Parasitism isn't a profession, it's an activity: In which A.O. Scott is subjected to the Instapundit one-two

A couple of days back, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott filed one of his typically thoughtful dispatches from the Cannes Film Festival, this one treating Steven Soderbergh's epic Che. Like a few other critics, this one included, he noted that the film's two-part, mirror-image structure, in which the successful Cuban revolution and Che's botched attempt at launching a whole "Latin American Revolution" are chronicled, conveniently allows the filmmakers to elide the period of Che's life in which he acted most monstrously, that is, his early co-governing of Cuba with Castro. This bothers Scott (it bothers me, too, but not nearly as much—not because I'm a tyranny-loving Commie, or anything, but because I'm, like, a formalist), and he's not afraid to say so, and he says so with typical eloquence and clarity.

Over at the National Review Online, John J. Miller, one of the "hipper" conservatives out there (he compiled, you may recall, a rather, um, contentious list of "conservative" rock songs, and more recently no doubt broke NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez's heart by avowing a preference for a Drive-By Truckers show to a Bill Bennett charity ball), takes note of Scott's objections without having the courtesy to mention Scott himself.

Going beyond the standard practice of condemning a film before actually having seen it (which you can rail about until the cows come home, and none of these guys will ever pay you the least attention), Miller says "it's probably impossible for Hollywood to make an honest movie about this awful man." We should by now understand that when conservatives say "Hollywood" they are not referring to a specific geographical place or the industries located there but a state of mind. Hence, Che, while French and Spanish-financed, and in fact as of this writing lacking a United States distributor, is a "Hollywood" film, while nothing produced by Walden Media is. Just so you know. Anyway, lacking the common fucking courtesy to cite A.O. Scott by name, Miller ups the ante before quoting Scott's relevant passage, noting, "even the NYT sees the problem clearly."

"Even the NYT," is, of course, a variant of the old joke, "even the liberal New Republic..." But it begs the question of when, exactly, the New York Times has ever been in the tank, as the saying goes, for Che Guevara? Scan the Times' archives and you'll find the exact opposite to have been the case. Miller's anachronistically red-baiting implication verges on the slanderous, making it perfect for..."Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds, who devotes one of his epigrammatic posts to Miller's post, thusly:

A CHE HAGIOGRAPHY that gives even The New York Times problems. "Guevara was an important player in the Castro government, but his brutal role in turning a revolutionary movement into a dictatorship goes virtually unmentioned."

Again, Scott is ignored; it's as if The New York Times only exists as an institutional voice, or that, more insulting still, Scott's words are monitored and approved by some cultural/political purity commitee therein. I don't know precisely why this post cheeses me off so much. It's no more or less Nixonian than anything else Reynolds does, propogating the most noxious notions behind the ever-reliable shield of "I didn't say it, I'm just linking to it." (Not for nothing did alicublog's Roy Edroso, rating right-wing bloggers in the Village Voice, award Reynolds a stupid/evil ratio of 5:95.) My ire could just have something to do with the fact that I, like Scott, was at Cannes, saw Che at Cannes, thought about Che at Cannes, wrote about Che from Cannes.

When you tell people you're going to Cannes to cover the Film Festival, a lot of them react as if you're getting the best paid vacation ever. Even my therapist, for heaven's sake, has sometimes persisted in calling my forays to Cannes for Premiere a "perk." Let's get this straight: as the Cannes Film Festival takes place in the south of France, it does, indeed, offer an extremely attractive, pleasant setting. But covering it does not constitute a paid vacation. We journalists are in movie theaters by 8:30 a.m. nearly every morning. Getting into screenings, even if you've got the much-envied white badge, like Scott, or the nothing-to-sneeze-at pink badge, like myself, is often a time-consuming and physically taxing chore—mordant jokes about Who concerts were heard on the line-ups for both Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and the you-would-think-lower-profile Two Lovers. Having to formulate coherent opinions and arguments in the aftermath of a given film can be a challenge even in atmospheres of zen-like calm; in the non-stop clogged-up craziness of Cannes—the Orange wi-fi lounge in the Palais is a great and welcome service, yes, but as a friend noted, it often looked and felt like a Civil War hospital with laptops—it's almost impossible.

Scott was walking the walk as hard as, if not harder than, any other writer at Cannes. So seeing this clot Reynolds—who enjoys endlessly reiterating his asinine mantra, "journalism isn't a profession, it's an activity;" who more often than not blogs from the comfort of his den, with one thumb all the way up his ass for all I know—second-handedly misappropriate and twist the fruits of Scott's toil makes my blood absolutely boil. I understand that the "real" Reynolds is an affable chap, and I've in fact exchanged a couple of guardedly cordial e-mails with the fellow. But seeing this kind of thing, I've got to conclude that he is, finally, as much of a dick as—yes—Sean Penn.

Comments

[Dan]

It never fails to amuse me about obnoxious conservative bloggers. I know of conservative bloggers who are thoughtful, intelligent and hard-working...and they get swamped by guys like Reynolds.

Oh, and if you're reading, Mr. Reynolds, journalism is a profession. That's why we have "journalistic standards", like crediting one's sources.

[don lewis]

So seeing this clot Reynolds—who enjoys endlessly reiterating his asinine mantra, "journalism isn't a profession, it's an activity;" who more often than not blogs from the comfort of his den, with one thumb all the way up his ass for all I know

That line right there is the beginning of some benefits we readers will get from you being free from Premiere. And you owe me a new Wilco shirt because the coffee that I spit out when I read that may have wrecked it.

What I don't get about all these people getting agitated because Che was a horrible, horrible, torturing dictator, yadda yadda is....there are NO FILMS about any awful real life person as the main character that show them being awful. Hitler movies like, I dunno, "Max"show a part of Hitlers youth but avoid him being, well, Hitler. Since I just woke up and no longer have any coffee (Thanks, GK) I can't think of any others right now....but my point is this; I don't think you can make a movie in which the lead character is based on a real person and is a murdering thug bastard. You can allude to it and I'm guessing the Che films might, but to show a person just going to town murdering people is a horror film and this is not a horror film. Am I making sense?

Anyway...
I agree with your assessment of Cannes even though I've never been. Having covered Sundance for some 6-odd years, friends and people I meet are always blown away I get to go. We don't have the cash to stay real close to the theaters so everyday is a 8 a.m. wake up call (or earlier), a slog into town in the snow (we're all texans and Californians so....it's tough), a constant struggle to find time and decent food to eat and then sitting in shitty press screenings all day. Sure, it has it's moments, but it's work and it's not easy to navigate, trudge, sit, eat, sleep and try to form decent thoughts about 3 films per day.

[Mike De Luca]

It's a lot like when the same bloggers suggested that the box office failure of the independently-financed "Redacted" was the result of some disconnect between "Hollywood" and the American public.

[Victor Morton]

there are NO FILMS about any awful real life person as the main character that show them being awful. Hitler movies like, I dunno, "Max" show a part of Hitlers youth but avoid him being, well, Hitler.

Within very strong limits, I agree with this. But, to stick with your example of MAX, the audience-identifier is not Hitler, but the John Cusack character, Max. DOWNFALL comes closer, but it's more of an ensemble piece and it does kinda "leave" Hitler at the end. I haven't seen CHE but something about the title tells me Che is probably the audience identifier (I have seen THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES, and he is definitely the identification figure there.)

Also, the one thing I guarantee you is that neither Noah Taylor nor Bruno Ganz accepted any awards by saying he'd "like to dedicate this to the man himself, Adolf Hitler." You can't name me a post-WW2 movie that was substantively about Nazism where the film-makers said anything but condemnatory things about Nazism. Plenty of movies about socialism and communism are made by people who contextualize, relativize, play down, or "try to find the hope in" the evils of left tyranny. (First example to quickly come to mind, and it's a film I quite like, is an example of the last -- the internal monolog near the end of GOOD BYE LENIN about the fake "East Germany" the boy created as a worthy ideal.)

[Victor Morton]

That first paragraph should have been in italics ... I was quoting someone else. The rest of the post is my reaction.