comment #1

Kristopher Tapley says ...

What do you expect? He's fucking French.

comment #2

PaulKolas says ...

Actually, even though I wouldn't go so far as to say the film was disgusting and looked like it was directed by George Bush, I will say it is the most "Hollywoodish", as in emotionally manipulative and dramatically disengenuous film Oliver Stone has ever made, a "de-fanged" attempt to atone for the monstrosity of "Alexander". And just for the record, I'm far from French, I just can't stand the joke of a man we have for president. I applaude and cheer and feel for what the firefighters and police did in the aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11, and I support our troops in Iraq, but I can separate those feelings from the fact we are living in a quasi dictatorship run by corporate hooligans who don't give a damn about anything but their own self interests.

comment #3

jeffmcm says ...

A film by George W. Bush would look more like Snakes on a Plane than WTC.

comment #4

NYCBusybody says ...

I actually think a film by George W. Bush would look like the old film clip reels that would play when one of the Muppet Babies would open a closet door. Like, monkeys in cowboy hats riding around to fast ragtime music.

comment #5

NYCBusybody says ...

That being said - again, as I've said before, is this really news? A person in the French film industry DOESN'T like George W. Bush? Alert the media!

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

Maybe the French can make a version of that novel where there's an orgy in Windows on the World while the building burns. You know, for a more intellectual take on it all.

comment #7

Dan Revill says ...

The French should know already that the US doesn't excel at political films :x

comment #8

Nicol D says ...

This is the exact type of facile, childish critique that would negate a critic automatically in my view.

It is also because of comments like this that fewer people trust critics.

comment #9

Nicol D says ...

My correction, the person was an 'industryite'.

Hence it is because of facile comments like this that fewer people trust the film industry for its views.

comment #10

storymark says ...

So, I take it Jeff, that you've now embraced the gossip coulmn status Poland dubbed you with?

Otherwise, is there a point to a post like this?

comment #11

L.B. says ...

I'm willing to bet that most people don't trust critics because they tend to love things that are more challenging over easy-to-digest pablum. Most people just think critics are out of touch because they don't praise stuff stupid stuff that's incredibly popular.

That being said this comment is pretty useless.

And I think NYC's description of what a George W. Bush directed film would like like is pretty hilarious and probably true. Except he'd toss a few Iraqis into it to make things tidy.

"Hence it is because of facile comments like this that fewer people trust the film industry for its views." Changing one word doesn't mean you're right. It just means your viewpoints are terribly predictable and basically interchangable.

comment #12

Nicol D says ...

L.B.

"Most people just think critics are out of touch because they don't praise stuff stupid stuff that's incredibly popular."

Then why did they praise the simplistic views of history portrayed in pabulum like F/911, The Mororcycle Diaries, Syrianna, Good Night And Good Luck etc.?

comment #13

jeffmcm says ...

Nicol, I've told you before that you really damage your credibility by refusing to spell Syriana correctly.

comment #14

NYCBusybody says ...

I actually think, L.B., that a French critic will mindlessly endorse and salivate over something that he politically agrees with, no matter how simplistic or one-sided it may be.

comment #15

MAGGA says ...

"film by George W. Bush would look more like Snakes on a Plane than WTC."

Good point, and funny.

"is this really news? A person in the French film industry DOESN'T like George W. Bush? Alert the media!"

The story was about not liking WTC, no? Saying it looks like it is directed by George Bush is the biggest insult you can give a political film outside the U.S, which goes to show how much he did not like the film.

"a French critic will mindlessly endorse and salivate over something that he politically agrees with, no matter how simplistic or one-sided it may be."

O.K, someone please explain why France is suddenly a hated country? Having lived there for a couple of years I have some issues with the culture myself, but film criticism? They probably have the strongest tradition in film writing of any country, and take cinema very seriously. I know some of you are joking, but I just dont get it.

comment #16

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to Storymark: You asked if I've now embraced the gossip column status that David Poland dubbed me with. Uhhm, no...I don't think so. I was quoting a quote from a Variety story...one that illustrates a lefty frog point of view about "WTC". In what way, shape or form is that a gossipy-type thing? Help me out there.

comment #17

NYCBusybody says ...

"Saying it looks like it is directed by George Bush is the biggest insult you can give a political film outside the U.S"

I don't doubt that at all, which is exactly my point. Do European leftists really think Bush and his supporters aren't aware of how much he's hated by Europe? Rumsfeld called France "old Europe" pointedly, to piss 'em off.

American conservatives hate the French. The French hate American conservatives. I think this is obvious to both sides. I'm just saying it's not note-worthy, that's all. Old news.

comment #18

Nicol D says ...

JeffMCM,

"Nicol, I've told you before that you really damage your credibility by refusing to spell Syriana correctly."

The Pope is a Nazi and George Bush is Hitler.

Do I get my credibility back in your eyes?

comment #19

L.B. says ...

"Then why did they praise the simplistic views of history portrayed in pabulum like F/911, The Mororcycle Diaries, Syrianna, Good Night And Good Luck etc.?"

Yes, those movies were praised. Mainly for the quality of the films themselves. Whether you agree with their viewpoints or not, can you at least see the quality of the filmmaking displayed in those films? (Well, with the exception of F/911. Moore's not much of a filmmaker.) I mean, there are some critics that don't go into the theater with their repressive political chip on their shoulder. They just want to see "how" the movie is about what it's about. (Cribbed from Ebert.)

But if your dismissive (and misspelled) refutation of the original point means that you actually don't see that most critics line up behind higher caliber works over, say, Adam Sandler comedies and splatter films, then you're being willfully ignorant. The fact is, people who write about movies tend to be well educated and tend to favor films that are a bit more challenging (which can also include films with which you may disagree). Now, they also praise popular stuff, when it deserves it (i.e. Pixar, RAIDERS, etc.), but that tends to be forgotten when people talk about "the critics". Let's face it. That's usually used to say "elitists". On that angle, to quote David Rees, "if not being the dumbest motherfucker in the room means I'm an elitist, then fine, I'm an elitist."

"I actually think, L.B., that a French critic will mindlessly endorse and salivate over something that he politically agrees with, no matter how simplistic or one-sided it may be."

Agreed. He wouldn't even have to be French. I mean, you read this site, right?

I have no doubt this guy reacted to the film based on how he felt before he even watched it. I'm sure a critic could do- and have done- the same thing. From the sound of it, Nicol does it all the time, too. Which makes this particularly funny.

But the point was not that a critic and an "idustryite" couldn't do the same thing. It was that by just cutting and pasting out a word or phrase means that your broadside arguments lack thought and require no serious contemplation.

comment #20

Nicol D says ...

L.B.

"But if your dismissive (and misspelled) refutation..."

It really is the lowest form of internet debate to correct a poster for spelling when they bang it out in 30 seconds. Really...Do you want me to go through all of your grammar L.B.?

"Agreed. He wouldn't even have to be French. I mean, you read this site, right?"

None of these are properly constructed sentences. Would you like me to tell you why?

Put up or shut up.

"The fact is, people who write about movies tend to be well educated and tend to favor films that are a bit more challenging (which can also include films with which you may disagree)."

Educated where? At a film school where students are taught to judge films based expressly on ideology as opposed to aesthetic?

Syriana was junk. Good Night and Good Luck was beautifully shot but a whitewash of history and poorly researched and The Motorcycle Diaries was mere hagiography.

As for F/911, Moore is actually the most talented of these filmmakers but the slapdash F/911 showed none of the cinematic zing of his other works.

comment #21

Michael says ...

My problem with the "industryite"'s criticism is that it's just so...obvious. I mean, if an elite can't do better than that...

comment #22

L.B. says ...

I'll accept that the spelling crack was a cheap one. Part of pounding these out in 30 seconds. I apologize for that.

I will say that I think your ability to judge whether a critic is responding to ideology or aesthetic could be similar to your ability to judge a film that conflicts with your ideology. At least, I've seen no evidence that you are capable of giving a good film its due even if you personally disagree with its point of view.

But that's a tough ability to cultivate. We tend to respond to things based on a gut reaction.

I guess I tend to gravitate towards critics that are capable of rising above. Maybe that colors my perception a bit.

comment #23

Dixon Steele says ...

Jeff,

I know you want hits on your blog, but do you have to go political?

comment #24

jeffmcm says ...

Nicol, your anti-film school bias is literally ridiculous. First of all, most professional writers about film did not go to any film school. Most film critics are people like Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott who started as journalists or literary critics and drifted into film criticism. Or professional cineastes like Jonathan Rosenbaum who never attended formal film school, or law-school dropouts like Michael Medved. The only writers I can think of who are film school graduates are people like Paul Schrader.

Furthermore, you really have no standing to talk about film schools since you refuse to say where you tried to attend. For all we know you were talking classes at Bolshevik U., where your observations would be as specifically accurate as they would be generally unrepresentative.

Put up or shut up, indeed.

comment #25

NYCBusybody says ...

Well, I do think ideology will always play a part in how a person views a film with social or political content. Maybe that's unfortunate, maybe not, but tough to avoid.

Do I think "Motorcycle Diaries" may be well-shot, well-scripted, edited, directed, etc? Sure, it may be all of those things. But my gut tells me it's a glorification of Che Guevera, which is something I'm diametrically politically opposed to, so I refuse to see it.

Roger Ebert talks about not separating your politics from how you view a film. I don't think it's possible either. I appreciated Dead Man Walking, even though Sarandon, Penn, AND Robbins politics are generally anathema to me because I happen to agree with the political stance of that particular film. If they all made a film about American foreign policy, I'd refuse to see it, as I'm sure George Clooney or Sean Penn would never attend or appreciate a film that was a love letter to Reagan or Nixon, no matter how well done, and I wouldn't expect them to.

comment #26

Fudge Ripple says ...

Mgmax: Well, that would give the second act the punching up it so desperately needed . . .

comment #27

L.B. says ...

Maybe so, NYC. But Ebert is also the proponent of not criticising "what" a movie" is about, but "how" it about it. Which is something I agree with. For instance, I do not agree with Bunuel's political or religious beliefs, but I greatly admire his films. I've learned a lot from watching them. I think BATLLESHIP POTEMKIN and BIRTH OF A NATION are ridiculous and offensive in their ideology. But I can't deny their artistry. That's pretty much what that point is about. It's a hard thing to do, but a worthwhile thing to which to aspire.

To bring it back to Go, though, I think the guy who inspired this post was responding to his ideology and not the aesthetic of the film. So, as far as I'm concerned, he can go fuck himself. Regardless of nationality, a dolt is a dolt.

comment #28

jeffmcm says ...

I don't competely agree, while most of the time I agree with Ebert's sentiment to watch a movie for 'how it is about', you can't ignore actual content in favor of formalism. To do so is to willingly blind oneself to potentially noxious themes. You can never separate your ideology from your artistic awareness, because it's part of who you are.

comment #29

jeffmcm says ...

PS: The movie Nixon was a love letter to Richard Nixon and it was made by former liberal Oliver Stone.

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

I guess I should add, I don't understand how one could admire Bunuel's films and disagree with his ideology, since the two are so heavily intertwined. It's like being a fan of the Star-Spangled Banner but not liking battle scenes or America.

comment #31

L.B. says ...

Well, then I guess we won't agree on this point. Imagine that.

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

Well, we don't have to agree, but I'm really curious as to what your enjoyment of Bunuel is based on, and which films, and what you disagree with him politically about, it all sounds interesting.

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

Perhaps I should add that Nixon is one of my three favorite Stone movies.

comment #34

Dixon Steele says ...

Even if you're not a leftist, you can enjoy BELLE DU JOUR...

comment #35

Patrick says ...

I wouldn't have expected anything less from some
French film critic! I just watched 'United '93'
again today on DVD, and it wasn't a left-wing,
anti-Bush piece either. I think people are being
highly selective in this debate and I find it
very childish. 'World Trade Center' is the best
film of the year, so far, and will be a contender
come Oscar time.

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

He wasn't a film critic, Wells should have made that more clear that it was just some French movie fan/industry worker.

United 93 is a vastly superior film to WTC, and neither of them will be an Oscar contender.

comment #37

nemo says ...

"I actually think a film by George W. Bush would look like the old film clip reels ... Like, monkeys in cowboy hats riding around to fast ragtime music."

Sometimes you come up with something so funny and clever it makes up for all the numbskull stuff. Never stop posting. You da man.

comment #38

frankbooth says ...

"None of these are properly constructed sentences..."

None of these IS a properly constructed sentence.

NYC, you're right on--though I think that "Hee Haw" style banjo music might be more appropriate in this instance.

comment #39

Patrick says ...

jeffmcm - We're ALL film critics, PAL! Oh, 'WTC'
is superior to 'United '93' in every way and WILL
BE a contender come Oscar time!

comment #40

frankbooth says ...

BTW, it's a shame how the right has ruined French-bashing. It used to be fun to take pokes at their attitude and their often pretentiously silly films (I'm thinking of stuff like Betty Blue) but you had to be at least somewhat familiar with the culture to get the joke. You had to have at least seen a movie with subtitles sometime in your life.

Now if take a jab you wind up looking like a drooling bottom-feeder who takes his marching orders from Fox News.

comment #41

nemo says ...

"Do I think "Motorcycle Diaries" may be well-shot, well-scripted, edited, directed, etc? Sure, it may be all of those things. But my gut tells me it's a glorification of Che Guevera, which is something I'm diametrically politically opposed to, so I refuse to see it."

A glorification of Che Guevera is one way to read "Motorcycle Diaries", but it's hardly the only way to read it. It's also a portrait of a half-formed man barely out of adolescence, who hasn't yet done any of the things that earned him both admiration and hatred, and who hasn't made up his mind about much of anything yet.

Somewhere recently, perhaps in this site, someone pointed out that it is hard to hate someone, no matter what a monster he became as an adult, when you imagine him as a child. A lot of people would automatically reject a film that depicts a monster such as Hitler as a child, or even as a confused and vulnerable half-formed young man, which was part of the reaction against "Max", that film with John Cusack and Noah Taylor.

Hitler is clearly a monster through and through, but Che Guevera is a more mixed figure. Mixed in part because the so many of the opponents he fought were so monstrous themselves. But there's no mistaking the destruction he wrought. It still chills me to bone to read that he wished the Cubans had controlled the Soviet missles in Cuba instead of the Russians, so he could have launched them against American cities.

Nixon and Reagan are mixed figures as well. Not as monstrous as Che Guevera (well, maybe Nixon was, given the unnecessary American and Vietnamese deaths he caused), And Guevera in turn was not as monstrous as Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. But still, I think you're wrong about people who hate Nixon or Reagan rejecting an admiring film about them. The question is not only the quality of the film, but also whether the film sees any complexity in the human being. If it's just an admiring mash note, it's right to reject it on artistic grounds, not just political grounds.

By the way, "Motorcycle Diaries" is not at all an admiring mash note to Che Guevera. But it doesn't criticize him for things he hasn't done yet and foolish ideas he hasn't thought yet.

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

Well said. There's a lot of projection going on in the part of those with pre-set agendas. I can't imagine any Che movie satisfying those on the hard Right without making him look like a black and white monster. And vice versa.

comment #43

Argen says ...

I think we have someone who would agree with Nicol's take on the state of universities.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/05/iran.universities.ap/index.html

comment #44

Michael says ...

Nixon made the implication that Nixon actually considered using his position as CinC to wrest control of the government; an actual coup. I'm not sure any film that uses that premise can be considered a love letter.

comment #45

jeffmcm says ...

Guess it depends on what your starting place is what your definition of a 'love letter' is. THe achievement of that movie was to make Nixon sympathetic and a victim (sometimes) of forces beyond his control. It's not a perfect movie (too much of it plays like JFK 2: More of the Same) but it is quite strong and nuanced, I believe.

comment #46

L.B. says ...

I don't want to turn this into the Bunuel Appreciation Thread, but I became a fan of his after seeing VIRIDIANA. That film put me into such a dream-like state, despite the fact that I had personal issues with the religious and political currents in the film. (Though he probably actually had a huge effect on me in the long run with his portrayal of both the do-gooder and the underprivileged as worthy of derision.)

That lead me to his other films (though I still haven't seen them all). And I don't re4ally know how to explain it, but I've always been in love with the feeling his films create when I watch them than with the political, social, or religious score he's trying to settle. Maybe that's a defense mechanism on my part. I don't know. But I've always been able to engage his intellectual viewpoints and dealt with them for what they are. The way his films unspool to me are a different matter. I don't know if that sheds any light.

If it means anything, I agree with what you're saying about NIXON even though I don't hold it in much regard as a film.

And to nemo-

That was really well thought out and well put. I admire that. I think a lot more could come out of message boards if posters took the time to explain and express the way you did.

comment #47

Nate West says ...

"The Pope is a Nazi and George Bush is Hitler."

This is a ridiculous statement. It should be, "The Pope WAS a Nazi..." Give the guy a little credit, please.

P.S. What negates a critic automatically in my view? Expressing a preference for Raiders of the Lost Ark as one's favorite film. That's the universal killer.

comment #48

Patrick says ...

'Nixon' as JFK, Part II? I think you need to
reconsider that one, buddy! 'Nixon' and 'JFK' are
two legs of an unfinished trilogy and would certainly
have many similarities, but there are MANY differences.

comment #49

NYCBusybody says ...

I think the tone of my "Motorcycle Diaries" post may have been misinterpreted...I'm not saying it's a GOOD thing that I refuse to see the film, necessarily, just that it's a natural reaction to something you sense, instinctually, won't mesh with your worldview. I agree that art and politics should be able to be separated to the degree that one can give a fair chance to the art and at least TRY to appreciate it...all I was saying is that I'm not so good at that.

comment #50

iamanerd says ...

NYC:
Wouldn't the fact that it won't mesh with your worldview a reason to see a film? You don't give the ideology a fair chance, and I don't believe you have to. However, to dismiss the acting, screenwriting, directing, cinematography, costume design, historical accuracy, etc. sight unseen seems a bit shortsighted to me.

I think a film can change you mind about things by opening it a little, but I don't think a film should convince you of something. My problem with WTC is that it frankly isn't very compelling, which is too bad. The conflict I felt on 9/11/01 isn't in that film. Which, in my opinion, is too bad.

comment #51

NYCBusybody says ...

Iamanerd, I didn't dismiss any of the above things. I stated clearly that I'm sure I might admire all of those things about the film, but that I couldn't enjoy or admire the film in general because I disagree with the worldview being promoted by its creators.

"You don't give the ideology a fair chance"

Come on now. If the Heritage Foundation made a pro-Bush film about 9/11 and the War on Terror, the lefties on this board wouldn't go see it or enjoy it, and I wouldn't expect them to.

I've given the ideology of socialism and anti-capitalism a fair chance, and I find it reprehensible and inherently limiting of human freedom. I believe the tendency for socialists to become warmongering dictators is inherent to the very nature of the doctrine, no matter what Trotsky would have you believe. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think I am, and won't endorse a movie which is antithetical to my moral beliefs.

comment #52

iamanerd says ...

NYC:
Hey now! Don't ignore the second half of the sentence! I said, "You don't give the ideology a fair chance, AND I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO."
There isn't a film that would have me change my ideology/worldview, but that is because the things I believe are not rooted in fiction. I cannot be convinced that Bush is a good president, and I don't believe I should be made to believe that. Likewise, I think that as a fan of movies, you should give it a shot. But I in no way think you should use the film as something to challenge your own ideology.
My point was more about Stone's film. Sure, it's well made, but to me this is the most serious subject he's tackled on film, and that says a lot. And I just wish that some of the energy, for lack of a better word, that he showed in everything else, including Alexander, would have been in this one.

comment #53

iamanerd says ...

I also believe you can endorse a film because of its production, not its content. I use The Battleship Potemkin and The Birth of a Nation in a class I teach because there is no denying the achievements in those two films. I believe the same goes for a film like Citizen Kane. I think you have to separate the ideology from the production. My opinion.

comment #54

NYCBusybody says ...

Fair enough.

I'l point out, also, that the screenwriter of "The Motorcycle Diaries" also wrote for the program "Family Matters", that of Steve Urkel fame.

I find this more offensive than Che Guevara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Rivera_%28playwright%29

comment #55

iamanerd says ...

Well, we are on the same page with that.

Of course, that gets into the whole other category of expecting a certain product quality or type because of past/previous creation. Is it fair to us to assume/say that since he wrote for Family Matters that what else he writes will be on that level?

And this is a point I want to be fair with Oliver Stone about, and I don't think "we" were. I believe we expected controversy or some risk taking with WTC, but clearly that isn't what "we" got. (I'm lumping us all in together.) Is it fair of me to dislike WTC in a certain sense because I thought it could be something more than it is? It wasn't what I was expecting, and I think that goes for a lot of us out there that are fans of his films. Can we hold that against him? Is it fair to say he is better when he's being more controversial? Or do we give JFK and Natural Born Killers more credit because they are risky? Do I not cut WTC any slack because I think it is too nice?

comment #56

NYCBusybody says ...

That's really just not the issue, though, iamanerd.

It's all political. The French guy sees Bush as equally or more dangerous than Bin Laden. He thinks American foreign policy is to blame for 9/11. Any film about 9/11 that doesn't blame Bush, either directly ("Loose Change") or indirectly (evil Republicans and their marching band of hillbilly Christians) would never pass muster to the French guy, so in his black-or-white thinking, Stone might as well have been Bush.

The French guy doesn't want to see a film about everyday, heroic Americans, particularly those who may vote for Bush. That's his right. But I think it's pointless to pretend this was about anything more than that.

comment #57

MattyC says ...

NYC:

I know I'm not really part of yours and iamanerd's discourse here, but just thought I would throw this out there, in response to this:

>If the Heritage Foundation made a pro-Bush film about 9/11 and the War on Terror, the lefties on this board wouldn't go see it or enjoy it, and I wouldn't expect them to.

I actually think that "liberals" like Clooney or Robbins or whoever (or myself, for that matter) would be more likely to see something pro-right wing than vice versa, if simply to "know thine enemy".

There is definitely something to be said for seeing something precisely BECAUSE you don't agree with it. I mean, nobody believes that all of Bill O'Reilly's viewers are actually FANS, do they? I tune in occasionally because the guy has his head stuffed so far up his own ass, it's actually entertaining. And not just because of his political views, either, he just genuinely is an ass.

I think, when you come right down to it, the most basic definitions of liberal and conservative seem to acknowledge the fact that liberals are more open to at least hearing about different ideas than are conservatives. Now, I know quoting from a dictionary is like the worst debate strategy ever, but I found these interesting:

Conservative- disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Liberal- open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

These definitions are courtesy of dictionary.com, and yes, there were multiple definitions, and yes, I chose the ones that most suited my purposes, I'll freely admit.

However, just off the top of my head, it seems far more likely that some liberal professor up in New England somewhere would see a pro-Bush movie and try to dissect it and see where it's coming from, than your average Bushie checking out Good Night, and Good Luck, and extrapolating any kind of modern-day, real-world correlation.

Just my two cents.

comment #58

NYCBusybody says ...

"...see something pro-right wing...if simply to "know thine enemy". "

If you're seeing something simply to support preconceived notions of hating these people and their message as your ENEMY, aren't you "disposed to preserve existing conditions"?

Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't seem "open-minded". If a leftie is seeing something pro-right wing KNOWING they're not going to change their mind, and just want to dissect why the hate it, that's fine and dandy, but "open-minded" it sure ain't. Seems rather....conservative, by definition, to me.

I think, therefore, in the interest of being truly liberal and open to all kinds of change, that liberals should become religious Bush supporters right this moment.

comment #59

Argen says ...

I can't support anyone whose idea of filmmaking is monkeys in cowboy hats frolicking to ragtime music.

comment #60

iamanerd says ...

NYC:
You do have a point about the leftie going to see the rightie film only to know thine enemies as a bit conservative in thinking. I am with you there entirely.
I think the problem, and where you and I may disagree, is that we've painted the American public with either 2 brushstrokes (rightie all the way/leftie all the way) or 3 brushstrokes(rightie all the way/leftie all the way/a sensible middle ground). I don't think it is that simple. Or even that sensible at times.
I lean more towards liberal/leftie politics, policies, and politicians, but I wouldn't say I'm in the middle/Independent. It isn't that simple. I do it because I have to. Pres. Bush is WAY right be my estimation, and even if he isn't, those who support him are. And I mean those in office/his handlers. Not the public that vote for him.
I think the problem is that there is a middle-right that must jump in with the far-right, and the same goes for a middle-left (me) that has to climb in bed with the far-left. I wish that us middle-righties and middle-lefties could get on board because we are being hijacked by the jackasses on the far sides of both political parties. We just had two elections in a row where it was "You're a bleeding heart liberal if you vote for Gore/Kerry" or "You're a right wing nutjob if you vote Bush/Bush again." It wasn't that simple. There isn't a need for a large, 3rd party. There is a need to have the parties as they truly are exist.
In terms of films, I think this is relevant because it makes me honestly angry that a film like Good Night and Good Luck gets lumped far-left. That is absurd to anyone with an understanding of history and an appreciation for how well crafted that film was. It isn't far left because Clooney directed and played in it. That is absurd logic. Well, it isn't logic technically. Same thing with saying that everyone who watches Fox News is far right. I watch it a lot, and use the website, but not to watch O'Reilly stick his foot in his mouth.

comment #61

MattyC says ...

"If you're seeing something simply to support preconceived notions of hating these people and their message as your ENEMY...it certainly doesn't seem 'open-minded'"

Apologies if I was unclear when I used the phrase "know thine enemy". I didn't mean to imply that everyone is enemies in some sort of political war. I was thinking more that when someone has views that you know are diametrically opposed to yours, it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with what it is that person believes, and why.

Same with a film. After Farenheit 911 came out, there was a "response" doco that purported to expose all the "lies" in Moore's film. I tracked it down and watched it, (can't recall the title, apologies again) because even though I wanted to believe Moore's pic was true, I'm not an idiot, and I know that most documentaries twist truths to their own purposes, and Moore is certainly in that camp.

That film, in particular, was pretty dreadful, basically just talking head interviews with a few people I had never heard of saying "Michael Moore lied", but without much evidence to back anything up. However, I didn't watch it to make fun, or to get fodder for my weekly political debates with my father (a two-time Bushie), I was genuinely interested in what they had come up with, and if I had seen anything in there that really made me think "Man, Michael Moore is full of shit", I would admit that readily.

I'm not denying that people on both sides of the equation DO watch/read/listen to stuff they don't agree with solely for the purpose of hating on it, just saying that not everyone falls into that category.

comment #62

iamanerd says ...

MattyC:
I think it is called Farehype 9/11 (spelling?) or something equally as clever. I watched it too, and I did it as you did: I am not going to stomach what Moore is shoveling without doing some research.
I'm with you on the not everyone is in that category thing, either. I'd say most of us are not, and that is my point.

comment #63

MattyC says ...

iamanerd:

With you completely on GNAGL being labelled as "far left". It seems that a lot of people are basing that label more on George Clooney's Oscar speech than on the merits of the film. Everyone who pays attention knows Clooney's leanings, and I think they let that color their thinking.

I will say that my father, a decade-long ditto head (and recent O'Reilly convert), has actually been watching some of these "leftie" docs, about the war, about Walmart, and actually wanting to discuss them with me in a rational manner. My father is not your typical red-stater. He has multiple college degrees, lives on the west coast in a major urban city, and does not own a gun. He has, however, voted republican his entire life, and still bases his vote more on moral issues like abortion and Stem cell research than things like foreign policy or health care reform.

As frustrating as his views are to me, they allow me to understand that people cannot be labelled quite so easily as that giant Red/Blue map of the US would have you believe. And if, at age 61, there is any way to get him to open his mind, just a little, to the fact that maybe blindly supporting one party (ANY party, not just repubs) isn't a smart way to go, then I'll happily watch as much anti-left stuff as I need to, if just to have something to talk about with him.

comment #64

NYCBusybody says ...

iamanerd, I agree wholeheartedly, and have said this before: the polarization in this country have made it so that the middle-left and the middle-right (the majority of Americans are in EITHER of those sides) HAVE to side with the far-elements in their parties because...why not? Middle-right people support Bush even though they disagree with him on many points because hell, he's our horse, and there's no point to arguing against him, because that's not going to get anywhere with the other side.

And MattyC, I think this is better, by Christopher Hitchens, who used to write for the far-left "The Nation" magazine, so he's no idiot far-right blowhard. It's not so much designed to change one's ACTUAL ideas on something like the Iraq War, but to argue against figures like Moore:

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723

comment #65

iamanerd says ...

MattyC:
Well said. My dad is sort of the same. They say you become more conservative as you age, but it is probably a little different for him. He's 62, and started teaching high school at age 57. He had taught college at night while working in corporate America, and he still does. He teaches Spanish, however, so not really a subject where you have student examine current film, events, write a lot, etc.

Teaching public high school has sort of opened his eyes to that grey area he didn't ever acknowledge in his black+white world. It think it's been good for the old guy. Not so good for his health perhaps. Being at "ground level" to see gov't policy in action (inaction is more like it!) has sort of changed his hard right ways. And I'm not saying that's good because he's more left. He's more middle now, which is where I think rational people must be. I have taught as long as he has, even though he's more than 30 years older than me.

Seeing policies pumped up in the press like No Child Left Behind vs. seeing them being practiced has really made him rethink his straight party affiliation. He literally would vote straight Republican until about 2 years ago.

Things are never as simple as GNAGL is leftie crap because Clooney made it. He really liked that movie, probably more than me because he had life experience relating to it. I was on board because it was a smart movie among the usual crap I have to choose from.

comment #66

Josh Massey says ...

"Whether you agree with their viewpoints or not, can you at least see the quality of the filmmaking displayed in those films?"

I am fairly conservative, and loved "The Motorcycle Diaries." But politics aside, I thought "Fahrenheit" and the two Clooney flicks were bores. Give me credit for seeing them all, though. I wish folks would take time to see the world representing "the other side."

comment #67

RoyBatty says ...

Whoever directed it, it sure wasn't Oliver Stone. Oh, I see his name and I'm sure that he was there every day, talked with the DP & called out "action!"

But that's about as far as it went. This film was only "Directed By Oliver Stone" it is not "An Oliver Stone Film." ALEXANDER beat his balls off and this is the movie he made while waiting for them to grow back.

comment #68

L.B. says ...

"ALEXANDER beat his balls off and this is the movie he made while waiting for them to grow back."

I get the feeling we'll never see them fully back. One can hope. I miss his passion. Even when I hated some of his movies, his undeniable energy and commitment were hard not to admire.

comment #69

Patrick says ...

The media and film critics beat his balls off,
'Alexander' had nothing to do with it!