Of Movies and Douchebags
Man, I can't wait for this. When right wingers get all up in everybody else face because movies don't reflect their exact political views, in this case V for Vendetta. Even when shit is close, they bitch. Seriously, remember when Million Dollar Baby got all that shit for the euthanasia scene, because right wingers think euthanasia is the worst thing in the world, ever (at least they did last year when it suited them to do so)? But people without douchebagitis noticed that the movie was profoundly ambivalent about Hillary Swank's death, and perhaps--perhaps--the point was that the right to die issue is full of conflicting emotions that must be decided carefully and with full cognizance of the moral ramifications of the choice; after all, the movie was directed by Clint Eastwood who is nobody's idea of a liberal. Of course, rightwingers didn't get this because they have douchbagitis and they hate everything that isn't in perfect lockstep with the current talking points.
This kind of crap happens all the time. I know that the idea of a profound intersection between politics and art is as old as both, but the cultural right seems like the only group of people that are worried that the fact movies they don't like are produced at all may mean the destruction of the American way of life. This is one of those problems that internalizing certain amounts of conservative crap. It's not that conservatives can't do art, and great art at that, it's that the position is a priori against the pushing of boundaries. Which is to say, that while I can get behind some conservative movies, many conservatives can't seem to get behind any liberal ones. Or maybe, to be more precise, they can't seem to not go apeshit at Hollywood.
And let's get to this, Hollywood is a business. A business. If that many people hated it, they wouldn't make it. Brokeback Mountain doesn't reflect American values and it'll be rejected? $80 million in domestic box office begs to fucking differ (and I'm willing to bet that the nature of the movie precluded most kids and adolescents from going to see it, so that's a handicap in potential box office that a lot of less succesful movies don't have to contend with). And vice versa, if it was so popular, America would go see it. That's why nobody will make Jesus Stops the Abortion Doctor, because most Americans are neither that serious about their Christianity that they need to see Jesus in everything, nor are most American's anti-choice on abortion. Do you know what American's like to see? weepy love stories, explosions, hot dames, masochistic revenge fantasies, and special effects. Every once in a while that combo creates Casablanca or The Godfather.
Which gets me to V for Vendetta and Red Dawn. V isn't out yet, but I'm familiar with the story and I've read some reviews. And already, rightwingers hate it. But what's so different between a British revolutionary, scarred by a horrible global war and it's aftermath, turning to terrorism to realize the principles of the nation that he loves, which has been taken over by a totalitarian government whose authoritarian practices can only be opposed through violence; and that very same plot, but with American high school kids instead of the solitary Brit? I'm gonna put forward my guess as to why Red Dawn is okay, but not V for Vendetta. This reason is threefold: 1) In RD it's Americans doin' the killin' and that's always morally acceptable to some people in an international context; 2) In RD they're taking on communists, in V he's taking on the otherwise legitimate government of Great Britain--it's just that it's not legitimate because fascits governments are per se illegitimate and must be brought down, preferably from the inside, but the modern rightwing has sworn fealty to authority in all it's stripes especially conservative, paranoid, Christian authority, thus the encroaching government police power under the current incarnation of the "party of limited government"; 3) basic contemporary politics dictate that terrorism was good in the '80s--when we were supporting those mujahadeen freedom fighters--but terrorism is bad in '00s--now that we are fighting those mujahadeen murderers.
Why is this though? What causes this kind of douchebagitis? I'm thinking that the existance and the popularity of politically unacceptable movies confirms the thesis of liberalism (lately used to losing) and denies the thesis of conservatism--namely that politically inconvenient art raises the specter of dissent. This idea is one that threatens modern conservative politics in this country. A politics that maintains power by putting on a convincing show of unity and homeostasis. The cultural conservative says to himself, "I am right in my thinking, and good in my behavior. And what's more, I have always been right, the problems we face can be traced to deviation from the perfect formula of my fathers." To see a movie cast a terrorist as protagonist this year is not a challege to look at the different ideas of freedom and the legitimacy of the different methods that people use to acheive ends; rather it's an affirmation of the suspicion that everyone doesn't agree, and that is dangerous to our hypothetical rightwinger. But all of this paragraph is speculation. I don't know what cultural critics like this actually think. Mostly I'm just concerned that they make these weird totalitarian judgments of movies whose points are that you shouldn't make simple totalitarian judgments.
All this is to say that people should watch the damn movie and if you don't like it, then you don't like it--but political judgements of art and culture outside of their individual contexts, even pop culture, are kind of Stalinist. But let me put it this way: Red Dawn is a bunch of silly rightwing propaganda surrounding absurd stereotypes, cold war paranoia, and even anxiety about early culture-war issues like gun control. I never switch the channel when I catch it on cable. Why? Because Red Dawn rules, and I can enjoy something that presents ideas outside of my own political views. Again, that's because I don't have douchebagitis.
This kind of crap happens all the time. I know that the idea of a profound intersection between politics and art is as old as both, but the cultural right seems like the only group of people that are worried that the fact movies they don't like are produced at all may mean the destruction of the American way of life. This is one of those problems that internalizing certain amounts of conservative crap. It's not that conservatives can't do art, and great art at that, it's that the position is a priori against the pushing of boundaries. Which is to say, that while I can get behind some conservative movies, many conservatives can't seem to get behind any liberal ones. Or maybe, to be more precise, they can't seem to not go apeshit at Hollywood.
And let's get to this, Hollywood is a business. A business. If that many people hated it, they wouldn't make it. Brokeback Mountain doesn't reflect American values and it'll be rejected? $80 million in domestic box office begs to fucking differ (and I'm willing to bet that the nature of the movie precluded most kids and adolescents from going to see it, so that's a handicap in potential box office that a lot of less succesful movies don't have to contend with). And vice versa, if it was so popular, America would go see it. That's why nobody will make Jesus Stops the Abortion Doctor, because most Americans are neither that serious about their Christianity that they need to see Jesus in everything, nor are most American's anti-choice on abortion. Do you know what American's like to see? weepy love stories, explosions, hot dames, masochistic revenge fantasies, and special effects. Every once in a while that combo creates Casablanca or The Godfather.
Which gets me to V for Vendetta and Red Dawn. V isn't out yet, but I'm familiar with the story and I've read some reviews. And already, rightwingers hate it. But what's so different between a British revolutionary, scarred by a horrible global war and it's aftermath, turning to terrorism to realize the principles of the nation that he loves, which has been taken over by a totalitarian government whose authoritarian practices can only be opposed through violence; and that very same plot, but with American high school kids instead of the solitary Brit? I'm gonna put forward my guess as to why Red Dawn is okay, but not V for Vendetta. This reason is threefold: 1) In RD it's Americans doin' the killin' and that's always morally acceptable to some people in an international context; 2) In RD they're taking on communists, in V he's taking on the otherwise legitimate government of Great Britain--it's just that it's not legitimate because fascits governments are per se illegitimate and must be brought down, preferably from the inside, but the modern rightwing has sworn fealty to authority in all it's stripes especially conservative, paranoid, Christian authority, thus the encroaching government police power under the current incarnation of the "party of limited government"; 3) basic contemporary politics dictate that terrorism was good in the '80s--when we were supporting those mujahadeen freedom fighters--but terrorism is bad in '00s--now that we are fighting those mujahadeen murderers.
Why is this though? What causes this kind of douchebagitis? I'm thinking that the existance and the popularity of politically unacceptable movies confirms the thesis of liberalism (lately used to losing) and denies the thesis of conservatism--namely that politically inconvenient art raises the specter of dissent. This idea is one that threatens modern conservative politics in this country. A politics that maintains power by putting on a convincing show of unity and homeostasis. The cultural conservative says to himself, "I am right in my thinking, and good in my behavior. And what's more, I have always been right, the problems we face can be traced to deviation from the perfect formula of my fathers." To see a movie cast a terrorist as protagonist this year is not a challege to look at the different ideas of freedom and the legitimacy of the different methods that people use to acheive ends; rather it's an affirmation of the suspicion that everyone doesn't agree, and that is dangerous to our hypothetical rightwinger. But all of this paragraph is speculation. I don't know what cultural critics like this actually think. Mostly I'm just concerned that they make these weird totalitarian judgments of movies whose points are that you shouldn't make simple totalitarian judgments.
All this is to say that people should watch the damn movie and if you don't like it, then you don't like it--but political judgements of art and culture outside of their individual contexts, even pop culture, are kind of Stalinist. But let me put it this way: Red Dawn is a bunch of silly rightwing propaganda surrounding absurd stereotypes, cold war paranoia, and even anxiety about early culture-war issues like gun control. I never switch the channel when I catch it on cable. Why? Because Red Dawn rules, and I can enjoy something that presents ideas outside of my own political views. Again, that's because I don't have douchebagitis.
posted by justin | 12:06 PM
2 Comments:
Sometimes my douchebagitis flares up... but since I got the creme it hasn't been such a problem
If conservatives want to see more films that are reflective of their own beliefs, then I would suggest they begin their quest by going to Film School. Your post reminded me of a conversation I once had with my father. I was watching the trinity broadcasting network, there was a standard looking christian band playing some song (along the lines of "lord I lift your name on high") and I asked my father, "why can't fundamentalist christians make decent music?" his response was interesting. He said "Fundamentalism at its core is in direct antithesis to all that is creative and new, since fundamentalism believes in a direct literal interpretation of things, there is no room for anything new. That is why you have the christian rock band,or the christian rap group. These people don't have the ability to be the first person to play some old records, and recite poetry about their experience on top of it, they don't have the ability to turn a blues chord progression into rock and roll and start moving their hips because in essence conservatism is a profound nostalgia for the past. Since art and music are constantly in flux, and are based highly on trend and fad, the conservative christians will always be one step behind. Ironically they will take what was once considered blashphemous (ie. rock and rap music) and simply keep everything that progressive musicians made, and then infuse it with their own propaganda. Since we are in a market that always seeks out the new, and interesting, conservative musicians will always fall by the wayside when it comes to engaging a market that is so dependent on "now" "
Post a Comment
<< Home