This is a partial transcript of an interview on Media Matters on May 17, 2009, between Bob McChesney and Chris Hedges. Hedges has traveled widely in the Middle East, reporting for the New York Times and other news organization. He’s also the author of several books, including American Fascists and War is a Force That Gives us Meaning.

His degree, oddly, is a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.

Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a reporter for fifteen years.

Hedges was part of The New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. In 2002, he received the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University and Princeton University.

Bob McChesney: One of the ways I became familiar with your work, Mr. Hedges, was when you gave the commencement speech at Rockford College in 2003 I believe it was, shortly after the “Mission Accomplished” speech by then-president Bush. You were hollered off the state by irate audience members who thought you were being disrespectful of the president when you criticized the war, and not unlike Michael Moore at the Academy Awards in the sense that history, as the line goes, has absolved you, and then some. But what occurs to me from that event is that we have now seen since 2003 the Iraq War has fallen from the news to a certain extent, but it’s also been repackaged as a victory of the Surge and things are now working out there and we are on the home stretch. DO you think what we are being told by the news media is an accurate perspective of what is taking place in Iraq today?

Chris Hedges: No. Iraq has been destroyed as a unified country. That experiment that arose out of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire is finished. And it is not coming back. What we’ve done is partition Iraq, and not only partition the country, but literally partition neighborhood from neighborhood in cities like Baghdad. There’s been a frightening ethnic cleansing, which we have tacitly empowered, allowing, for instance, the Sunnis to drive Shiites out of villages enclaves and neighborhoods that they control; allowing Shiites to do the same; standing by tacitly as the Kurds do that in Northern Iraq, especially in the city of Kirkuk, which is very important to the Kurds because it is oil-rich, and if they don’t’ control Kirkuk, Northern Iraq is not sustainable as a Kurdish enclave.

So the surge was a clever tactic in that it for a while mollified. You remember the huge car bombings in 2006, when really the mission was collapsing. But over the long term, we don’t own these people, we rent them. When they turn on us, and there are signs that they are already turning – as I speak remember there’s been a spate of suicide bombings in the last couple weeks in Baghdad – this war will once again, I think, unleash the kind of carnage we saw a couple of years ago. The occupation is not sustainable in Iraq, just as it is not sustainable in Afghanistan.

McChesney: Before we go to Afghanistan, just to complete the point here on Iraq, do you sense there is a difference between the Obama Administration policies in Iraq from those of the Bush Administration?

Hedges: No. It’s virtually the same. And it’s the same with McCain. They’re going to try and pull off ‘Occupation Lite’ in Iraq. I’m not sure it’s gonna work. Remember that they are leaning very heavily on a huge mercenary force in Iraq, and they are going to not bring these people home but transfer them to the Afghan theatre, because Afghanistan is really deteriorating. And I think that’s probably the precariousness of the Karzai government, the rapid expansion of Taliban control, perhaps not as widely understood (certainly understood by the Obama Administration and his national security team, but probably the American public doesn’t realize how dangerous the situation in Afghanistan has become for NATO troops.

McChesney: What would happen if the United States just withdrew as quickly as possible from both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Hedges: Well, that’s what I don’t want to see happen.

McChesney: Well, it won’t happen, don’t worry. I was just curious …

Hedges: I mean I don’t want to see the mission collapse. You’ve seen this – go back and look what happened with the partition plan with India and Pakistan, or the abrupt British withdrawal from Palestine, which triggered the 1948 war. This is the kind of thing you don’t want to see or Vietnam. But of course if they don’t begin planning for it, that is what will happen.

So people are once again walking into the embrace of the Taliban for much the same reason.

McChesney: And so to sum up, your sense is that the Obama Administration’s surge in Afghanistan is not going to solve the problem.

Hedges: Well they are hanging on by their fingertips. If you watch the news reports closely, there are attacks being carried out. There was one jus the other day in the center of Kabul. As a foreigner, you can’t walk around. If you look like me – I have blond hair – you can’t walk around the street of Kabul. It’s too dangerous. You have to get into a cab. And forget going outside the city limits unless you are embedded in the NATO forces. That’s also true in Kandahar. When the Human Rights Watch went to do its report on civilian bombings, which is of course another huge issue, their representative couldn’t leave Kandahar. They had to hire Afghans to bring people who had been affected by the bombing into the city to interview. It’s just too dangerous to go out on the roads.

So are we.

McChesney: When I was listening to you and reading your stuff I recalled, and correct me if I’m wrong, that as a consequence of your commencement address at Rockford College, there was pressure on the New York Times to reprimand you for taking such a strong opinion on the way. And the paper did actually do some sort of reprimand. Is that correct?

Hedges: Yes. My book, War is a Force that Gives us Meaning, had come out in the fall of 2002, and or course I’d just spent seven years in the Middle East, and inevitably I would be asked on Charlie Rose and all these kinds of shows what I thought about the impending invasion of Iraq. Like any Arabist, including all the Arabists in the State Department, intelligence community and the Pentagon, I realized that invading Iraq was a disaster. We wouldn’t be greeted as liberators, democracy would not be planted in Baghdad and emanate outwards across the Middle East, the oil revenues wouldn’t pay for the reconstruction. The non-reality belief system, the one championed by lunatics like Wolfowitz and Pearle and Cheney, none of whom know anything about the Middle East, and frankly, the world outside the backstabbing world of Washington. I also understood that as news reporter, to make those kinds of statements was to court professional suicide.

And then I wasn’t allowed to speak out about the way anymore. At that point I started looking for something else to do because I just wasn’t going to be muzzled. I’m one of the few Americans in this country- one of a few thousand – that has intimate experience in the Middle East, and of course months of my life in Iraq, and I just felt that it was worth leaving the paper, which I did.

I watched the movie Charlie Wilson’s War last week. I did not anticipate anything worthwhile, as Hollywood seldom shows much flair for depth or detail. And, as expected, Charlie was glamorized, the U.S. role in destabilizing Afghanistan minimized, and the war was portrayed as yet another rescue operation. Russians were the bad guys. But I had read a little bit more about Charlie himself, and was curious how Hollywood would portray him.

Russians really were bad guys, by the way. They killed hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens using sophisticated weaponry against a peasant population, just like we do. They left in their wake fields littered with bomblets that look like toys, blowing the limbs off children, just like we do. (Israel recently used cluster bombs, the source of the disabling bomblets, against Palestinians. The U.S. used them in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and in Serbia in 1999. I do not know if the U.S. is currently using cluster bombs in Afghanistan. It would reveal our inner Soviet to do so.)

The people who made this movie don’t know that we do all this stuff too, of course. It would not help if they did know it – it would only interfere with a good story.

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the U.S. set out in the summer of 1979, while Carter was still president, to lure the Soviets into an Afghanistan adventure.

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Hollywood should appreciate this, but doesn’t. They do make movies like Alien vs. Predator, where monsters fight it out while set extras look on. That was the 1980 conflict between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The people of Afghanistan were mere extras.

Anyway, Charlie comes off as a lovable drunk/party boy/cocaine user – a man with a quick wit and good heart. His compadre in this adventure, Gust Avrakotos (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), is also witty and quick and very smart. The movie was enjoyable, though Julia Roberts, who played Houston socialite/philanthropist Joanne Herring, is almost repulsive and detracts from the movie. She has all the acting skills of John Wayne (same character placed in different situations).

Of course, it’s all nonsense. No surprises there. Poor Afghanistan, then, as now, caught in the middle of the Great Game. At that time the game included Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in addition to the usual suspects. Each had its own ambitions, none cared about the people of the region.

The Russian/American war of the 1980’s destroyed the Afghanistan economy and left in its wake a country without a government. Then both walked away. The movie mentions this – Charlie is heartbroken that he can’t get any humanitarian aid for the place. But the power vacuum was soon filled by the war orphans who came to be known as “Taliban”. Afghanistan, barely able to feed itself, did produce one cash crop – poppies.

After the U.S. and the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1988, the country descended into “one of the more horrific wars of the twentieth century” (Chalmers Johnson). The CIA did not pay much attention until the former Mujahadeen, reconstituted (and renamed “Al Qaida” by the U.S.) bombed U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in the summer of 1998. Later, as official history goes, these same ragtags assembled and carried out the nefarious deeds of 9/11/01. The fact that most of the hijackers on that date were Saudis fits perfectly with the backdrop of the war of the 1980’s. Many of the soldiers the U.S. recruited to fight the Soviets were Saudi nationals.

The U.S. decided to re-enter Afghanistan in 2001, purportedly in the hunt for Osama, though they never really tried very hard to find him. Instead, they unseated the Taliban and installed a puppet government, just as the Soviets did in 1980. That government now controls Kabul and Kandahār, and not much else. Lately the U.S. has stepped up its efforts as the Taliban has reemerged and grown strong again. The war is spilling over into Pakistan, as the boundaries in the area are mostly symbolic anyway. It is developing into a regional conflict that may well spin out of control. Obama may have his Vietnam.

And, of course, the people of the area are mere set extras. The U.S. shows no more regard for them now than the Soviets in the 1980’s, gunning them down with impunity. We use drones – the Soviets used Hind helicopter gunships. The results are identical.

One must not discount the proximity of Afghanistan to Caspian Basin oil. Some of that oil now passes through Turkey and Kosovo (guarded in Kosovo by U.S. Camp Bondsteel, constructed after our 1999 attack on Serbia). The logical direction of the oil would be east, to India and China, but the U.S. doesn’t want that outcome. Looking at a map of the region, the logical solution is to pipe it through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ports on the Indian Ocean. But this requires a stable government in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). It may never happen.

U.S. foreign policy does not change, one administration to another, Democrat or Republican. Obama is carrying out the Clinton/Bush policy, though the conflict is intensifying. McCain would be doing the same.

And philanthropist/idealist Charlie Wilson? He recently had a heart transplant, the old one having been worn out by so damned much caring.

The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation.”(Marx, Capital, Chapter 3

Marx is passe’, I know. Turning the reins of power over to uneducated workers led to a system of imprisonment that taught us all a lesson. So I don’t hold much respect for worker-controlled societies. As in Russia, uneducated workers soon give way to right wing militarists, always waiting in the wings.

There’s really no escape from rule from above – there is only the ability to offset some of the ill effects with progressive policies instituted by force of public will and through government – progressive taxation, universal health care and education, and breakup of monopolies, to name a few. In those societies where such policies have succeeded, people are happier, and even though it sticks in the craw of the right wing, their high rates of taxation have not diminished their individual liberties.

So I am not a Marxist in the sense that I think good governance comes from the uneducated masses. But I do believe in one of the prime precepts of Marx – that wealth is created by labor, that capital is derived from that wealth, and that labor and capital together create new wealth in exponential progression. But I am a Marxist in this sense – Marx very accurately described what we call “capitalism” – the absence of restraints on accumulation. He was just wont to come up with a viable alternative. His solution, communism, was a profound human tragedy on the scale of World War II, maybe even equaling the ill effects of European colonization.

But we have indeed come up with a viable alternative: let the marvelous engine do its thing, but regulate it. Tax the accumulators at high rates to prevent them from gaining too much power. (Accumulators invariably think that they are the producers of wealth, and want us to cede power to them on that premise. This is the essence of Rand.) Equalize some of the benefits by offering health care and education to everyone, to give everyone a firm footing on which to do their life’s work.

The end result, if the post below is any indication, is that we can have what Marx wanted – freedom from want. But to achieve our goals, we need to keep the accumulators (and the politicians and economists and philosophers in their service) at bay. In the U.S., we’re not doing a very good job. We are #23 on the list in the post below – not a bad showing, as we do have a social safety net here.

But our social safety net is under persevering attack, and has been since 1980. As a result, I would guess that our direction on that list is downward, and further that we once sat much higher on the list. Perhaps we were number one.

From The Road to the Horizon:

Adrian White, from the University of Leicester’s School of Psychology, analysed previously published data to create a global projection of subjective well-being: the first world map of happiness.

The research is based on the findings of over 100 different studies around the world, which questioned 80,000 people worldwide.

The top 10 “happiest” countries:

1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. The Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada

Damn Canadians – even though they hate their health care system, they are generally happier than the U.S., which placed 23rd.

So what do these countries have in common?

1. Public health care systems. Their citizens don’t have to worry about getting sick or how to pay for it, and are therefore free to pursue their life’s work.
2. Public education systems that allow students to go as far as their intellects will take them. They don’t enter the work force saddled with huge debt.
3. Low military spending. Denmark’s may be typical – the purpose of their military is to preserve their “sovereignty”. And since they don’t have tentacles all over the globe messing in everyone else’s affairs, it’s unlikely anyone is going to attack them.
4. High taxes. Higher than we pay, for sure. But the deal is this -they don’t have to worry about medical or education costs, and have minimum wages laws that drive wages high enough that they can all make a good living on after-tax dollars.

This all flies in the face of right wing orthodoxy. The question is, what does one do when one’s world view is shown to be wrong?

1) Turn away, or
2) Spin it.

Gregg Smith links to a Forbes piece by Bruce Bartlett regarding the Social Security Trust Fund. Bartlett says (surprise!!!) that it is not real, and that we should ignore it.

Most Americans believe that the Social Security trust fund contains a pot of money that is sitting somewhere earning interest to pay their benefits when they retire. On paper this is true; somewhere in a Treasury Department ledger there are $2.4 trillion worth of assets labeled “Social Security trust fund.”

The problem is that by law 100% of these “assets” are invested in Treasury securities. Therefore, the trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It’s as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn’t increase your net worth.

Sometime after 2015, given current trends, Social Security will no longer be funded in total by current taxes, and will have to draw on its surplus, or Trust Fund. I have been expecting that as we draw closer to that date we would begin to see the right wing and its think tanks begin to caterwaul about the Trust Fund. Bartlett’s piece is as dishonest a piece of sophistry as I have ever seen, and it is just the beginning. The man is a professional liar. Others will be stepping forward.

A little Trust Fund history: Ronald Reagan set out shortly after being elected to crush Social Security. What he found was an impenetrable wall of support for the program. So, he decided to “fix it” instead. What he did was probably intended as a large scam – he had just cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and in doing so had created monstrous deficits (for his time, anyway). The government needed to reduce these deficits over time, so Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in human history. But the taxes he increased were only those of working people – in his day, those making $37,800 or less in wages or self-employment income.

To be fair, most of his tax increase was not set to go into effect until years later. But to this day, his tax increase has resulted in $2.3 trillion in revenue for the government raised mostly from lower and middle income working people. We call it the “Trust Fund”. (The government uses an accounting device invented by LBJ, the “Unified Federal Budget” to bury the Social Security surpluses in with all other government operations, using it to mask the size of the real deficit. The deficit is so large now that the masking is insignificant, but it was not always so.)

Many suspected at the time that Reagan and the right wing were not being honest – that they never really intended that such a fund would have legal standing. They thought that Reagan was merely completing his mission in office – to shift as much of the tax burden as possible away from the wealthy and onto working people. I suspect as much, and evidence that suspicions are correct will play out in the coming days, as economists and other thinkers on the right wing step forward to tell us that “Hey – that so-called Trust Fund? It’s not real!” Enter Bartlett.

So, OK – the Trust Fund is comprised of bonds that the government owes “to itself”. Are the assets then real? Yes, according to Alan Greenspan, who said in 2001 “The crucial question: Are they ultimate claims on real resources? And the answer is yes.” In truth, all debt within a society is money we owe to “ourselves” – one only need expand the deficient of who “we” are to include everybody. In fact, if we expand the definition of “we” to include all humanity, then the money we owe China is owed to “ourselves”. (Let’s repudiate it!)

But it’s not that simple, and here is where the right wing legerdemain comes in. Not all taxpayers pay into the Trust Fund. Not all income is subject to FICA taxes. It is only wages and self-employment income, and an onerous tax on Social Security beneficiaries (also Reagan’s doing). We who have built up the Trust Fund are a subset of the whole of the taxpaying public. The Trust Fund is a legal claim by a subset of taxpayers on the whole body of taxpayers. Workers who built up the Trust Fund will soon turn to all taxpayers – investors, corporations, new workers, and those who pay tariffs (if any tariffs are collected anymore), to repay that debt so that we can collect our benefits.

That was our agreement.

Bartlett dismisses the Trust Fund out of hand. No surprise there. He says that the only way to cover future Social Security deficits is by increasing the Social Security tax. That is, his class of taxpayers, owners of securities and other passive investments, should not have to repay any of the money that was borrowed from workers to cover the Reagan/Clinton/Bush deficits.

Social Security’s unfunded liability equals 1.3% of the gross domestic product. So if we were to fund its deficit with general revenues, income taxes would have to rise by 1.3% of GDP immediately and forever. With the personal income tax raising about 10% of GDP in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this means that every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid.

Got that? Bartlett dismisses out of hand the notion that the whole body of taxpayers, which includes the wealthiest people who are exempt from FICA taxation, are liable to repay the debt embodied in the Trust Fund. He’s repudiating it. His middle name might well be “Madoff”, as in “made off”. The very idea that “income taxes” – those taxes collected on all income, including from investors and corporations, would have to be raised to cover a legal obligation seems beyond the pale for him.

Fear mongers like to run out exponential numbers to scare people – they do this with Medicare, citing unfunded future liabilities that are so large that the whole of the economy will be consumed. What they fail to mention is that all of health care is in a crisis, and that the private sector too will not be able to sustain current growth rates in medical costs. Bartlett’s class likes to use these numbers to scare us into doing away with Medicare, even though it represents the most efficient sector of the health care universe. It’s politics – nothing more, part of the right wing agenda to do away with all social programs.

They are doing the same thing with Social Security, running the numbers out in perpetuity.

Economists generally believe that the appropriate way of calculating the program’s long-term cost is to do so in perpetuity, adjusted for the rate of interest, something called discounting or present value.

Social Security’s actuaries make such a calculation on page 64. It says that Social Security’s unfunded liability in perpetuity is $17.5 trillion (treating the trust fund as meaningless). The program would need that much money today in a real trust fund outside the government earning a true return to pay for all the benefits that have been promised over and above future Social Security taxes. In effect, the capital stock of the nation would have to be $17.5 trillion larger than it is right now.

In perpetuity, to borrow a phrase, we are all dead. Nothing is sustainable when exponential growth is applied – the curve always tilts sharply upward in twenty years. Truth is, that far out, nobody knows anything. All we can do is take care of the present and the near future. “Near future”, in Social Security terms, would be 2040 -2050. Even that is beyond reckoning – guesses get wild beyond even five years.

So as Social Security is structured, it is theoretically solvent to around 2040 or 2050. We’re OK. President Obama (that guy who campaigned for office anyway) wanted to extend the life of Social Security to theoretical perpetuity by extending the payroll tax to incomes above $250,000. He’s broken most of his other campaign pledges, so I assume he will break that one too. But if we need a fix, that would be it.

But that kind of fix would affect Bartlett and his class. What are the chances? It depends on who owns this country.

Anyway, I gave Gregg hell for being too quick to jump on the repudiation bandwagon. I stand by that. The message to right wingers is to “man up”. Honor your commitments.

for double standards. I made the whole thing up.

MtPundit (Shackleford – who else?) put up a post on Megan McCain, calling her a “painfully stupid attention whore”. As usual, Shackleford turned it all on the left, over whom he looms as the great new intellectual in the sky, or Coobs reincarnate.

I am impressed by all the liberals that think she’s like, totally kewl ‘n stuff!! “I’m mean, ZOMG!1! If more Republicans were as rad as Meghan, I’d totally be a Republican…cuz, like, she totally hangs out with Perez Hilton!1! Quit bein’ so square GOP…be totally rad and hip and off the chain like Meghan!!″

Seriously…nobody sees anything wrong with the Left gushing over this little ignoramus?!? “No, no! If you do it this way, then there’s a waaaay better chance of winning!! Here, let us help you!!” Um…no? If the advice of liberals were taken to heart, then we’d all end up as liberals.

And worst of all…she likes shitty movies…

Who the hell thought Benjamin Button was a good movie? Such a waste of time! I should just assume if Judd Apatow didn’t direct it, its bad.

…
That is why I am already nominating “The Hangover” for best oscar, even if it hasn’t come out yet.

That is all.

I am “Tomatoguy” over there – and thought it appropriate to introduce to them an example of intense stupidity:

Let me give an example – in one of her speeches during the campaign, Sarah Palin made a haughty arrogant comment about public money being wasted on research involving fruit flies. She had no clue that the research being done would affect her own disabled child.

Now, that is merely ignorant, I grant you, but I’ll take it one step further – the information she needed to process what was being done with fruit flies is beyond her – a place she will never go because it will never occur to her. The world of science and Sarah Palin will never intersect.

And that is because in addition to being ignorant, she is stupid.

Now I leave it to each of you to try to begin to comprehend what you don’t know. I’ll wait.

The answer I got:

You’re off-topic…try to keep up.

PS: Benjamin Button was indeed, in my humble opinion, a terribly boring movie. Brad Pitt must have been preoccupied with the seemingly inescapable situation he got himself into with a psycho bitch and seven kids. Now the kids will suffer, and the paparazzi of the future have a fertile feeding ground.

From AMC Filmsite: Here are some memorable film quotes. Can you recall the movie?

1. “Toga! Toga!”
2. “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
3. “Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”
4. “We rob banks.”
5. “Michael…we’re bigger than U.S. Steel.”
6. “Remember, you’re fighting for this woman’s honor, which is probably more than she ever did.”
7. “(Hey!) I’m walking here! I’m walking here!”
8. “Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!”
9. “Open the pod bay doors, (please) HAL.”
10. “If they move, kill ’em.”
11. “Tell me, how did you find America?” …- “Turn left at Greenland.”
12. “I’ll have what she’s having.”
13. “I feel the need…”– “…the need for speed!”
14. “A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.”
15. “Mmmm-hmmm! This is a tasty burger!”
16. “Nobody puts Baby in a corner.”
17. “(Well), A boy’s best friend is his mother.”
18. “I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.”
19. “Get away from her, you bitch!”
20. “I love the smell of napalm in the morning…smells like…victory.”
21. “Now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven’t broken any rules.”… – “You want me to hold the chicken, huh?”…- “I want you to hold it between your knees.”
22. “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

Answers are below:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1. Animal House
2. Jaws
3. Planet of the Apes
4. Bonnie and Clyde
5. The Godfather, Part II
6. Duck Soup
7. Midnight Cowboy
8. Dr. Strangelove
9. 2001: A Space Odyssey
10. The Wild Bunch
11. A Hard Day’s Night
12. When Harry Met Sally
13. Top Gun
14. The Silence of the Lambs
15. Pulp Fiction
16. Dirty Dancing
17. Psycho
18. A Streetcar Named Desire
19. Alien
20. Apocalypse Now
21. Five Easy Pieces
22. Dirty Harry