March 9 , 2005

I got a note this morning from a regular reader who also writes for the web… a smart guy… a pretty thoughtful guy… questioning once again whether I am a conservative.

I'm not going to assert a position right now… I'll let you figure it out for yourself… because what I believe in is people thinking for themselves. I celebrate the process of thought. I celebrate the freedom of thought. And I rage against those, on either side of the political spectrum, who would try to shut down discuss in favor of "winning" the argument.

It's just that simple.

The debate today was over a Ken Tucker review of Gunner Palace which is full of twitchy indignation about the perceived politics of the film. As I read the review, Tucker felt that the soldiers looked like goofy boys, between their turns getting shot at and fearing being blown up in the streets of Iraq, which didn't seem to build the rage against the war that he seemed to be looking for. As a result, he questioned the filmmakers politics, the purpose of the film and compared the film unfavorably to a PBS doc that, I assume, was more harrowing.

My reaction came on two fronts. First, knowing the filmmaker via e-mail for the last year or so, I know that Tucker would find himself face down in peanut shells if he spewed that crap to Michael Tucker's (no relation) face. Michael's almost-parental passion for the boys he spent the time with in the Gunner Palace is never far from his nerve endings. And Ken Tucker's comments, I'm sure, would seem to Michael to be an assault on the honor of these men who served their country and risked their lives (some members of the "cast" have since been killed in service), even in a somewhat unpopular war. (I know… equivocating on the raging hatred of the war that Hollywood evinces is sacrilege… even if the country is not 100% in lockstep with that rage… makes me "suspect.")

My second reaction was as a film critic. Ken Tucker was not unclear about his politics. But he also wasn't forthcoming. There is a fine line. But disclosure always is. Tucker's editors, I'm sure, would argue that Ken's politics have no place in a film review. But if the review is politically motivated, I beg to differ. (J' recuse!)

But I feel the same way about non-political biases. How many critics tune out any film with noticeable CG in it? Who blanches when the violence is realistic enough to make them feel something real and gives a free ride to "cartoon" violence? How many critics reviewed Eva Green's breasts instead of her acting in The Dreamers? (And could the argument be made that if her sexuality aroused you, that she had, indeed, done her job?)

There are very few objective truths in art. And cinema, for better or worse, is a form of art. But the power of criticism is a careful mixture of the objective and the subjective. And when critics lean too far to either side, the work is less valuable. Disclosure can maintain that balance, even in the face of otherwise pure subjectivity.

But what does not maintain the balance… and what so scares me about a review like Ken Tucker's here… is the recent notion, emboldened by the web, that if you can find an audience that agrees or disagrees with you in near black or white shades, you have done the job.

It's classic "McDonald's Or A Sandwich." Working in blacks and whites only, a couple faced with choosing a restaurant can either go to the same place(s) over and over and over again, never varying their experiences or they can be so indecisive that they never leave the house and end up eating a sandwich. People do both of these things. And God bless them. But most people live in the middle somewhere. And thus, the flavors of life.

What does not serve the public, the public tends to reject. I don't know about the wisdom of the masses, but anyone (critics included) who decides that the masses are, in reality, The Great Unwashed, is unwise. Over a fine glass of scotch at The Critics Club, "they" are always the pulsing, dirty throng. But that's locker room chatter. In truth, most writers I read tend to agree with the public when the public agrees with them and wags that finger at the public when they disagree.

But that's self-indulgent bullshit of the lowest order.

Back to politics… if you assume that the nation's voting has a 20% undecided block that is won or lost in each national election, that group voted for Clinton twice and has now voted for Bush twice. So how could "they" manage to be so smart and so dumb all in the same 13 years? How could "they" embrace Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in multiples of how "they" embrace Almodovar? How could The Passion of The Christ, as endlessly in our lives as it was for months of last year with all the resources of America's churches, still fail to gross as much as Shrek 2, which was reviewed and forgotten by the media within a couple of weeks? Is the "niche" market for Sideways the same size as the "niche" market for Underworld or Are We There Yet?

Yeah… your head should be spinning now.

Agreement is not correctness. Correlation is not always truth.

Fahrenheit 9/11… the biggest documentary ever by more than four times. People who agreed with its feelings about this president loved it. But objectively, I would argue that it is one of Michael Moore's least thoughtful, least insightful, least provocative films. Did anyone really go into the film thinking George W. Bush was a Rhoades Scholar or find it a new insight to come out saying, "That guy sure seems dumb?" The thing about Michael Moore is that he has had at least one "smoking gun" in each of his films. There was none in F9/11. There was a fresh view of what so many of us think is wrong about the Bush Administration's approach to world politics. But the memorable stuff in the movie is, essentially, gossip. "What a jerk, talking about the war and then teeing off!" "Eewww…he licked his comb." Or even, "The Saudis got to fly out of America in the week after 9/11." But why were they there and, even if we agree that it was because the Saudis are Bush benefactors (and forget the Democrats they gift), where was the harm? Not the inference of "there could have been harm because they might not have been interrogated hard enough," but real harm. There was none even suggested. And thus, the gun has no bullet.

Now, does my pointing this out make me a conservative?

Well, if you define a conservative as someone who does not tow the company line, I guess it does.

Fahrenheit was neither on my Worst of 2005 nor my Best. But a documentary was at the top of my Top Ten. Born Into Brothels. Why? Because it is a movie about an individual taking responsibility and the shocking power that can come out of that individual act. That was the subtext of Roger & Me, all those years ago. Moore found some sort of middle ground in Bowling for Columbine. Fahrenheit was a political quickie. So I hope that Sicko, his upcoming HMO movie, will get back to the "take action as an individual" mode.

I believe in the individual… ahead of party or religion or race or even intelligence. I am a snob… but for myself. If I threw away all of the people who disagreed with me or embraced films and ideas that I found unfathomable, I would be very lonely. Heck, I'd have to kill myself, I guess, since my tastes sometimes go places that I cannot fathom.

I believe that the human experience is the one worth embracing. And if I had to pick three (living) film critics to have dinner with they would be Manohla Dargis, Armond White, and Andrew Sarris because no matter how we may disagree on some things, they push me to think harder and to dig deeper.

If I had to pick three (living) filmmakers to dine with, Mel Gibson and Michael Moore would have seats at the table because they are that smart and that tenacious and that full of shit and that completely committed.

They are not the only ones. Just as the trio in the graph above are not the only critics who push my buttons. But that's the point! I don't know the work of every critic in the world well enough to leave most of them out at this moment. God knows, even more so with filmmakers. Every time I talk to one of the Asian directors, I desperately want to understand their language so I can get the nuances and know where their heads really are at.

How could I leave out Jim Sheridan, who I've never fought with over politics… or Mike Leigh, whose stare could bend spoons like Uri Geller on steroids… or Soderbergh… or Zana Briski (whose girlie-ness finally reared its sexy head on Oscar weekend)… or Lars von Trier… or the Wachowskis… or Sydney Pollack… or Bill Condon or so many others…

Christ… what about Michael Bay? There is a lot of façade there, but you gotta figure there is a cauldron of belief under there somewhere.

I watched part of Serial last night… a forgotten social satire made by mostly TV people in the period of Arthur and Foul Play when you needed a song sung by Christopher Cross or some such well-voiced sop to roll over credits. But the movie should be remade. It is still very close to dead on. And, as I said… TV people… the guys who went on to do Head of the Class. They aren't exactly Albert Brooks… but that didn't keep them from doing a really smart satire.

Albert Brooks … good dinner guest. What about Brad Bird? He has to have politics and he is brilliant and he likes cartoons. Does that put him in some other class? Did you see Kevin Costner on the last Bill Maher show before the elections? Clear headed and to the point… he's got a little of that movie star chip on his shoulder, but he listens and when he talks, it's not goop.

Anyway… this all started as a defense of my politics.

But what kind of politics does a First Amendment absolutist have? Does either "side' really believe in absolute freedom of speech?

One last thought… the reason the drinking age doesn't work is because no one believes in it… intuitively. Intellectually, it makes sense. But if you can vote or marry or go to war at 18, how can you not be able to drink and gamble? (It's a rhetorical question.) Do 16-year-olds really need to be protected from the F-bomb? Wouldn't it make more sense to enforce properly partitioned smoking sections in restaurants or to allow bars to decide whether they want to be smoke-ridden or not?

If Roe vs Wade was overturned - which I don't believe will ever happen - what should happen in the six states that would keep abortion illegal? Well, I would suggest shunning them… making a clear statement by not doing business with them… just say no, for real. I would suggest, right now, that if you are a liberal, you should avoid doing business with racists, homophobes and sexist pigs. It sure limits the field, but as a liberal, do you really want the government regulating your business or your life?

The thing about rules about morality is that they free us of responsibility… and, often, make us irresponsible.

There is no difference, in principle, between Stone & Parker wanting Tim Robbins to shut up already and Tim Robbins rambling on. Both are harsh and invasive. And both should have the absolute right to express themselves. And both have the absolute right to hate one another. And Tim Robbins has the right never to work for Paramount again because of the insult. And Parker & Stone have the right never to work for any studio that makes a movie with Tim Robbins or any of the other actors they want to shut up. On the other hand, if Paramount says, "We are in the Tim Robbins business and we can't have Tim Robbins being made fun of by Parker & Stone, so change the script…" that is when it gets to the borderline.

But you know, I'd probably be unhappily okay with that, too, in the big picture. Making movies with someone else's millions is not a right. Getting distribution is not a right. Having a large audience is not a right.

Personal responsibility is hard. Freedom is hard. Life is hard.

And sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Those are my politics. And now, I'll be off to Bermuda where there is a Black-led government even though the wealth of the nation is incredibly disproportionately held by whites, a high percentage of blacks live in Bermuda's idea of a ghetto, people are well educated whatever their color, there is a remarkable color blindness and a remarkable race awareness, guns are illegal so there isn't much gun violence, prostitution is virtually non-existent, drug imports are dealt with harshly even though most of the rich kids (20-60) have whatever they want and everyone knows everyone's business like a billionaire's version of Mayberry. Oh yeah… and the greatest hamburger in the world… at a joint called Dorothy's that has 10 stools, is open on weekdays only and then, only until 3p.

One of Bermuda's beloved characters is Johnnie Barnes, who greets Bermudians on the way into Hamilton every morning with a big smile and a wave. He is such a fixture that they built a statue in his likeness on the spot where he stands… in case he doesn't show up one day. Is Johnnie Barnes a racist stereotype of the smiling negro or a truly loved figure that makes Bermudians happy and proud?

It all comes down to Johnnie. Because it can't all come down to Johnnie. You could argue the point for days. And I would simply say, no matter what your politics on it, is "Do we need to label everything?"

Well?

READER OF THE DAY: MR INSPIRATION writes: "Haven't seen Gunner Palace yet but just wanted to say again that I find your politics confusing. You're always claiming to be a liberal but your attack pieces seem to be exclusively focused on liberal pieces or critics or filmmakers...or apolitically about inept pieces and inept filmmakers. I never see you going after anything with a conservative agenda.

I'm not sure what's going on here --maybe it's an "evil I know" perspective but you can't blame people for thinking you're right wing after this and the many articles attacking Michael Moore.

what gives? I think you're doing more damage than good. But it's one of my problems with liberalism in general. Liberals are VERY quick to attack other liberals. There's value in not towing the party line of course but there's also chaos in it and I think it's why conservatives have so much more power. They're all in it together, regardless of how evil the hive mentality gets.

depressed about politics. again."

E-ME: You're not really depressed, are you?

The Case for Sideways
The Case for The Aviator
The Case for Million Dollar Baby

Sundance Wrap-Up
Sundance Preview Part I
Sundance Preview Part 2