OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

Created by OnePlusYou - Free Dating Sites

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Right, Film, And Reality

Considering the massive failure of the Atlas Shrugged film adaptation, one would have to wonder why The Modern American Right are proclaiming that there is this "grassroots" desire to see the new Palin propaganda film "The Undefeated"

ARLINGTON, Va., June 14, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In response to overwhelming demand from its
free-market grassroots activists for a sneak peek of the controversial
new film, The Undefeated, Americans for Prosperity Foundation's
RightOnline Conference will move the showing of the movie to the
1,000-seat main ballroom during RightOnline on Friday, June 17th at 9 p.m. CDT. The Undefeated is an independently produced feature film about Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. RightOnline is a conservative technology activism conference that runs opposite the left-wing Netroots Nation Convention.

Film, regardless of your socio-political alignment and regardless of the subject matter, is very touch-and-go. You produce something that the market won't like and you will lose in the end. This is why indie films don't see the return that blockbusters produced/directed by the likes of Spielberg or star Tom Cruise see. And while the Modern America Right equate audience share with validity, this is a market that they will always fail in.

The world of "niche film" is difficult to make any considerable profit from. But considering the bulk-purchase nature of conservative books, I'm guessing that the DVD release of the Palin mockumentary is going to be showcased by Fox"News" and their easily persuaded automatons as proof that "conservative filmmaking" truly has a market in American - despite the fact that they are currently pushing the narrative that all of Hollywood is against anything "conservative".

Another aspect of "niche film" is that there can be enough of an audience for your product if you market it correctly. After all, if there is a market of people willing to spend money to see someone's mouth attached to another person's asshole, then there's enough people willing to go see a film trying to convince them that Sarah Palin is "experienced enough" to be President. But never let these people convince you that that will break any records, as they never will.


Michael R. Brown said...

One part of the foolishness of the recent debates about Rand is the idea that agreeing with Rand's prediction and diagnoses in "Atlas Shrugged" - the accuracy of which has been demonstrated in the last few years to a nicety - somehow magically commits one to agreement with her total philosophy. Would this argument be extended to an atheist leftist who recommends Tolstoy or Victor Hugo?

The other part is a specific misrepresentation of Christianity. Christianity is not a pro-Statism religion; indeed, given who killed their Savior, it tends to the anti-State. (This is something the left has not yet dealt with.) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and *voluntary* charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.

This entire kabuki charade is in bad faith. The Bible does not advocate any Progressive notions of "economic justice." The progressives who have suddenly discovered religion and its necessary role in politics - after thirty decades and more of stridently and rightly insisting it must be kept out of politics - are not sincere. After this temporary rhetorical bubble is over, they will resume their previous, also ad-hoc, declarations.

As for the "sociopath" accusation, this is what comes of copying attack website garbage. The whole thing rests upon one author - Michael Prescott's - highly selective excerpting and chopping up of a private [i.e., thinking out loud without clarifications ] journal written when Rand was barely out of her teens, fresh from the blood bath of 1920s Soviet Russia - and still made it very clear that her read on the personalities of the observers showed that they were not appalled by Hickman's crime - she said there had been far worse, without the same spectacle of glee - but by his flamboyant and mocking defiance of society. She - who was writing about a *legally innocent man* at the time of the trial - even called him a repulsive and purposeless criminal. Enough with the disinformation and - yes - Satanizing of Ayn Rand.

aironlater said...

I'll address your seemingly endless preamble in each part as you have presented - despite the fact that you appear to have completely missed the clearly enumerated point of this post.

Considering what Rand postulated within the pages of "Atlas" - especially Galts 70-plus page rant that lead to the birth of "Objectivism" - one can't but state with absolute certainty that this was her magnum opus and her primary thesis, thereby solidifying her ideological bent. And considering the fact that the Modern American Right are considering it - at least in metaphorical terms - akin to Holy Writ, I think it's completely fair to point out that there is a very minimal market for this type of psuedo-philosophical blather.

The difference between Rand and Tolstoy & Hugo is that they at least presented some material that crossed boarders. Not everyone enjoys reading about the plight of the railroad industry and who wants to be a "successful" architect.

In terms of religion - Christianity most explicitly - it should be pointed out that Rand was quite blatant in her anti-Christian stance. I won't get into the nuance of the demonstrably false pages of whatever biblical scripture you care to reference, as many of us on the Left are either against strict implementation of religious dogma or are more than capable of showing the Modern American Right that the book that they hoist as if it were the American Flag that they understand it as much as a toddler understand the intricate nature of physics.

But to answer your laughable notion that Progressives have suddenly "embraced religion", I would offer the fact that you neither understand Liberal/Progressive theory nor Biblical text that the Modern American Right champions. And to claim that this is some form of "bubble" that we have created in an attempt to challenge the Right also shows your ignorance of the nature of "bubbles" - or at least you are clearly attempting to force the ideal of "bubble culture" to make your point seem all the more valid.

I will be honest at this point - I have no idea who Micheal Prescott is, nor do I care, as you are using a clearly defined ideal of Right Wing framing which I can easily spot from even the greatest of distances.

No one within the Modern Liberal/Progressive movement is "satanizing" Ayn Rand. This is simply a way for you and your ideological kindred to continue your Culture of Victimhood.

I appreciate the fact that you responded to my post, but next time it would favor you more if you actually did so within the context of it.

The Playlist Of Doom

Get a playlist! Standalone player Get Ringtones

Blog Archive