Cinema Reactionarium

Films are quite powerful in their own right. From Westerns to Action-Adventure, Comedy to Sci-Fi, each genre has a way of capturing an emotion within each of us that no other medium can. But films can also be quite innocuous, and even bland to the eye and ear. These are primarily the "straight-to-dvd" fare that we see en masse at our local Hollywood Video or Blockbuster chains lining the walls like filler between movies that actually have something to offer.

The film reviewer, in many respects, is someone who should never be taken at his/her word fully. Their primary job is pretend that they understand the art and style of cinema and string a few sentences together in order to make the particular piece they are reviewing something it isn't - be that for good or ill. And when personal agenda is attached to this, the reviewer almost literally becomes a whole new form of entertainment themselves.

For example, Jonah Goldberg's recent review of James Cameron's magnum opus "Avatar" quite mirrors his take on Pixar's family flm Wall-e, as he proves once again that there's always room to read way to much into a piece of fictitious entertainment. This time it's not the creeping spectre of "fascism", but the injection of "religion" into the material:

The film has been subjected to a sustained assault from many on the right, most notably by Ross Douthat in the New York Times, as an "apologia for pantheism." Douthat's criticisms hit the mark, but the most relevant point was raised by John Podhoretz in the Weekly Standard. Cameron wrote "Avatar," says Podhoretz, "not to be controversial, but quite the opposite: He was making something he thought would be most pleasing to the greatest number of people."

What would have been controversial is if -- somehow -- Cameron had made a movie in which the good guys accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts.

Of course, that sounds outlandish and absurd, but that's the point, isn't it? We live in an age in which it's the norm to speak glowingly of spirituality but derisively of traditional religion. If the Na'Vi were Roman Catholics, there would be boycotts and protests. Make the oversized Smurfs Rousseauian noble savages and everyone nods along, save for a few cranky right-wingers.

But it isn't just Goldberg that is riding this train of the thought, the theory that Hollywood is secretly implanting racism, anti-colonialism, and religious persecution into films. Some conservatives are actually seeking to implant this bizarre notion that certain films espouse "conservative values" that others lack. And what they come up with is rather odd at times.

Over at HotAir, Allahpundit highlights a statement from Telegraph film critic Nile Gardiner where he takes a giant, headfirst, leap into the shallow end of the pool:

Every movie in Nile Gardiner’s top ten deals with war in one way or another except for one, and that one — The Dark Knight — is often read as allegorical about the war on terror and enhanced interrogation. Gardiner’s reasoning: “A central theme that runs through several of my top ten picks is the eternal conflict between good and evil, and why the forces of tyranny and despotism must be confronted and defeated. They include films that Barack Obama should watch as he contemplates appeasing the likes of Iran and North Korea, or turning a blind eye to mass murder in Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe.”

Ah yes, if only Obama would watch 300, he would see that he's acting like the King of Persia and that the tea-partiers are the brave men that fought to defend Sparta. Then maybe he would stop being a tyrannical leader. Typical reactionary wing-nut fare. But more so than Gardiner's laughable assertion that liberal/progressive Democrats can't seem to discern between good and evil is his complete lack of understanding of films that he deems "conservative" in theme.

The problem lies within Gardiner's claim that conservatives mirror the lead character(s) being portrayed in the film(s) he has cited. To say that modern conservatives can readily identify with Batman ( and it has been stated that George W. Bush was just like the Dark Knight ) or "Hoot" in Black Hawk Down, or even Maximus in Gladiator is to completely misrepresent the modern conservative.

Over the past year, we have seen people like Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, and a host of fringe members of the conservative movement completely take their ideology into an entirely new realm of paranoia and conspiracy. In the films that Gardiner references, if you looked at the traits of the lead character(s) in his top ten, none of the "leaders" of the conservative movement share these. The answer is quite clear, though many may not realize it.

Conservatives are so wrapped in this "what if" world, the fictitious world, that they have used it to rationalize their actions and words on a daily basis. From Jack Bauer in "24" to Batman and beyond, what Gardiner doesn't comprehend is that the modern conservative is about falling prey to fear, and spreading that fear like The Scarecrow's poison in Batman Begins. They shriek and howl like The Ring Wraiths in The Lord Of The Rings, seeking to regain that item of power that turned them into the beasts that they now are. This isn't to say that characters in certain films don't display conservative traits, but that the modern conservative has lost sight of what it really means to be a conservative.

The Fox Chick, The Pantload, And A Crazy

Have you ever had one of those moments where your brain simply freezes when you hear something so outrageously stupid? Well, you're about to.



Practically from the start, Beck's claim is completely refuted. It isn't the individual that uses the website to turn in the old car, it is the dealer.

Although there are several sections within the website that allow the consumer to see if they qualify, find answers in the FAQ section, as well as read current updates on the program, this mysterious page that has Beck all in a lather simlpy does not exist on the page for the consumer.

There may be a few reasons for this. Either Beck was punked by one of his alleged "constitutional watch-dogs" or he is simply making this up as he goes along. I'm opting for the later, but who really know.

The page does exists, though in a different form, in the dealer page of supplierpayments.esc.gov. This has nothing to do with the consumer, this is a TOS that is between dealerships that are transfering billions of dollars. Naturally, the language of the TOS is going to be strong and Federal oversight will be part of that.

You can view the terms of service agreement here.

Even right-wing blogs are starting to own up to the very real fact that Beck has been off the rails for quite some time.

Is there a point at which most reasonable people will start realizing that Glenn Beck is a raving freakazoid nut sandwich? Maybe this point?....What a disgrace; this is nothing but unjustifiable fear mongering, by idiots.

Why the feds would target something this supposedly nefarious at a tiny niche of people who want to trade in their gas-guzzlers is as unclear to me as why they’d tell you they’re doing it instead of doing it surreptitiously, as would be the case if GB’s allusion to Nazism near the beginning were accurate. I’m looking forward to hearing more on Monday, though, especially from Guilfoyle about how agreeing to the website’s terms of use grants the state a perfectly legal license to do whatever it wants with your computer.

But, some conservative blogs are still peddling this as fact.

After spending nearly an hour sifting through the CARS website, I haven't even found anything remotely close to what Beck is prattling on about. Of course, this should come as no suprise, as Beck would likely find fault in the Obama administration should it find the cure for cancer and AIDS within the same week.

Worst In The World v 3.9 & 4.0

Bill O'Reilly, Reverend Arnie Conrad, top McCain adviser




Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Bill O'Reilly

You Mean You Actually Take Jonah Goldberg Seriously?!?!

The Doughy Pantload - known to his "friends" as Jonah Golberg - is bad enough by himself.

Not content with knowing the definitions behind the labels he likes to toss out at people - the latest word that he is throwing around is Facism - he prefers to just make up definitions as he goes along.

Even if well recorded history proves him wrong again, and again, and again, he just keeps it up.

Here's an excerpt from his latest collection of pages with words on them, Liberal Facism:

To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.

Really?

I mean, it's just that I was under the assumption that Mussolini was a "facist" because he founded the "Facist" party.

He even gave a speech about this book to a gathering of the Heritage Foundation. But, those guys don't know what their talking about anyway - it was his kind of crowd.

But, Golberg's revisionist history aside - what's REALLY scary is when people start taking his socio-political diatribes seriously. Take, for instance, this character who reads Liberal Facism and then - apparently - has this epiphany while watching the movie Wall-E:

I am about two thirds of the way through Liberal Fascism (brilliant, by the way, and utterly absorbing), and so I find myself in “spot the Fascist” mode in just about everything I do – especially in regards to popular culture and movies

uh, oh - here we go....

Your dissection of the fascistic elements in “Dead Poet’s Society”, for example, really raised my eyebrows, as I have always really enjoyed the movie and know it quite well, but was not previously equipped to notice those sort of elements.

Dead Poets Society?!?! Really? Oh, Jesus....

I took my kids to see “Wall-E” over the weekend, and although I really did enjoy the movie, I was at various points struck by what I perceived as strongly fascists elements in the story and the aesthetics. Possibly I am REALLY over-reaching, ...

Gee, ya think so?

thanks to the fact that I am still tripping out over your book’s eye-opening thesis, but some elements seemed to fall right into the aesthetic and political traits you cite so often in LF:

Oh, I'm trippin-out man! Seriously, I'm buggin the fuck out! You've opened my eyes to so much shit, it's unreal man!

Get a fucking grip on yourself. You sound like Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now.

1) The entire issue of environmental concern and crises mongering, which pervades the movie, although admittedly in a fairly good-natured form that tends to avoid being preachy

2) The portrayal of the corporate consumer world as bad, with its attendant “system” that lulls the populace into a stupor, and which is then countered by the back-to-the-soil, making-it-real rebellion lead by the Captain after his spiritual awakening learning about the tribal roots of human society.

3) The use of the color red to mark those who have experienced liberation from the “system”

4) The mass rally on the Lido deck near the end of the movie, with its ordered ranks of humans staring up in awe at the Captain as he fights the system, and the green banners flying all around them as they do.

5) Eve shaking off her programmed directives and getting in touch with her emotional, passionate inner self when she sets out to save Wall-E.

Oh, my, God......you're still going, aren't you?

There were other things that tingled my “fascist sense”, or whatever, although I can’t immediately recall what they were.

Just picturing this guy, or Jonah, in a spiderman suit is about to make me loose my Junior Bacon Cheeseburgers...............ugh.

Are we done yet............oh, we're not.

I’m only asking out of mild curiosity, and am certainly not suggesting Wall-E is some sort of propaganda, or whatever. It’s a pretty enjoyable movie, and my kids had a ball, and I don’t think anything evil will come from its influence on them. But still, these things struck me immediately, as I was watching the film, and would love to get your feedback on them.

Do I just have a case of LF hangover? Or are these, in fact, fascistic elements that I’m seeing?

Seriously? You really want to ask that question?

Thanks! And keep writing – LF is a fantastic book; I just bought my dad one for his birthday. He’s a Kennedy liberal who fancies himself a compassionate conservative. Can’t wait to get his reaction it!

Well, it might not work as well as quilte Charmin, but i'm sure he will love it - thanks.

Wait......

I have to stop and breathe for a second. Ok, it's passed.

If you want a simple, short, direct answer to this - just read what Andrew Stanton says of the film in his interview with Christianity Today writer Mark Moring:

I wasn't trying to make the humans into fat, lazy consumers, but to make humanity appear to be completely consumed by everything that can distract you—to the point where they lost connection with each other, even though they're right next to each other. The reason I made them look like big babies was because a NASA guy told me that they haven't yet simulated gravity perfectly for long-term residency in space. And if they don't get it just right, atrophy kicks in and you begin to lose your muscle tone—you just turn into a blob of goo. For a while, that's what I did with the humans in the movie; they were just big blobs of Jell-O. But it was so bizarre, we had to pull it back. So I said, well, let's just make them look like big babies. That's where all that came from.

I wasn't trying to make some sort of mean-spirited comment on consumerism or today's society. I was going with just the logic of what would happen if you were in a perpetual vacation with no real purpose in life. So I went with the idea that we'd become sort of big babies with no reason to grow up. I definitely saw humanity as victims of this system that they were in. They were just big babies that needed to stand on their own two feet.

The last thing I'm going to do is try to make a message movie!

That last part is pretty important.

To say that movies don't have messages is pretty stupid in and of itself. To claim that there is a hidden "bad" message ( which is what conservatives think is the definition of "facist" - just anything that is "bad", I mean, how fucking vague can you get ) is an even worse thing to do. But, that doesn't stop people like the alleged "reader" from sending Jonah Golberg emails about Facist movies directed at children.

I bet you it was just a letter that Goldberg wrote himself and tried to pass it off as some rabid fan that is in some sort of stalker-style love.

Ugh, I need a shower now.