Arts & Ammo

Dark Knight for Conservatives

Andrew Klavan says the latest Batman movie takes a conservative viewpoint. Batman confronts the terrorists in the only terms they understand, and Batman is vilified for it. Sound familiar?

I have not seen “The Dark Knight” because the nearest theater is 50 miles away and I have to have a pretty good reason to make the trek. I do that for the Met Opera productions, but I can postpone seeing most Hollywood releases until Netflix makes them available. Of course, many Hollywood releases can be postponed indefinitely if not forever.

Klavan reiterates a point that we have taken up before (e.g., here and here): why does Hollywood insist on promoting a losing point of view – a view that promotes losing the war and that results in losing money?

[T]ime after time, left-wing films about the war on terror – films like “In The Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Redacted” – which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

In contrast, “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune. Klavan also notes that Hollywood offers the conservative viewpoint only when it is disguised or sugar-coated in some way.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense – values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right – only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3” and now “The Dark Knight”?

I think Chesterton came up with part of the answer quite a while back in Orthodoxy.

My first and last philosophy, that which I believe in with unbroken certainty, I learnt in the nursery. I generally learnt it from a nurse; that is, from the solemn and star-appointed priestess at once of democracy and tradition. The things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales. They seem to me to be the entirely reasonable things. They are not fantasies: compared with them other things are fantastic. Compared with them religion and rationalism are both abnormal, though religion is abnormally right and rationalism abnormally wrong. Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense. It is not earth that judges heaven, but heaven that judges earth; so for me at least it was not earth that criticised elfland, but elfland that criticised the earth. I knew the magic beanstalk before I had tasted beans; I was sure of the Man in the Moon before I was certain of the moon.

When Hollywood makes a realistic film about the war on terror, the values vanish, and moral equivalence takes its place. As Chesterton would say, the rational approach is abnormally wrong.

Klavan concludes with what we all know but often choose to ignore: Doing what is right is difficult. And he highlights the distinction between those who recognize the moral complexity in doing right and those who merely profess an easy morality while doing nothing.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away – because we have to chase him.

July 25th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Film | no comments

Building the Perfect Shed

Well we had a pretty good day – my brother and I – got the outside frame of the floor done and put 4 out of 20 joists in place. The rest of the joists should be easy, might do a couple a day in the evening. When we put on the plywood subfloor (six sheets of plywood) the floor will be done, then we start on the walls, then roof. I’m not sure I want to go with the barn style per the plans I bought, as it seems limiting in terms of windows and skylight, but I don’t have to decide just yet. I think the hardest part was the foundation and floor. It should get a bit easier from now on, although the roof will be a challenge. Now, unfortunately, it’s back to work at the paying job, gearing up for trial.

My brother and I are like Gary Cooper in that movie about the architect – Ayn Rand’s fantasy The Fountainhead. We bow to no man, and follow the dream . . . of the perfect shed . . . as art … death before conformity! To Hell with the Building Code! The act of creation must be preserved, on film or in lumber!

So The Fountainhead was modeled after Frank Lloyd Wright? Yeah, as in Frank Lloyd Wrong! Nice ideas on paper, but horribly non-ergonomic buildings, chairs that hurt to sit in, doors where you have to step down and duck through simultaneously. Please, spare me FLW/R! Art belongs on a wall. A wall with a doorway fit for midgets is not art – sorry! Nor is a chair that is a hemorrhoid waiting to happen! Nor is a fork that won’t pick up a piece of rib-eye or a piece of lettuce. Patricia Neal can have the beamish S.O.B.!

Now, give me a nice piece of landscape architecture, and that’s a different story. A fountain, a waterfall, a barbecue pit. . . .

Here in the South, we’re concerned with space and ventilation, leg-room, gut-room, head-room, mind-room, mud-rooms, and cockroaches. We’re pragmatists who believe that form follows function, not ego, mushrooms, popularity, acid, adoration, publicity, sun-stroke, weirdness, funkiness, dementia, hero worship, or other flirt-ilizer, gim-crackery, crack, or general nonsense. We prefer horse-sense, barn style, barnyard, right angles, Anglican righteousness, righteous indignation, indignant outrage, and basic outrageous-ness, not to mention Elliot Ness, Lake Ness, lake effect, effective opposition, oppositional defiance, defiant self-righteousness, and generally being right (which brings us back to right-angles – which, frankly, Frank wrongly thinks are evil).

The ground in south Louisiana is nearly liquid, so it has the virtue of being flat in a way that Kansans can only dream about. Consequently, we naturally build our sheds at right angles to the ground and sky. The street lights on Bourbon Street are our plumb line, and when their angle to the ground appears too acute, or oblique, we know it’s time to go home and sleep it off. Somebody call Frank a cab.

July 24th, 2008 Posted by The Strafer | Film, Ranching | no comments

Small Arms Fire

To the Spoilers Goes the Victory. The sack race and three-legged race have been banned from a school sports day because the children might fall over and hurt themselves. Simon Woolley, head of education at Beamish in Co Durham, said: “We looked at a three-legged race and a sack race but what we want to do is minimise the risk to the children. We thought we would be better to do hopping and running instead because there was less chance of them falling over.”

Trash Culture. “Not long before she died, Pauline Kael remarked to a friend, ‘When we championed trash culture we had no idea it would become the only culture.’” Robert Fulford elaborates:

Kael assumed she was safe to defend the choices of mass audiences because the old standards of taste would always be there. They were, after all, built into the culture. But those standards were swiftly eroding. [Paul] Schrader argued that she and her admirers won the battle but lost the war. Acceptable taste became mass-audience taste, box-office receipts the ultimate measure of a film’s worth, sometimes the only measure. Traditional, well-written movies without violence or special effects were pushed to the margins. “It was fun watching the applecart being upset,” Schrader said, “but now where do we go for apples?”

U.K. Moves Toward State-Sponsored Islam. “The BBC has announced that now the Government is to fund a ‘board of Islamic theologians,’ with Oxford and Cambridge Universities hosting debates on ‘key issues such as women and loyalty to the UK.’ Communities Secretary Hazel Blears said it was government’s job ‘to support Muslim leaders on controversial issues.’” Via Cranmer.

New Music Is Torture. Joe Queenan says the unsayable.

Having spent most of the last century writing music few people were expected to understand, much less enjoy, the high priests of music were now portrayed as innocent victims of the public’s lack of imagination. . . . [C]oncert-goers have learned to stay awake and applaud politely at compositions by Christopher Rouse and Tan Dun. But they do this only because these works tend to be short and not terribly atonal; because they know this is the last time in their lives they’ll have to listen to them; and because the orchestra has signed a contract in blood guaranteeing that if everyone holds their nose and eats their vegetables, they’ll be rewarded with a great dollop of Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn.

Beer Is a Health Food. George Will says it, so it must be true. And he backs it up with scientific and historical evidence. “Suffice it to say that the good news is really good: Beer is a health food. And you do not need to buy it from those wan, unhealthy-looking people who, peering disapprovingly at you through rimless Trotsky-style spectacles, seem to run all the health food stores.”

July 20th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Film, Music, Politics, Religion | no comments

Hollywood: Tedious and Woefully Uninteresting

Andrew Breitbart writes about the perils of being Republican in Hollywood. Tolerance has its limits.

Convicted murderer? Has anyone optioned the rights to your story?

Avowed Marxist? Viva la revolucion!

Scientologist? Do you take Visa or Mastercard?

Syphilitic drug abuser? Let’s talk!

Conservative? You should go.

One would think that the entertainment industry would entertain. Instead, it seems hell bent on assuming the role of re-education czar and hectoring half of the electorate about their supposed political shortcomings. Ford and Nike cheerfully sell their products to liberals and conservatives alike – no questions asked. Amazon stocks books written for a variety of audiences. However much Hollywood used to be associated with conspicuous wealth, it now seems to place is misguided principles above the pursuit of income.

More than a dozen box office failures vilify the troops without a single counterperspective seeing the light of day. Yet one positive Iraq war film, “Brothers at War,” dares to tell the story of a noble and patriotic American family – but it can’t find a distributor.

The only thing more vilified than a Republican, Breitbart notes, is a practicing Christian. So naturally no one wanted any part of Mel Gibson’s Passion, and Gibson was forced to keep the profits himself. Breitbart concludes:

The litany of negative consequences to the ideological rigidity of modern Hollywood is virtually limitless. The lack of tension between competing ideas has made the arts increasingly tedious and rendered the celebrities woefully uninteresting.

Hollywood hasn’t figured out that the party is quickly coming to an end. The film business is fragmenting. The gate-keepers and king-makers in all forms of entertainment are fading from the scene. But the myopic powers in Hollywood are wedded to producing expensive films, heavy on special effects, short on drama, with story lines that either caricature or offend large segments of their market.

July 14th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Film, Politics | no comments

Cyd Charisse (1921 – 2008)

Cyd Charisse and Fred Astaire forever captivated our hearts (and our eyes!) with their “Dancing in the Dark” (The Band Wagon). Now, with Charisse’s death, both artists are gone. Their film legacy continues to attest to the magnificence of their creativity and to the crisp beauty of the romantic visions they wove. Boy meets Girl, and they dance their love. All is subtle, all is fluid, all is beguiling. And “all” wisely remains a mystery.

In addition to the perils of today’s trashed-out pop culture, the lack of classy music ranks as the second culprit stealing this kind beauty from our stages. William Katz, writing on Power Line, says it well:

Besides elegance and class, Cyd Charisse had something else. She had the great army of talent that filled Hollywood in the golden age of American film. A dancer doesn’t dance to silence. Cyd Charisse danced to Cole Porter and Arthur Schwartz and Lerner & Loewe. She was enveloped by lyrics that sung of love and longing, not hookers or the need for medical marijuana. A great movie musical is a meeting of talents. A great dancer without great music is half a dancer, and Cyd Charisse came along when songs were still pouring from Irving Berlin and Richard Rodgers.

Growing up, my mother both threatened and comforted me with her certain pronouncement that “the pendulum always swings back.” I hope she was right about this one. The talent is there – always has been. It could all be rediscovered, and recaptured. General audiences would find the magic still works.

If you don’t know what has been lost, watch this.

June 18th, 2008 Posted by Professor Carol | Film | no comments

Smile When You Say That

Is this the kind of critical analysis they teach in acting school?

Rupert Everett, who is portraying actor Richard Burton, called military personnel “wimps,” saying:

In [Richard] Burton’s day they were itching to get into the fray. Now it is the opposite. They are always whining about the dangers of being killed. Oh my God, they are such wimps now! The whole point of being in the Army is wanting to get killed, wanting to test yourself to the limits. Now you have to fly 15,000ft above the war zone to avoid getting hit. I don’t think there is any point in having wars if that’s how you’re going to behave. It’s pathetic. All this whining!

The whole point of being in the Army is going to war and getting yourself blown up. That and p—ing on prisoners. Yet we all get shocked by Abu Ghraib.

Realizing some time later that these remarks might be seen as somewhat . . . uh, intemperate, Everett apologized and attempted to explain:

He explained he made his remarks to compare war now to war in Victorian times, saying: “I compared his longing to get into battle to the way we engage in war today. Then death was glorious. Today it is what it really is. Each and every death is a terrible tragic loss.”

He said: “To be a soldier one needs that special gene, that extra something, that enables a person to jump into one on one combat, something, after all, that is unimaginable to most of us, as we are simply not brave enough.”

The fact that Everett gave no apparent thought to voicing this foolishness in the press strongly suggests that those views pass for conventional wisdom in the crowd Everett hangs out with. It’s good that he apologized, but perhaps he should give his apology where it counts – at any NCO club, where I’m sure he will find a most receptive audience.

In many times and places, able-bodied men (presumably Everett is one) did not have the luxury of avoiding military service. In such times, those who served were not blessed with a special gene for bravery or motivated by a desire to be blown up. The most cursory reading of military history should convince anyone that wars are fought by ordinary men called on to do extraordinary things. Those who, for whatever reason, saw no combat generally had the good sense and humility not to impugn those who did.

Today, however, we are plagued with a smarmy class of poseurs who assume that wars can be avoided by getting the right kind of therapy for the brutal and insecure men who populate the ranks. This seems particularly ironic in the case of actors who perfect the art of looking tough in the face of imaginary dangers, who stand up to and defeat scores of enemy firing blanks, while simultaneously calling those who face real bullets “wimps.” As Everett himself said, “I have nothing to complain about . . . except maybe people wondering if a queen like me can butch-it-up enough to play a convincing straight man.”

Don’t strain yourself, Ev, but consider a few facts:

• The Eighth Air Force suffered the highest casualty rate of all Allied forces in WWII while routinely flying missions at 20,000 ft. (without pressurized cabins).
• The death of military personnel in past wars left widows and orphans who no doubt considered the event no less tragic than it is today.
• Richard Burton did not live in Victorian times.

June 10th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Ammo, Film | no comments

Real Archaeologists

Real archaeologists don’t actually live the life of Indiana Jones. Neil Asher Silberman finds the fictional portrayal of archaeologists somewhat distressing.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of pop culture. But I have a problem with the entertainment tail wagging the archaeological dog. As someone who’s been involved in archaeology for the past 35 years, I can tell you that Indiana Jones is not the world’s most famous fictional archaeologist; he’s the world’s most famous archaeologist, period.

I’ve got news for Silberman. Real lawyers don’t exactly live like Perry Mason or the lawyers that Grisham writes about either. I’ve often envied Perry Mason for having only one case at a time, getting it resolved in a few days, and then having a new client immediately appear with a new problem and a new fee.

I know that the Indiana Jones series is just a campy tribute to the Saturday afternoon serials of the 1930s and the B-movies of the 1950s, but believe me, it totally misrepresents who archaeologists are and what goals we pursue.

And I would guess that the writers took some liberties portraying the professional life of Clark Kent, Dr. Kildare, and Rin Tin Tin. If I were an archaeology professor, I would be grateful that someone had the creativity to make my profession look glamorous. The alternative would be to pass two hours watching Indiana Jones grade papers at his kitchen table.

Silberman’s real point, however, is buried toward the end of his column – a political argument straight from the formulaic script of academia:

At a time when our national political debates are centered on our relationships with other cultures, when the question of talking to rather than attacking perceived enemies has become a contentious presidential campaign issue, . . . the thrill-a-minute adventures of Indiana Jones are potentially dangerous and dysfunctional models for both modern archaeology and American behavior in the world.

Who’s mired in fiction now? I didn’t know Indiana Jones was a model, dysfunctional or otherwise, for American behavior in the world. Do we expect archaeologists to lead us out of the political wilderness and into a new age of enlightened diplomacy? If only we had better, more genteel, models of archaeology, we would elect more Democrats and our enemies would love us.

No thanks. Give us more action. Maybe a movie about a blogger who jets around the world in his pajamas rescuing damsels and writing posts on his PDA while drinking martinis – stirred, not shaken.

Fantasy can be a guilty pleasure. But don’t confuse it with archaeology. And please don’t ever ask me about my fedora and bullwhip again.

A professor with a bullwhip and fedora? We could wish, but . . . too heteronormative, too patriarchal.

May 28th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Ammo, Film, Politics | no comments

Sex and the City

John Kass at The Chicago Tribune offers a free Get Out of Watching the “Sex and the City” Movie Card. If that’s what it takes, then by all means get one. I have not seen the movie, but I tried watching the TV show once.

Millions of men are sick about this movie based on a TV show about four terrifying, rich, aging, elitist women who whine about sex and men and purchase $700 pairs of shoes to feel better about themselves. What guy wouldn’t love such a movie?

Phil from Newcastle upon Tyne apparently speaks for the millions of men:

“I don’t think SATC is just for girls. I am a reasonably well-adjusted bloke and I am looking forward to seeing the film with my girlfriend. I am then looking forward to poking my eyes out with red-hot pokers, burning my skin off, and rolling around in salt for a while.”

And then there’s this headline: Stars Reveal “Sex and the City” Movie Might Be Kind of a Downer.

Steve cheats on Miranda, Samantha cheats on Smith Jared, and Big leaves Carrie at the altar. . . . Cynthia Nixon says Steve’s cheating is about “even more than unfaithfulness.”

Isn’t it always?

May 18th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Film, Leisure | no comments

Prepare To Be Disillusioned

Behold the wit and wisdom of Sean Penn. He was quoted today on the topic of Barack Obama.

I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn’t become a greater man than he will ever be.

That’s a tall order for any candidate. Maybe Penn would do better to stick with the Army’s slogan – the potentially achievable “Be all that you can be.” Then again, maybe he would do better to stick simply to acting. Then again . . .

May 14th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Film, Language, Politics | one comment

Comedy 9/11

If the Erfurt Opera can make a mockery of 9/11 by staging Verdi at ground zero, should we expect something better from Hollywood? Politico.com reports on the upcoming 9/11 comedies:

Consider Boll’s “Postal,” opening nationwide May 23. Touted as a “shock comedy,” the film begins by depicting the Sept. 11 hijackers making moronic comments about the paradise that awaits them. The film is likely to offend just about everyone with its premise that includes “a gang of bosomy commandos [who] face off against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in an epic battle that will determine the fate of the world.” Since its opening cockpit sequence was first promoted on YouTube last May, it has been viewed more than two million times.

This comes as Victor Davis Hanson laments that Hollywood

. . . is more interested in political correctness than profits, as the Iraq War movie bombs attest. Talent is no longer gravitating to Hollywood, but staying put in Europe and Asia. Alternate media, from the Internet to video games to cable television, mean that fewer go to the movies anymore (I went once in the last 12 months). The old bread-and-butter genres—like the Western or the war movie—are either moribund or merely landscapes for political revisionism.

Why do these movies bomb? According to Knight Ridder:

Americans recognize that there’s something tasteless about directors living their cushy, sheltered lives in sunny California and making films that savage the behavior of soldiers in a war while those very soldiers are still fighting and dying for their country.

War comedies are not unheard of, but Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz would not have been funny in 1944.

April 22nd, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Film | 2 comments