Huh?

This has been a big week for conservatives weighing in on le cinema, what with, for one thing, National Review's Top 25 Conservative Movies of the past who the hell knows years. I haven't weighed in on the, um, material contained therein, 'cause it's not really my department and all (UPDATE: see here for a far more expert assessment), but rest assured that I was exceptionally tickled by such gems as Kathryn Jean Lopez's I-actually-don't-like-it-at-all-but-it's-still-a-classic-cause-the-chick-in-it-doesn't-get-an-abortion assessment of Juno, and Michael Long's not-naming-names-because-there-actually-aren't-any observation apropos The Edge, "[s]ome have interpreted the film as a Cold War allegory because it features a menacing bear." Hilarious, and believe me, there's more, including an elsewhere noted write-up of Master and Commander that's all, "see, even a liberal like A.O. Scott can recognize this movie's conservatism!" And indeed he can. I should note the list actually highlights far more good movies than bad, which is nice. 

But, more to the point, the week also brought "A Report to the Industry" by culture warriors Ted Baehr and Tom Snyder (not the dead one), and it is from their February 12 Wall Street Journal piece, "A Hollywood Stimulus Plan: Make More Uplifting Movies," that I extract the nugget of perplexity which inspires this post's hed: 

"The moneymaking trend was similar for movies with explicit or implicit anticommunist content. That group -- including an "An American Carol," which mocks communism; "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," where Indy reviles communists and their impoverished ideology is exposed; "City of Ember," where a tyrant steals from the people; and "Fly Me to the Moon," about the space race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union -- averaged $71.8 million at the 2008 box office in America and Canada. By comparison, movies with pro-communist content, such as "Che," "The Children of Huang Shi," "Gonzo," "Trumbo" and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," averaged a measly $7.9 million in 2008."

Wait—Vicky Cristina Barcelona has pro-communist content? 

Comments

[hisnewreasons]

Ted Baehr is an astonishing fellow. Years ago I heard an interview in which he discussed a film that, according to him, wouldn't have succeeded if it hadn't been for the intervention of "The Church." Its parent company would have let it die on the vine, but it became a cause for good Christians everywhere and thus "the little movie that could."

The little movie? "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe."

Astonishing.

[bill]

"Why must "the Left" always be the extreme Marxist left to these clowns?"

The same reason that conservative are so often viewed as heartless, bigoted fascists by those (some) on the Left: because looking at the worst extreme of something you disagree with makes it that much easier to set up an us vs. them mentality, which allows the person with that mentality to think less and feel self-righteous at the same time.

I hope it's clear that I'm not saying one side is more likely to do this than the other (or, for that matter, that you do it). Every time I think one political persuasion is winning that particular race, the other suddenly takes the lead.

[bill]

Oh, and a PS to Joel: kicking Nazi ass is an excellent pastime. I hope you and I can both find much to love in "Inglourious Basterds".

[Joel]

Agreed with everything you said, Bill. This past election, as with the past eight years, have given me a window into some of the knottier realms of political psychology, which so often seems like a more benign form of paranoid delusion--i.e. "if someone's against me on one thing, he's against me on everything." Why do people have to mark everything with their political ideology? As I said above, what we appreciate in politics and what we appreciate in art often stem from the same values, but it doesn't mean that those values belong to any particular party. To claim that things like "family," "God," and "Democracy" belong to conservatives is laughable at best, and insulting at worst. In fact, to claim that "conservatism" itself belongs to the Republicans is ridiculous. No ideology is that all-encompassing.

[bill]

Yes, well, and "caring for others" isn't exclusively liberal ideal. I've heard that one, you know.

But anyway, on to other points: your point regarding our taste in art stemming from out personal values is one I agree with, although since we do all share broadly similar values you might think it would be easier to not politicize every frickin' movie that comes along.

Oh, my mind is going all over the place now. I have some things I wanted to say (I was going to bring up "The Devil's Rejects"!), but I fear that would be so out of the blue as to come off as non-sequitors, so maybe I'll just bag it for now.

[demimonde]

Well, the NR didn't set out its definitions, which is going to muddle the whole concept by, er, definition. So we have socially conservative with "Forest Gump" (absolutely true, and utterly offensive for that, and did someone say Charlotte Hayes? Just me? OK), but no "The Ice Storm"; military/historically conservative (or rather right-wing) with one work of friend Gibson ("Braveheart") but not another ("The Patriot") and revisionist conservative with "Blast From the Past" (true, but suck movie) and no "Back to the Future," a cri de couer in defense of amassing shiny stuff and things at the expense of all else; libertarian-which-isn't-quite-the-same-thing ("Team America: World Police"); Christian conservative ("The Chronicles of Narnia," because it's couched in fantasy yo, but no overtly Christian movies, because they're niche); morally conservative ("A Simple Plan") but no acknowledgment that noir film in many of its incarnations is about a decent man doing one wrong, greedy thing, and what did Fred MacMurray live and die for, anyway?

And then, of course, there is "Red Dawn." To quote Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugutivie" (which – hey!): What. A. Mess.

Waitaminute, "Sex in the City" was politically correct?

[Campaspe]

Demimonde, great comment. The thing about noir is that it also frequently shows a decent person caught in the wheels of a pitiless society. By order of the Production Code the law could not be flouted but it sure could seem rigid and uncaring.

A Simple Plan is definitely a noir throwback, and it fits into what Joel says also. I was pleasantly unaware that strictures against greed and theft automatically made an audience sit up and say, "By George, a conservative theme!" (Another aspect of noir that you won't see much discussed on Big Hollywood or NRO: the recurring character of the war veteran unable to shake the violence he learned at the front--because of course negative veteran images in American art began precisely five minutes after the last helicopter left the embassy.)

Your Christian-movie point is interesting, too, because one of the most intensely Christian mainstream movies of recent years, one that goes into the very heart of the religion's teachings, would never, could never make a list like this: Dead Man Walking. (John Nolte, let it be said, has praised the movie.) I realize that Tim Robbins is probably an apostate at the very minimum, but the movie is based on Helen Prejean's book and the entire film is about the notion of divine mercy and redemption.

[Campaspe]

that's the Saigon embassy, of course.

[Dan]

@bill

I think part of the problem is most people these days define "conservative" as "neo-conservative", and there's a vast gap between the two. I, for one, have no trouble with the idea of "No Country" as a conservative film; hell, it's practically Old Testament in some respects. Plus I am not overly attached to Cormac McCarthy. In fact, if the NRO would adopt him so I never have to hear about how brilliant his "muscular" prose is again, I would be indescribably happy.

"The Dark Knight" I happen to think is a little more complicated, because it's not really a film with a political angle, so there's only so far you can push that perspective without getting into the realm of the personal and/or silly. You walk up to anybody of any political persuasion in America and say "I think mindless violence is bad", they're probably going to agree with you. In other words, I can see what conservatives get out of it, but I don't happen to agree that's the intent of the film.

As for more political opinions in Hollywood: we'll probably get our wish, as the technology gets cheaper and video becomes more and more ubiquitous as a communication medium (yay, my grad degree isn't useless!) I think it's more likely, though, that we'll see films of a more conservative perspective from different countries. I think American conservative film is doomed to more "American Carols" and "Is It True What They Say About Anne?"-type "documentaries" until conservative thought worthy of the name makes a comeback.

I expect this, alas, to take a while. I really do like my politics best when two strong, well-considering ideologies are duelling. Progress is slow, but it's usually of a high quality.

[Mike De Luca]

Bill

If "The Dark Knight" was a conservative film, it wouldn't have Lucius Fox, Morgan Freeman, voice of morality and reason, suggesting that tapping people without warrants is a rather unethical thing to do, even if your target is the Joker, who is referred to as a terrorist by Alfred in the picture. Also, Batman's "enhanced interrogation techniques" do abasolutely nothing. Like John Doe in "Seven", the Joker volunteers information because he chooses to do so. And Batman does his own fighting, and never because of wishful exagerations of data. Also, Clint may self-identify as right-wing, but "Flags of Our Fathers", with its scathing deconstruction of heroic mythmaking and its disillusionment with the way war effects the men who wage it, suggests an entirely different reading.

[bill]

Dan -

The "mindless violence is bad" aspect of "The Dark Knight" isn't what makes it a conservative film. It's the idea that Batman has to make the difficult choices for the greater good, which will nevertheless make people hate him that does it.

But yes, it's more complicated than that, in that it allows other takes on the argument, and it's quite possible that this isn't the "intent" of the movie, but it's still there.

Mike -

So "The Dark Knight" can't be conservative because it includes a character who you say is reasonable and moral? I love the way you construct your argument. It should probably be pointed out, though, that Fox goes ahead with the surveillance plan anyway.

And Batman does his own fighting? So FDR should have been on the battlefield, too? But that can't be what you're saying, of course, so forget I said anything.

As for "Flags of Our Fathers", a movie that I think is Eastwood's best outside of "Unforgiven"...I'm sorry, but if you choose to believe that conservatives don't believe that war is hell for those who fight it, then I don't know what to say to you. It sounds to me like you choose to believe conservatives don't believe that so that you can dislike them more, and if one makes a film that deals with the issue, well hell, maybe he's not a conservative! I mean, Eastwood supported McCain, for God's sake. It's been said elsewhere on this thread, by liberal commenters, that conservatives and liberals often share similar values but construct different philosophies based on that. This is absolutely true, so the next time you find yourself agreeing with a conservative value, try not to panic.

The film tells the truth about Iwo Jima, and the raising of the flag, and it may destory certain myths, but it does not in any way deconstruct the idea that any of those men were heroes.

[bill]

I used "choose" and "believe" far too often in my last comment. I just want everyone to know I'm aware of that.

[Glenn Kenny]

@Bill: No sweat, sir. As you're no doubt aware, I sometimes use "putative" the way William S. Burroughs used to use heroin.

[bill]

Yeah, but at least "putative" is an impressive word.

[Herman Scobie]

At least the National Review analysis is instructive. I didn't know that only liberals are narcissists and that only conservatives accept responsibility for their actions. Have these people never heard of Watergate?

[Dan]

@ bill

"It's the idea that Batman has to make the difficult choices for the greater good, which will nevertheless make people hate him that does it."

You see, I don't view that as political, either. Noble, certainly, but self-sacrifice isn't really political. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[Mike De Luca]

"This film gives us a portrait of the hero as a man reviled. In his fight against the terrorist Joker, Batman has to devise new means of surveillance, push the limits of the law, and accept the hatred of the press and public. If that sounds reminiscent of a certain former president — whose stubborn integrity kept the nation safe and turned the tide of war — don’t mention it to the mainstream media. Our journalists know that good men are often despised by the mob; it just never seems to occur to them that they might be the mob themselves." Batman, Bill, never sent thousands of other people to their deaths based on wishful thinking. That is why Batman is a hero, and W. is a lame duck. And if "The Dark Knight" was in touch with the conservative ethos, it would not have the character of Lucius Fox espousing doubts about illegal wiretapping at all. The film would have endorsed such activity with no doubts as to whether such technology should be used "for the better good". And the situation presented in the film is clearly the fictional "ticking time bomb" scenario, as opposed to something occurring in reality. And, even in the Rachel Dawes/Harvey Dent time bomb scenario, torturing the Joker does not work. So, in the eyes of the film, tapping people's phones is morally questionable, and torture does not work, hence the film flies directly in the moral bankrupcy that had characterized the Bush Administration. If anything, the movie is of an ambiguous nature that one would expect to confound any writer of the National Review.

[Cadavra]

Baehr is the crackpot who condemned GODZILLA 2000 as "blasphemous" because it involved an alien spacecraft having lain at the bottom of the ocean for 60,000,000 years, when everyone knows God only created the Earth 6,000 years ago.

And no, he wasn't joking.

[MovieMan0283]

I hear bill on the non sequiturs - this is such a stimulating conversation that a whole line of comments has occurred to me. So before I finish the thread let me butt in on a few points:

1. I actually do think Brazil is kind of conservative, at least in the libertarian sense. It did occur to me while watching that it made free enterprise seem rebellious and cool while big government = massive, ineffective bureaucracy.

2. Great point, Joel, on the "values". I'm not especially thirsting for more (or any) Republican-party-line/self-consciously neoconservative films but I'd LOVE to see more films with conservative values, which I too share in many ways, though i voted for Obama (whose success, by the way, related to his ability to sidestep not just racial stereotypes but political ones; he didn't give off the "liberal cultural warrior" vibe which the GOP tried to peg him with, and which even more moderate politicians like the Clintons DID give off, at least until Hillary reinvented herself as the beer-swilling compatriot of working-class Pennsylvanians...). Maybe some of the slackening of Hollywood filmmaking in the present day is due in part to the ideological homogeny out there (though there are a considerable amount of other factors to consider as well).

3. Yes, The Bicycle Thief is about a man's relationship to his personal property. But it condemns his this forced dependence, which makes sense as Zavattini was a Marxist (did NR take that into account?). The point is that the hero needs property, and the money to buy and sustain property, in order to make money in the first place, which he needs to care for his family, and that the whole situation breeds unhappiness. Not exactly The Pursuit of Happyness we're dealing with here...

4. I should have said it before, but yes, Glenn's classification of Red Dawn is brilliant and quite apropos.

I wish I could remember all the other threads I wanted to comment on here, but there were too many...I've forgotten them now.

Many of my favorite movies tend to mix together values and/or aesthetics in unusual ways, creating an interesting tension which transcends the usual political cliches. For example, an avant-garde style with conservative content or a classical style with a subversive message, etc. I've heard David Lynch is a Reagan conservative, and I hope it's true.