Still Not Getting It . . . Still Not Getting Anything, Really by KTK

One marvels at how simply, egregiously, bone-deep dumb the most prominent conservatives are. I have often referred to Conservative Reading Comprehension Disorder – the almost invariable phenomenon by which right-wingers simply and unmistakeably fail to understand what they are talking about when they have read the words right there in front of their faces and made the voluntary choice to open their yaps and opinionate about them. (See “Teh Stupid . . .”, below, for a minor example.) But it goes beyond that. It is almost impossible to catch a conservative making even the simplest intellectually honest and factually true statement about any issue, under any circumstances. It is impossible to find them discussing any issue other than in the most clumsy, broadly categorical terms. (Remember the Gore/Bush campaign, when Bush boasted of having almost failed out of college, and his campaign somehow turned the word “nuance” into a political attack? It’s as if they come from a planet where self-parody doesn’t exist.) But these days, they seem to be reaching new lows: they can’t even go to the movies without fucking it up.

Really.

NRO just published its list of “The 25 Best Conservative Movies of the Last 25 Years”. (Yes, it’s NRO, so criticism is almost unfair, but in this case they’ve recruited a lot of non-NRO contributors. So remember, when reading below: actual adult conservatives think like this.) They explain that “our approach in selecting them doesn’t rise to the level of an actual methodology, but there was a method to it” (see “nuance”, above). At any rate,when wingers go to the flicks, this is what goes through their minds (I’ve mixed up the ordering below to group certain films together):

1. The Lives of Others (2007): “I think that this is the best movie I ever saw,” said William F. Buckley Jr. upon leaving the theater . . .

Buckley spent his spare time writing crap-awful spy novels about a CIA agent who is somehow at the center of every major cold-war event that ever occurred, and secretly managed them all so that they were amazing American successes rather than the complete fuckups that actually occurred in real life. Seriously. (The U2 Incident? Planned in advance – an American triumph. Sputnik? The CIA agent could have stopped it but let it happen because he was too soft-hearted toward a Russian scientist. KGB infiltration of the Pentagon? We knew about it all along. . . .) His stated reason was to counter the popularity of John LeCarre, whose spies were too morally self-critical and introspective. Seriously. How could he not love a movie about how terrible the East German secret police were? Why would we care?

3. Metropolitan (1990): Whit Stillman’s Oscar-nominated debut takes a red-headed outsider into the luxurious drawing rooms and debutante balls of New York’s Upper East Side elite. One character, a committed socialist, falls for the discreet charm of the urban haute bourgeoisie. Another plaintively theorizes the inevitable doom of his class. A reader of Jane Austen wonders what’s wrong with a novel’s having a virtuous heroine. And a roguish defender of standards and detachable collars delivers more sophisticated conservative one-liners than a year’s worth of Yale Party of the Right debates. With mocking affection, gentle irony, and a blizzard of witty dialogue, Stillman manages the impossible: He brings us to see what is admirable and necessary in the customs and conventions of America’s upper class.

— Mark Henrie

Um . . . Mark? Did you notice that the people in the film are assholes? What’s decent about them is that they’re human in spite of their class pretensions. They’re repulsive adolescent poseurs; the point to the movie is that they may change. That would be a good thing. There’s a reason the central character is the one who’s not upper class. “[A] roguish defender of standards and detachable collars delivers more sophisticated conservative one-liners than a year’s worth of Yale Party of the Right debates. . . . He brings us to see what is admirable and necessary in the customs and conventions of America’s upper class.” OK, now we’re back to self-parody.

4. Forrest Gump (1994): . . . Forrest’s IQ may be room temperature, but he serves as an unexpected font of wisdom. Put ’em on a Whitman’s Sampler, but Mama Gump’s famous words about life’s being like a box of chocolates ring true.

— Charlotte Hays

Enough said.

6. Groundhog Day (1993): This putatively wacky comedy about Bill Murray as an obnoxious weatherman cursed to relive the same day over and over in a small Pennsylvania town, perhaps for eternity, is in fact a sophisticated commentary on the good and true. Theologians and philosophers across the ideological spectrum have embraced it. For the conservative, the moral of the tale is that redemption and meaning are derived not from indulging your “authentic” instincts and drives, but from striving to live up to external and timeless ideals. Murray begins the film as an irony-soaked narcissist, contemptuous of beauty, art, and commitment. His journey of self-discovery leads him to understand that the fads of modernity are no substitute for the permanent things.

— Jonah Goldberg

You got that out of Groundhog Day?

7. The Pursuit of Happyness (2006): Based on the life of self-made millionaire Chris Gardner (Will Smith), this film provides the perfect antidote to Wall Street and other Hollywood diatribes depicting the world of finance as filled with nothing but greed. After his wife leaves him, Gardner can barely pay the rent. He accepts an unpaid internship at a San Francisco brokerage, with the promise of a real job if he outperforms the other interns and passes his exams. Gardner never succumbs to self-pity, even when he and his young son take refuge in a homeless shelter. They’re black, but there’s no racial undertone or subtext. Gardner is just an incredibly hard-working, ambitious, and smart man who wants to do better for himself and his son.

— Linda Chavez

First, how is this movie not about “nothing but greed”? The guy spends the entire movie chasing wealth – dumping his family’s entire savings into a get-rich-quick sales scheme without telling his wife, refusing to take a regular job when that plan goes bust, leaping into a fast-track internship at a stock brokerage that he somehow fails to notice is unpaid, then dragging his kid through homeless shelters for most of a year instead of seeking a real job, in pursuit of a 1-in-20 chance of a big-bucks salary. The dude is basically Elian Gonzales’s mother with a leakier boat. And how does “never succumbs to self-pity” make it a conservative movie? (By that lame standard, Norma Rae, Matewan, and, shit, Debbie Does Dallas are all conservative movies.) What she really means, of course, is that it idolizes a man who has custody of his child when his skanky ho wife runs out on him after he ruins all their lives financially and refuses to take responsibility for himself . . . because she’s the one at fault. As for “they’re black, but there’s no racial undertone” . . . that may be true of this movie, but only if whoever made it is as dumb as the conservatives who watched it. (A homeless black guy triumphs over all his white Ivy-league intern competitors at Dean Witter Reynolds and becomes a rich stockbroker. Race plays absolutely no part in his life. Conservatives believe this.) Basically, conservatives believe that all “underdog” movies are conservative because they have really convinced themselves that (a) they’re put-upon, unappreciated underdogs, and (b) race, class, income, education, and how much you inherited from your upper-class parents really don’t have any affect on people’s lives. The movies prove it.

10. Ghostbusters (1984):. . . you have to like a movie in which the bad guy . . . is a regulation-happy buffoon from the EPA, and the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector. This last fact is the other reason to love Ghostbusters: When Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) gets kicked out of the university lab and ponders pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities, a nervous Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) replies: “I don’t know about that. I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results!”

— Steven F. Hayward

You thought Ghostbusters was about . . . entrepreneurship? I really don’t understand how these people think.

2. The Incredibles (2004): . . . A family of superheroes . . . are living an anonymous life in the suburbs, thanks to a society that doesn’t appreciate their unique talents. Then it comes to need them. In one scene, son Dash, a super-speedy runner, wants to try out for track. Mom claims it wouldn’t be fair. “Dad says our powers make us special!” Dash objects. “Everyone is special,” Mom demurs, to which Dash mutters, “Which means nobody is.”

— Frederica Mathewes-Greene

12. The Dark Knight (2008): 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.

— Andrew Klavan

It really creeps me out when conservatives watch superhero films, because they always assume the movies are secretly about them. Seriously, what the fuck is up with this Batman thing? That’s the second time Bush has been explicitly compared to the recent bad-ass vigilante Batman by Klavan. Aside from simply making them both sound even more lawless and degenerate, it only underscores Bush’s basement-level standing as a human being (you do know “Batman” is a fictional cartoon character, right?). As for the movie, it’s certainly conservative for the reasons Klavan names, but I, at least, was willing to grant it the favor of assuming some moral ambivalence in hits hero’s choices. Maybe Batman really is as big an asshole as Klavan thinks – hardly a reason to like the film. Regarding The Incredibles . . . it’s hard to imagine a sadder example of self-congratulatory wish fulfillment. Yes, all you conservatives are unsung heroes, but someday . . . ooooh, someday you’ll show them all! And they’ll regret how they laughed at you! Because you’re special! They’ll see! There’s nothing more pathetic than a whiny, self-pitying elitist.

5. 300 (2007): . . . Beneath a layer of egregious non-history — including goblin-like creatures that belong in a fantasy epic — is a stylized story about the ancient battle of Thermopylae and the Spartan defense of the West’s fledgling institutions. It contrasts a small band of Spartans, motivated by their convictions and a commitment to the law, with a Persian horde that is driven forward by whips. In the words recorded by the real-life Herodotus: “Law is their master, which they fear more than your men[, Xerxes,] fear you.”

— Michael Poliakoff
13. Braveheart (1995): Forget the travesty this soaring action film makes of the historical record. Braveheart raised its hero, medieval Scottish warrior William Wallace, to the level of myth and won five Oscars, including best director for Mel Gibson, who played Wallace as he led a spirited revolt against English tyranny. Braveheart taught that freedom is not just worth dying for, but also worth killing for, in defense of hearth and homeland. Six years later, amid the ruins of the Twin Towers, Gibson’s message resonated with a generation of American youth who signed up to fight terrorists, instead of inviting them to join a “constructive dialogue.” Liberals have never forgiven Gibson since.

— Arthur Herman
19. We Were Soldiers (2002): Most movies about the Vietnam War reflect the derangements of the antiwar Left. This film, based on the memoir by Lt. Col. Hal Moore (played by Mel Gibson), offers a lifelike alternative. It focuses on a fight between an outnumbered U.S. Army battalion and three North Vietnamese regiments in the battle of Ia Drang in 1965. Significantly, it treats soldiers not as wretched losers or pathological killers, but as regular citizens. They are men willing to sacrifice everything to do their duty — to their country, to their unit, and to their fellow soldiers. As the movie makes clear, they also had families. Indeed, their last thoughts were usually about their loved ones back home.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens

Another creepy characteristic of the right is their insistence on seeing war completely extracted from any kind of context. It’s not just that they “glorify war” – there are certain uplifting truths to be told about war, and there’s nothing wrong with telling them: wars are sometimes necessary; they call forth courage and sacrifice; they can be vital to the salvation of things worth saving. But those are only parts of the story of any war – the least important parts. War, taken in its whole, is almost always worse than what could be achieved by finding peaceful means to equally acceptable ends. Conservatives invariably glorify war as if nothing existed but the war. That’s why we constantly see war films focused on just one battle, like 300 or, We Were Soldiers, or Blackhawk Down. What the war means, what it results in, what the alternatives were, are of no importance. Here, these clowns explicitly state that the stories told by these movies are historically false – but that makes no impression. They praise war as if war consisted of nothing but fighting – the most childish, bloodthirsty, and narrow way of seeing it. Owens’s highest praise for We Were Soldiers is that it shows the troops as “regular citizens” who “had familes”. Unfortunately, they were regular citizens of a country that inserted itself into the election process in another country, then canceled the elections, installed not one but two puppet governments and instigated a civil war that took over a million lives – and some of whom, not incidentally, behaved like pathological killers. That matters more than the personal experiences of a few members of one company in one battle, however exhilarating that story may be. It is nowhere in this movie, and Owens does not notice. And, finally, the right’s drooling over the Sparta-fication of America under Bush rings with a particularly savage irony when they couch it in terms of “love for the law”. (By the way, Michael – just so you know: those loincloths, rippling abs, and gleaming, sweaty, smooth-shaven chests? Gay, gay, gay!)

15. Red Dawn (1984): From the safe, familiar environment of a classroom, we watch countless parachutes drop from the sky and into the heart of America. Oh, no: invading Commies! Laugh if you want — many do — but Red Dawn has survived countless more acclaimed films because Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic. The essence of timelessness is more than beauty. It’s also truth, and the truth that America is a place and an idea worth fighting and dying for will not be denied, not under a pile of left-wing critiques or even Red Dawn’s own melodramatic flaws. Released at the midpoint of Reagan’s presidential showdown with the Soviet Union, this story of what was at stake in the Cold War endures.

— John Nolte

Many do . . . for a good reason. (Here’s how dumb this movie is: the high-school-student-commandos’ anti-Commie battle cry – “Wolverines!” – is often quoted on pro-gun Web sites as shorthand for absurdly paranoid survivalist fantasies.) What’s weird about this is that Nolte actually seems to believe that this movie is “timeless” – that there is some vast underground of Red Dawn afficionados, fondly looking back on this masterpiece of political insight and spunky bravado as the Casablanca of the Cold War. (“The essence of timelessness is more than beauty.” OK, John – never, never again, try to be “poetic”, all right?) In what way, exactly, has this movie “survived countless more acclaimed films”? Apparently Father Time bestows his blessings by making you a laughingstock. If that’s true, conservatism has a long life ahead of it.

16. Master and Commander (2003): This naval-adventure film starring Russell Crowe is based on the books of Patrick O’Brian, and here’s what A. O. Scott of the New York Times said in his review: “The Napoleonic wars that followed the French Revolution gave birth, among other things, to British conservatism, and Master and Commander, making no concessions to modern, egalitarian sensibilities, is among the most thoroughly and proudly conservative movies ever made. It imagines the [H.M.S.] Surprise as a coherent society in which stability is underwritten by custom and every man knows his duty and his place. I would not have been surprised to see Edmund Burke’s name in the credits.”

— John J. Miller

You thought Master and Commander was about military hierarchy? That’s like saying Lady Chatterley’s Lover was about gardening. This is like the Ghostbusters one – I just don’t get what these people were doing at the movies, that they managed to get such pointless messages out of films with much richer content. (And do notice, John, that Patrick O’Brian’s series is much beloved of people with much more sophisticated sensibilities, for its witty dialogue, its erudite and humanitarian, but highly complex, character of Maturin the doctor, its luxuriant backdrop of art, music, and philosophy, and its exhaustively detailed historical verisimilitude. Basically not the kind of thing anyone on this list would like.) Miller also seems not to have gotten the memo that conservatives are supposed to be all about “egalitarian sensibilities” these days (the ones that still leave them on top, of course). “Know your place”? – you can think it, but you’re not supposed to say it out loud, my dear boy.

17. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (2005): The White Witch runs a godless, oppressive, paranoid regime that hates Santa Claus. She’s a cross between Burgermeister Meisterburger and Kim Jong Il. The good guys, meanwhile, recognize that some throats will need cutting: no appeasement, no land-for-peace swaps, no offering the witch a snowmobile if she’ll only put away the wand. Underlying the narrative is the story of Christ’s rescuing man from sin — which is antithetical to the leftist dream of perfected man’s becoming an instrument for earthly utopia. The results of such utopian visions, of course, are frequently like the Witch’s reign: always winter, and never Christmas.

— Tony Woodlief

No argument here. The books are crap. The movie is crap. Wingers love it. What’s to say? (OK – here’s what’s to say: “a godless, oppressive, paranoid regime that hates Santa Claus” and “She’s a cross between Burgermeister Meisterburger and Kim Jong Il” are about the dumbest invocations of evil ever recorded. But fully in keeping with the third-grade mentality that most of these reviewers bring to moral conflict.)

18. The Edge (1997): Screenwriter David Mamet uses a wilderness survival story about friendship, betrayal, and forgiveness to present a few truths rarely seen in movies: Knowledge has its limits, fortitude is a weapon against hardship, and honor can motivate even the shallowest man to great sacrifice. Some have interpreted the film as a Cold War allegory because it features a menacing bear. The main characters (played by Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin) understand that there is neither wisdom nor nobility in waiting for others to save them, and that they must take responsibility for their own lives and souls. Life is unfair, but to challenge life on its own terms is an exhilarating reward, no matter the outcome.

— Michael Long

“Some have interpreted the film as a Cold War allegory because it features a menacing bear.” (WTF??!! “Wolveri-i-i-i-i-nes!!”) “The main characters . . . understand that there is neither wisdom nor nobility in waiting for others to save them . . . .” Huh? They get stuck in the woods, and they try to hike out. What’s the big deal? They had no choice. There is absolutely nothing in this movie about “the wisdom or nobility of sitting on your ass in an uncharted part of Alaska until you freeze to death”. The characters quite rightly give that no thought, but then, neither would anyone else in their position, so it hardly matters. As for “knowledge has its limits”, it’s worth noticing that, inexperienced as he is, it’s the smart guy who survives. Also, the main plot point is that the other guy is trying to kill the smart guy in order to run off with his wife, and only lets him live long enough to save them both after their plane crashes. That’s . . . you know, kind of important to the movie. Honestly, I really don’t understand how these people see what they see when they go to the movies.

20. Gattaca (1997): In this science-fiction drama, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) can’t become an astronaut because he’s genetically unenhanced. So he purchases the identity of a disabled athlete (Jude Law), with calamitous results. The movie is a cautionary tale about the progressive fantasy of a eugenically correct world — the road to which is paved by the abortion of Down babies, research into human cloning, and “transhumanist” dreams of fabricating a “post-human species.” Biotechnology is a force for good, but without adherence to the ideal of universal human equality, it opens the door to the soft tyranny of Gattaca and, ultimately, the dystopian nightmare of Brave New World.

— Wesley J. Smith

Somewhat off on the plot synopsis, but Smith is right about the “cautionary tale” aspect. I can’t help noting, though, that almost all the rest of this review is completely made up. The movie has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion of fetuses with Down Syndrome, cloning, transhumanism, or whatever else. As is so common among right-wing bioethicists, Smith is just reading his own obsessions into every scenario he encounters. (Yep – everything’s about abortion. Including movies about genetic screening for astronauts. OK . . .)

21. Heartbreak Ridge (1986): Clint Eastwood’s foul-mouthed Marine sergeant Tom Highway makes quick work of kicking Communist Cubans out of Grenada. And, boy, does “Gunny” hate Commies. Not only does he kill quite a few, he also refuses a bribe of a Cuban cigar, saying: “Get that contraband stogie out of my face before I shove it so far up you’re a** you’ll have to set fire to your nose to light it.” A welcome glorification of Reagan’s decision to liberate Grenada in 1983, the film also notes how after a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam, America can finally celebrate a military victory. Eastwood, the old war horse, walks off into retirement pleased that he’s not “0–1–1 anymore.” Semper Fi. Oo-rah!

— James G. Lakely

Another one for the self-parody bin. (Both this movie and the actual invasion of Grenada.)

25. Gran Torino (2008): . . . He plays Walt Kowalski, a caricature of an old-school, dying-breed, Polish-American racist male, replete with post-traumatic stress disorder from having served in the Korean War. Kowalski comes to realize that his exotic Hmong neighbors embody traditional social values more than his own disaster of a Caucasian nuclear family. Dirty Harry blows away political correctness, takes on the bad guys, and turns a boy into a man in the process. He even encourages the cultural assimilation of immigrants. It feels so good, you knew the Academy would ignore it.

— Andrew Breitbart

Another one for the “not getting it” bin. Christ, people this shallow don’t deserve to watch movies this good. For one thing, much of this description is just factually false. The Eastwood character gains at least as much from his neighbors as they do from him. He helps the young kid find his way, not so much by “encouraging him to assimilate” as simply helping him get a job and a car – the kid never becomes any less authentically Hmong. Kowalski openly despises his own church and its goofy young priest, but he learns to show respect for Hmong religious practices and their elders. He learns to like their food, accept their friendship, and care about them, even though at first he can’t distinguish them from the “gooks” he fought in Korea almost 60 years ago. The movie is about Kowalski’s personal and moral journey back from despair after his wife dies, to reconnection with others and an increase in understanding and tolerance. It feels good because Kowalski (Walter) doesn’t end his days as the blustering, thick-headed, patriarchal palooka represented by that other great cinematic Kowalski (Stanley) – because he commits an act of love on behalf of someone he once hated. But Breitbart feels good about it because he’s racist, violent, old-fashioned, and xenophobic (without noticing that he’s none of those things at the end). What a bizarre, stupid waste.

I’ve said it before, and every encounter simply confirms it: there is something psychologically abnormal about American conservatives. They can’t even watch movies without getting all twisted up.

Hat Tip: Jesse Taylor’s also on the case, over at Pandagon, and he’s got some good stuff to say.