Jeffrey M. Anderson's 400 Screens 400 Blows - Politics as Usual

Hey Jeff,
In your blog you mentioned that films like mine (I'm the writer/producer/director of "Michael Moore Hates America") "never, ever screen for critics." Just wanted to point out that if that were true, I wouldn't have received two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper a week before my film was released theatrically, nor would Variety have fawned over the flick in advance of its release. I only write because this is the second time that a critic has erroneously reported that my flick didn't receive good reviews. The other time was Richard Corliss from Time, who had to sift through all the positive reviews to find the one negative piece he could find to quote. Not a biggie, but it's a flick I'm proud of (not pro-right as you claimed), and it bugs me when people misreport or lump us in with the "right wing."

Take care,
Mike Wilson

Reply

Something else to bear in mind when it comes to overtly political movies like documentaries is that left and right have different ways of expressing themselves. Namely, liberals believe in the power of the general public and as such are drawn toward mass-media outlets like film and journalism, while conservatives believe in the power of private enterprise and tend toward business and charitable organizations. This may help explain why there seems to be a dearth of 'right wing movies.'

Reply

You make an interesting point, but even the one thing that you mention as being supposedly universal ("watching the little guy standing up to and defeating the establishment") - has a political slant. You see, a right-wing version of that theme would be "the BIG guy stands up to the establishment" -- not a little guy, but a great hero, a master. It's the difference between what Nietzsche called "slave morality" (wanting the little guys and their values to guide society) and "master morality" (wanting the Great Men, the Heroes, to guide society).

You mention 300 as a right-wing film, and in this respect, you're right. The Spartan King isn't exactly fully Nietzschean, but at least he's closer to the notion of a "big guy against the establishment" than a "little guy against the establishment." Those kinds of movies are pretty rare -- for political reasons.

Incidentally, the film "Hollywoodism" discusses one theory about why the "little guy" slant exists, and continues to dominate the film world.

Reply

There's a difference between documentaries and entertainment films, and I personally think that while the vast majority of documentaries are political, the vast majority of entertainment films are not.

Take for example the 'National Treasure' movies (since you brought them up) - there is nothing inherently "political" in a modern sense about them. The basic plot could be construed that way, I guess, as you did, but it's a stretch. What I saw was a statement that you don't need supernatural powers, only a good education, to be a hero. Like 'Indiana Jones' before it.

Reply

The article perpetuates the tiresome characterizations of lower-class, uneducated conservatives and educated, well-read liberals. Politics as usual.

Reply

"(The 2005 book, What's the Matter with Kansas?, wonders why lower-class, uneducated redneck types always support Republican candidates, who in turn have no intention of doing anything in their best interests.)"

This would imply that all "rednecks" or anyone with a rural background are lower-class and uneducated. In fact, most of the "rednecks" are self-employed farmers and various businessmen who have had to struggle to make a living because liberals in Washington see fit to give their tax dollars to the people who won't do anything in the ghettos and the trailer parks, so your stereotypical assumption is wrong.

Reply

Of course all movies are political - and most of them are made by bedwetting pinko/socialist America-hating liberals who want to destroy this fine country and undo all the great things Ronald Reagan accomplished.

Just check out the reviews in Atlanta's "Stomp & Stammer" by my old buddy David T Lindsey at http://tinyurl.com/2c88lc, in which DTL explains it for all of us who are too deluded to see it for ourselves...

An example, from his review of "There Will be Blood":

"Oilmen have earned the right to detest the rest of us, and when I look at Paul Thomas Anderson’s movie I see nothing worth liking! Built around socialist Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil, even the old left understood civilization while today’s Bolshevik-Democrat betrays it. There Will Be Blood is further proof that Hollywood has no idea what working people – worldwide – endure: they sweat to achieve a future, raise families, build communities, provide for the mutual well-being and do so without being assholes."

Reply

Ironic that the "obnoxious left-wing behavior" of the CHICAGO 10, was a reaction to the LBJ White House and the Democratic Party, not a place beloved by "the right" (though right and left were defined by the same issues as they are today.

The problem with flicks like MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA and cheesy FAHRENHYPE 9/11, they aren't very good.
The Anti Bush, Anti War docs of the last eight years came out of a reaction to the major news outlets helping to sell the war. Docs have one of the only sources of the truth.

Perhaps FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and last years NO END IN SIGHT may be the only ones to stand the test-of-time, as ones that will still be watched ten years from now.

TAXI TO THE DARKSIDE perhaps as well. I hope being appalled by the abuse of innocent people is neither Right or Left. Hopefully even someone of the "right" who supports the war in Iraq would admire that movie.

sweeneyrules
http://rocketvideo.blogspot.com/

Reply