Standing Athwart The Film Projector, Crying “Stop!”


Is there a “conservative” movie?

National Review this week insists there is - 25 in fact, not counting the 25 more they relegate to a sad box afterward - and raises the question I so often have with these exercises: can we really classify films in terms of doctrine?

The whole idea matters to criticism, I think, because there is the constant temptation to review a film’s politics, or other esoteric thematic concerns, rather than simply evaluate how a film tells a story. And as a critic, I hate to be locked into a narrow frame - my approach to film encompasses a lot of ideas I’ve encountered over the years: feminism, liberalism, socialism, social justice… and yes, even conservatism. But ultimately, I think, the question I bring to each film is more basic: does it work at its primary goal - to entertain an audience? Because a film that fails as a film, I think, can’t be an effective vehicle for any thematic or political message.

Whereas, I think, a film that succeeds as a film often transcends its more didactic politics. Take, for instance, the top “conservative film” on the NR list: The Lives Of Others, a recent winner of the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. It’s true that you can see in that film a clear indictment of the repressive politics of East Germany just prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall… but to narrow the film’s thematic message to just the politics misses the compelling human drama unfolding around it. The complexities of the relationships between a playwright, his actress girlfriend, the Stasi official obsessed with her, and the low level functionary sent to spy on them, reveals layers of complexity in human interaction. Is all of that “conservative”? I’d argue no… but really, it’s the argument that’s beside the point; The Lives of Others is such a transcendent piece of filmmaking, I think it defies easy categorization, and demands wide viewing.

Here are the top 10 in the National Review List:
1. The Lives of Others
2. The Incredibles
3. Metropolitan
4. Forrest Gump
5. 300
6. Groundhog Day
7. The Pursuit of Happyness
8. Juno
9. Blast From The Past
10. Ghostbusters

Of course, the first, obvious reaction to all of this is that list is basically a mess; it lacks any sort of critical or intellectual rigor, the choices are all over the place, and the idea of “conservatism” as a thread to tie this films together is tenuous at best, and underlines how poorly defined “conservatism” is in these post-Bush days.

Also, apparently, none of the top conservative movies is made before 1983.

I have a longtime bias against these exercises in list making; count me among those who thinks the “AFI Top 100″ list of the “greatest films of all time” does a disservice to all concerned. Unlike the NR list it deifies, and calcifies in amber, a sense that old matters more than new, that the old warhorses (you know Casablanca and Gone With the Wind are in there) will always matter, no matter what. The AFI list is no more useful, or more thoughtful, ultimately, than National Review’s: it makes me want to know what missed the cut, and why I should let others decide for me the films I need to see.

As a critic, of course, the dilemma of influence is key: does our opinion matter for anything, can we actually convince anyone to do anything based on our views? Lists of films sidestep that question by creating an instant sense of authority, even though the opinions are just as daft, if not more so. We can waste hours, days, years (thanks AFI!) arguing the relative merits of #17 versus #25.

At this point in my writing, I don’t need the sense of control; I write criticism because the ideas interest me, films fascinate me. What they say about us, about our cultures, the lives we lead or could lead… these things animate my critical view. And because our lives don’t fit easy “political” theories, neither do our films. Am I concerned about the feminist implications of a series of films - Bride Wars, Confessions of a Shopaholic, He’s Just Not That Into You - that suggest women are easily stereotoyped? Sure; but do I think the consumer culture and modern mores have made weddings, shopping and boyfriend acquisition part of the story of our culture? Yeah, that too.

For the record, I love Metropolitan (and Barcelona and The Last Days of Disco), 300, and The Incredibles. I love them for different reasons - and frankly my love of 300’s eye candy is one reason NR should be worried about listing it - and none of them, I think, makes me conservative, nor is a “conservative” view of the world what I take from any of them. And the reasons I dismiss the films I don’t like on the list - the maudlin, cheap melodrama that really defines Forrest Gump; the childish, offensive commercialism of Ghostbusters - have nothing to do with rejecting conservative ideas (indeed, Forrest’s role as a character of fundamental decency is the film’s only saving grace; though the fact decency is equated with being mentally simple speaks volumes about what’s being celebrated). And I think making assumptions about the politics of the makers as defining the product - and really, where are Cecil B. deMille, for instance, or Loretta Young on that list - is just as fallacious. I spoke to Whit Stillman’s mother at a Democratic fundraiser years ago; I have my reasons to suspect that his politics don’t necessarily fit the bill NR describes.

It’s frustrating that so many see arts criticism as something anyone can do; that we think a film review from the gal in the office (”The film is great! Brad Pitt is awesome!”) is similar to the work of AO Scott (personally, I blame Peter Travers). Lists of films, I think, reinforce the idea: anyone can make them (just check Amazon or Netflix), and the criteria needs only a sliver of reason to seem deep. National Review, like other political jourmals, treats its arts coverage as an afterthought; and just as poorly, as part of the current conservative movement, it suffers from a general anti-intellectual, anti-creativity approach to the arts that makes serious criticism all but impossible.

There’s a lot of hand-wringing in conservative circles about the abject liberalism of films from Hollywood. The National Review list, clearly, is meant to subvert the idea that “Hollywood liberalism” is reflexive. A more nuanced examination - which occasionally surfaces on the right - is that conservatives don’t impact the arts more because they largely don’t try hard enough: too concerned with the political message, they sacrifice the necessary elements of drama, conflict and character development that make performing art thrive. Many of us - me included - would welcome art that challenges our preconceived notions; that what art does, what its meant to do. You can’t create a notion of a “conservative cinema” by simply wholesale claiming various projects after the fact, certainly without the kind of intellectual rigor that sets a precise definition and takes more care than the casual, sloppy exercise on display in NR. I’m subversive enough of a liberal film critic to think we’d better off if someone tried to actually define a conservative cinema… but it won’t be me doing it. And so far, it won’t be National Review, either.

Cross posted to NYC Weboy

Possibly Related Classroom Projects From DonorsChoose.org Powered by Social Actions

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
February 14th, 2009
Comments
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Uncategorized

Other Posts
Facebook’s Content Moment
Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Readers

Shop newcritics

Featured books:


Viewing 25 Comments

 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus