Eastern Islamists? Is he scared for his life? Does he want to avoid Arab “racial profiling?” My sense is, the guy is in liberal Hollywood denial over Islamic Wahhabi terrorism. If he doesn’t want to “encumber his film in politics,” then instead of making a film on terrorism maybe he should have produced the next Benji picture. No politics? Almost every movie to come out of Hollywood in the last fifteen years has had a leftist political bent. Who is he kidding? …

Funny how things have changed. Movies didn’t have any problem in depicting the rotten Germans in World War I and II. No problem in calling the Japanese our enemy for bombing Pearl Harbor. There have been plenty of films made about the cold war with no hesitation in referring to the Russians as Russians. Imagine a producer making a cold war spy picture and saying he “doesn’t want to encumber the film in politics in any way.” Why then, this current reluctance to call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist?

Then read Debbie Schlussel, who reveals that the film’s glossy idyllic image of the United Nations is deliberate propaganda: “The Interpreter”:  Sean Penn’s U.N. Mash Note.

Just when the U.N.—the bizarre confab of Third World republics and America haters—is getting its due in the media, Director Sydney Pollack comes to the rescue.  “Interpreter”  portrays this fraudulent former League of Nations as the idealistic body it never was and nothing close to the International House of Bozos it’s been for at least half a century.

Kofi Annan is one smart cookie.  After months and months of exposes on the U.N. chief and his son for their scandalous roles in the Oil for Food scam, this long two-hour campaign commercial comes to the rescue.  That explains why Annan gave Pollack—via 9/11 Comissioner and former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry—unprecedented access to the U.N. to film this love letter to Banana Republic Hate-fest Central.

At a meeting with Annan, Pollack promised Annan that “it would not be a movie that exploited the U.N. or the subject of terrorism.”

What he really meant was, “I will portray this august, heavenly institution as a bastion of principle, completely divorced from reality.”

Instead of whoring itself out for money in exchange for propping up dictator Saddam Hussein and his barbarism, “Interpreter’s” U.N. is a great hall of freedom and democracy from beginning to end.  Bonus:  The falsely-named International Court of Justice—an illegitimate star chamber used to attack the U.S. and Israel and promote despots—is hailed in this movie, too.