Tinseltown’s hard left tendencies have been obvious at least since the days of the House Un-American Activities Committee, but so long as there are even pockets of patriotism, the progressive condescendi won’t be satisfied. The contempt expressed by Frank Miller (300, Sin City) for the vermin comprising Occupy Wall Street has caused heads to explode. At the Guardian, a kook named Rick Moody got so excited as to denounce action films in general in an unintentionally hilarious example of why normal people laugh at liberal intellectuals.
Try to keep a straight face through this analysis of Gladiator:
Or what about the expensive and aesthetically pretentious Gladiator (2000), which I still contend is an allegory about George W Bush’s candidacy for president, despite the fact that director and principal actor were not US citizens. Is it possible to think of a film such as Gladiator outside of its political subtext? Are Ridley Scott’s falling petals, which he seems to like so much that he puts them in his films over and over again, anything more than a way to gussy up the triumph of oligarchy, corporate capital and globalisation?
Amazingly, this seems to be on the level.
Moody’s grousing about action films mixes the truth with absurd straw men:
Might is right, the global economy will be restored, America is exceptional, homely people deserve political disenfranchisement, and so on. … American movies, in the main, often agree with Frank Miller, that endless war against a ruthless enemy is good, and military service is good, that killing makes you a man, that capitalism must prevail, that if you would just get a job (preferably a corporate job, for all honest work is corporate) you would quit complaining.
Damn straight America is exceptional, military service is good, capitalism must prevail, et cetera, but who said anything about homely people?
Hollywood hasn’t produced much in the past few decades worth sitting through. A notable exception is 300. If you haven’t bought it on DVD yet, maybe Grouchy will persuade you:
The film 300, directed by Zack Snyder, based on a Frank Miller graphic novel of the same name, is just what you would expect from the heavily freighted right-wing filmic propaganda of the post-9/11 period: the Greeks, from which our own putative democracies are descended, must fight to the death against a vast but incompetent army of Persians (those hordes of the Middle East), who are considered here unworthy of characterisation — in fact, every character in the film is unworthy of characterisation — and the noble Spartans (the Greeks in question) achieve heroism despite their glorious deaths on the field at Thermopylae, by virtue of the moral superiority of their belief system and their unmatched courage. Ruthless enemy! From the Middle East! Heroic, rugged individualists! A big, sentimental score! Lots and lots of blue-screen! Endless amounts of body parts spewing theatrical blood!
Actually, the movie is even better than he makes it sound. Too bad watching it is a moral crime:
But in the films of this era, the Marvel and DC era of Hollywood, even when the work is not self-evidently shilling for large corporations (with product placement) or militating for a libertarian and oligarchical political status quo (which makes a fine environment for large, multinational corporations), the work is doing nothing at all to oppose these things. Paying your $12.50, these days, is not unlike doing a few lines of cocaine and pretending you don’t know about the headless bodies in Juarez.
That is, watching a movie that doesn’t go out of its way to oppose liberty is the equivalent of financing drug cartels.
The piece finally concludes that Tinseltown’s 99% liberal output is “cryptofascist” (when moonbats say “fascist,” they mean conservative or libertarian). If only.
On a tip from Smorfia48.