Film Clips: When Conservatives Attack
Filed under: Politics, Columns, Film Clips
Although I read Libertas and other conservative sites regularly, on the premise that it's a good idea to know what the barbarians are up to before they get to your gate, I rarely post about stories I read there. This piece they had up yesterday, though, is so blatantly misinformed and misguided that I felt compelled to address it.
The piece is yet another conservative rant against the liberal Hollywood machine. It starts out by linking to an article over on The Daily Standard, deemed by Libertas an "insightful piece on a disturbing trend." That alone set off my inner alarm bells, but I gamely went off to see what insights the Standard had to offer. In his piece, titled "Hollywood on the Offensive -- Child Abuse Hits the Silver Screen," Kevin Kusinitz starts out by attacking two films from Sundance 2007 -- Hounddog, starring Dakota Fanning as a young rape victim, and An American Crime, a dramatization of the murder of Sylvia Lukens in 1965, starring Ellen Page. Kusinitz then goes on to attack Page for her role in Juno thusly:
"By the way, if the name Ellen Page sounds familiar, it's because she was Oscar-nominated this year for her lead role in the zany teen-pregnancy comedy Juno. Because, as many of you parents will attest, there's nothing funnier than when your 17 year-old daughter gets knocked up."
He then moves on to criticizing Alan Ball's Towelhead (aka, Nothing is Private): "Featuring a 13 year-old Arab-American girl raped by -- but of course! -- an American reservist. The difference here is that Towelhead is described as a 'dark comedy.' You're holding your sides, I'm sure."
Based on his descriptions of the films he's criticizing, I can only surmise that Kusinitz hasn't actually bothered to go so far as to see any of them. Fortunately, I don't have to base my own opinions of any of those films on his attacks, because I've actually watched all of them. If he has actually attended screenings of any of these films, he must have been taking an afternoon nap during them, because I can't otherwise make sense of his assertion that "Hounddog, An American Crime and Towelhead are part and parcel of the movie industry's current favorite character, the sensitive pedophile."
Kevin, since you obviously don't have a clue about what any of these films are really about, let me help you out here. Hounddog (which was not a very good film, by the way, but I don't like to see things blatantly mischaracterized) is not about a sensitive pedophile. It's a about a pre-teen girl with an abusive father who gets raped by a teenage boy, and has to find a way to deal with the cycle of abuse in her life without losing herself.
An American Crime is not about a sensitive pedophile. It's about a young girl who becomes the victim of the gang mentality of a pack of siblings and their friends, led by her foster mother, which ultimately ends in her death. The core question at the heart of that particular film is about how a group of kids can basically turn into animals, attacking another human being without understanding why they're doing -- and if you don't think that has relevance in today's culture of kids being bullied and attacked by their peers, you don't pay much attention to the news. You want to write about Ellen Page and pedophilia, write about Hard Candy, for pity's sake. At least get your movies right.
Towelhead is also not a story about a sensitive pedophile. It's a story about a young girl's coming-of-age and growing awareness of her own sexuality, and the lines that get crossed between her and her adult neighbor that ultimately lead to him justifying her sexuality as an excuse when he rapes her. The rape is not the key part of the film -- it's really about how a young girl living with her conservative father deals with racism and her own sexuality, and about her father's hypocrisy in dating a white woman who wears low-cut clothes and lots of makeup while trying to deny that his own daughter is wrestling with her own issues around becoming a woman and what that means. If you'd actually seen the film, you might have caught all that subtext.
Oh, and Juno, Kevin, isn't about making teen pregnancy funny. It's about how one girl deals with a very real problem faced by a lot of teenage girls today, with grace and humor. It's about the double-standard around sexuality, too -- how her boyfriend basically gets off without having to really deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex, while she deals with the stares her growing belly draws, and how the two of them deal with that. It's a funny film, yes, but it deals with real issues in a way that young people can relate to. And if you think young people from both liberal and conservative families aren't out there having sex, Kevin, you're spending way too much time with your head buried in the conservative sandbox.
Libertas doesn't have a whole lot to add on the subject, other than this: "I heard Dennis Prager once say that if liberals hated terrorists as much as they do cigarette smokers the world would be a much better place. I would add that you could say the same for child molesters and drug dealers." If they're quoting Prager, I guess I should be glad they left it at that.
I tried not too react to much to the reader comments about Kusinitz's piece -- many of them little more than misogynistic rantings -- on Libertas. When you wave a red flag in front of the teeming masses eager to validate your viewpoint, that brand of reactionary diatribe is exactly what you're going to get. I certainly don't think my own opinions on film are unimpeachable or unassailable, but I do know that they're based on actually seeing the films I'm talking about. If Kusinitz did see these films, he's either being blatantly dishonest with regard to what they're about, or at the very least, he wasn't paying attention to the basic storylines.
I'd be glad to engage in a civil, intellectual debate about culture and sex, culture and sexuality, culture and women, with Kusinitz or the gang at Libertas anytime, but they aren't interested in real discourse. They twist and turn film and culture and refract it through their reactionary lens, and then wave around their misguided red flags to get reactions and click-throughs. Conservatives can wax on all they want about "liberal Hollywood," but film is just a mirror reflecting the issues going on in the society from which it comes. Sexual abuse, teen pregnancy, the war in Iraq, the fundamentalist Christian right, health care, homosexuality, poverty, and a host of other issues. Those issues aren't going to go away just because the folks at Libertas and their ilk want them to disappear. They're there, they need to be dealt with, and films that shine a spotlight on them exist to spur the kind of discourse that heralds fundamental societal change.
Disagree with the perspectives of those films all you want -- that's what free thought and debate are all about, and at least if we're debating the issues, we're talking about them and not ignoring them, and we're one step closer to finding solutions that unite rather than divide us. But let's talk about them honestly, without misrepresenting the subject matter of films just to wave the "We Love Pedophiles" banner around films that don't even remotely advocate that point of view. You want to honestly debate culture, sex and sexuality as those issues are portrayed in film? Bring it on.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-06-2008 @ 8:40PM
Scott said...
The fact that these movies are made shows just how morally bankrupt Hollywood studios are. Whats that? None of those three movies were actually financied by a major studio? Oh...
Forget it then.
Reply
3-06-2008 @ 11:46PM
marty said...
I would like to see a more balanced approach in Hollywood films. All of the Iraq films so far have the US being evil and the Muslims being poor victims. What about making a film about how Islamic fundamentalists strap explosives to mentally-handicapped kids and blow them up by remote control at crowded markets which has happened many many times? No, instead they focus on an Iraqi teenage girl being raped and killed by deranged US military forces which has happened once. Oh yeah, the US army officers have been charged and will faces charges while the Islamic terrorists are free and unaccounted for.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 12:02AM
Nicklaus Louis said...
While I agree with your general idea bout the idiocy of judging films you know nothing about, I hardly believe a rant in response to a rant is going to accomplish anything -- except maybe more traffic...ohhhhhhhhhhh, I see what you did there.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 12:57AM
KateGee said...
Thank you Kim.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 1:28AM
JT said...
Denying Hollywood and what it produces is predominately liberal leaning is akin to denying the Pope is Catholic.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 2:06AM
Sy said...
What are you saying Kim ...Hollywood produce predominately conservative films? All the anti-Iraq war films were just my imagination? Can you name the last major Hollywood film portraying the Republicans good guy? I am sure conservatives are just imagining things.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 9:00AM
Kim Voynar said...
Sy,
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. First of all, though, the films Kusinitz cites in his argument are all indie films, not films produced by Hollywood studios. More importantly, though, his entire article is incredibly misleading as to the content of these films -- he's pitching this piece as being about how "Hollywood" has a love affair with the idea of the "sensitive pedophile" and then rags on films that have nothing to do with what he's talking about. You can't engage in discourse if what you're arguing about has zero validity.
Independent filmmakers certainly promote their perspectives through their filmmaking, and that's part of the point of the art of film. Thus, FAVELA RISING and RIZE were both about ideas around helping poor and disenfranchised youth find a path outside gangs and drugs through music and dance; TOWELHEAD is (primarily) about female sexuality and racism; NO END IN SIGHT is about the myriad issues surrounding things that were done and not done that have us mired in the war in Iraq.
Not all filmmakers are coming from a strictly liberal viewpoint. Charles Ferguson, the director of NO END IN SIGHT, is hardly a bleeding liberal; he's a policy guy, a very smart and rational person who's worked inside government for years, who was just appalled at what he learned about our missteps and mistakes with regard to what was going to happen to Iraq once we got Saddam out.
LAKE OF FIRE was not a pro-abortion film; it showed both sides of the abortion debate in a way that either side could claim as their point of view; JESUS CAMP did much the same with its subjects -- fundamentalist Christians could just as easily look at that film as promoting their way of life, while liberals like myself look at it and shudder.
Point is, the films Kusinitz cites are not even coming out of Hollywood studios, they're all (with the exception of JUNO) indie films, so to make the argument that they're somehow promoting "liberal Hollywood's" agenda about anything is wrong and misleading. If anything, independent films provide a means for anyone with any point of view to make a film about something they're passionate about.
There's nothing stopping conservatives from going to film school and learning to make their own films. You want to see a doc that's pro-war? What's stopping you from learning how to shoot a film and make it yourself? Do what all these liberal filmmakers do: put your own personal finances on the line, borrow from friends and family, and just do it, instead of whining about how nobody makes films from the perspective you want to see.
3-07-2008 @ 8:30AM
Laza said...
Sy, did I miss something? Did Kim actually say that Hollywood produces predominately conservative films? No, that's right. That wasn't her argument at all. She is saying that the conservative blogger was misrepresenting the content of films he most likely hasn't seen or obviously didn't understand. It's not that conservatives imagine things, it that they tend to misrepresent the argument at hand. Much like your comment. She's talking about honesty, not about political content. The problem is that people try to distill complicated social and political issues into one word: either "liberal" or "conservative."
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 9:19AM
Screen Rant said...
Please don't lump all conservatives in with the extreme versions who can't interpret films correctly. Just as you would prefer that conservatives not lump all liberals together with the fringe whackjobs that are out there.
I'm conservative and I "got" Towelhead. I gave it quite an excellent review over at my site http://ScreenRant.com.
Vic
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 10:15AM
Nick said...
Hey Laza,
I agree with you that people do tend to lump complicated political and social issues into either a conservative or liberal camp, and that's exactly what I think is going on with this article.
I disagree that Kim's article was only about Kevin and his point of view, it drifts near the end - just go back and re-read the second to last paragraph and you'll see generalizations poking out concerning her view of conservatives.
But I don't blame Kim. Like she said, she's liberal and she's defending her opposing point of view.
But at the same time, I believe she should have kept the article focused on Kevin alone, rather than making comments like "Conservatives can wax on all they want about "liberal Hollywood", but film is just a mirror reflecting the issues going on in the society from which it comes."
Absolutely Kim, you're right. These are serious issues in society and I think that both conservatives and liberals should discuss them and take them to heart. But when a film is made that contains references to an issue as touchy as pedophilia, regardless of whether or not that is the central focus of the film, people in this country are going to look at where the messages are coming from.
In this case, it's Hollywood. It's well known that most individuals in the movie industry are liberal and that liberals are more sympathetic to the causes embraced by minorities - in this case, Kevin's argument is pedophilia. Need proof? Look at the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA - the majority of American's would find that ridiculous, but it happened nonetheless.
I think that most liberals are level-headed Americans who are disgusted by the thought of pedophilia, but at the same time filmmakers are crafty individuals who can influence the masses, and Hollywood hasn't exactly been exempt from it's share of pedophiles in that business (check out Paul Reubens and Jeffry Jones).
So despite the film industry's assumed role of social champion, I think that keeping them in check, along with any other American institution, is a great idea and probably what Kevin and many other conservatives are trying to do.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 11:04AM
Paul D said...
Need proof? Look at the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA
You've just proven to everyone that you don't know anything about the ACLU and NAMBLA case. The ACLU was not defending NAMBLA, they were defending the legal principle inherent to that case. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. Look it up.
In attempting to seem reasonable in your post, you've tipped your hand and exposed yourself as just another person (like the folks at Libertad) who a) doesn't have their facts right, and b) who uses their misunderstanding of the facts to paint others with an absurdly wide brush.
This is certainly apparent in your mention of Paul Reubens, who was exonerated of pedophilia charges. Jeffrey Jones was convicted, it's true. But I would wager a month's pay that the proportion of pedophiles in the entertainment industry exactly matches that of any other industry, including conservative politics.
This Kevin can "keep Hollywood in check" only as long as he's not lying about it in the process. Otherwise, I applaud Kim's effort to keep HIM in check...
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 11:07AM
Christian Toto said...
Conservatives too often jump the gun on projects they deem to be part of the overall liberal/Hollywood system. But boy, is there a reason for their gun jumping -- the system is so overwhelming liberal in just about every way it's hard not to feel bludgeoned by it if your views differ from the mainstream of movie thought. You may find Libertas flawed at times, but it's also a terrific place for alternative views on Hollywood, and it's run by people who truly love movies.
I read lots of movie/film blogs ... and the liberal/conservative ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of the former. And liberal movie blogs are also rather quick to demonize films/views they don't always agree with. A calmer, more rational approach should be the goal for alll sides, and let's understand that different points of views should be respected.
And bravo for reading Libertas in the first place.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 11:57AM
Patrick said...
Screen Rant makes a valid point; lumping people into categories makes no sense, regardless of which side you're on. Likewise, films need to be analyzed and understood on an individual basis. I'm sure there are "liberal films" and "conservative films," but on the whole I think there are far more films that just want to tell a story and deliver a message without attaching themselves to either side of a patisan political debate. Issues like teen pregnancy, drug use, child abuse, and terrorism are not partisan issues. We all care about them and all recognize their significance; we just have different ways of approaching them.
I would probably be classified as a liberal, but if anyone out there actually believes that means I must have a soft spot for pedophiles, you need to get your head checked. I even dislike terrorism as much as the next guy; I just it's wrong to ignore the multitude of other valid problems we're faced with on a daily basis, so everything has to have its place. Oh, and this comment...
"...if liberals hated terrorists as much as they do cigarette smokers the world would be a much better place."
The mind-boggling implications of that are extreme to the point of absurdity. I need a cigarette.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 1:09PM
Nick said...
Paul, let me break this down for you.
Two men kidnapped a ten year old boy who upon refusing their sexual advances was murdered. One molested his lifeless body. He was stuffed in a tube with concrete and dumped in a river. His parents tried to sue NAMBLA. The ACLU jumps in on NAMBLA's behalf.
You can spin it any way you want, but the fact is that the ACLU defended NAMBLA and their rights under the First Amendment, not the boy's rights - period. This is not my opinion, this is a fact, so I suggest you look it up.
Argue all you want about Paul Reubens, he was still put on a sex offenders list, had to attend one year of counseling, and wasn't allowed unsupervised contact with minors during his probation period. Just because he accepted lesser charges doesn't negate the fact that he enjoys looking at naked little boys.
Maybe next time you should think a little bit before making judgment calls on people who may oppose your point of view.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 7:19PM
Palm Tree said...
Making movies with a liberal view makes sense financially. I mean, as a movie studio, you want movies to make money internationally as well as domestically. An American conservative viewpoint generally only sells well to..well, American conservatives. Face it, how many Passion of the Christ sequels can one make?
Reply
3-08-2008 @ 12:39PM
Stickwick Stapers said...
Dear me, Palm Tree, you clearly think American conservatives are only interested in movies about Jesus Christ. Stereotypes are alive and well here, aren't they? And you dismiss a priori the notion that there are conservatives anywhere in the world but America.
I see two problems with your line of reasoning:
1) Leave the fact that The Passion was a box-office phenomenon -- clearly evidence that religion-obsessed conservatism is a viable market -- but conservatively-themed movies do quite well overseas. For instance, when I was in Holland years ago, the only thing I could get on the local movie channel was Die Hard. These types of un-PC movies are also extremely popular in my husband's native Scandinavia.
2) Movies with overt liberal themes are not doing very well. Look at the underwhelming box-office for the recent spate of anti-war movies. And perhaps it is mere coincidence (afterall, correlation is not necessarily causation), but I find it rather compelling that as the general flux of movies in this country become increasingly liberal in tone, box-office attendance is trending downward, not to mention that the most recent Oscar telecast was the least-viewed in recent history.
But I must say it's rather rewarding to see defense of sound market practices on a non-conservative blog.
Reply
3-08-2008 @ 12:40PM
Stickwick Stapers said...
Calling for civil debate whilst referring to the other side as "barbarians." Oh, the irony.
Reply
3-08-2008 @ 12:42PM
Kim Voynar said...
I wondered how long it would take someone to make that comment ... congratulations, you're the winner!
It was a reference to the a quote from the film "Barbarians at the Gate," in case you didn't catch that. But glad you appreciated the irony ...
3-10-2008 @ 1:26PM
Al said...
"Look at the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA."
Yes, and I might remind you the ACLU has defended the KKK as well. Who, if they vote, sure as heck ain't voting for Obama. The ACLU may SEEM to be a liberal group - but they're a policy group. If they have a political stance, I'd suggest they're a Libertarian group more than anything else.
"His parents tried to sue NAMBLA. The ACLU jumps in on NAMBLA's behalf. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact is that the ACLU defended NAMBLA and their rights under the First Amendment, not the boy's rights - period."
Did NAMBLA - disgusting as they may be - kill the boy? No, they didn't. Period.
They suck, and they're creepy, and they're vile reprehensible people, and most of their members have likely committed crimes individually. But they - the organization known as NAMBLA - did not kill that child. The boy's rights were already served by prosecuting the individuals who took his life.
One of the (supposedly) fundamental aspects of Conservatism is the emphasis on personal responsibility, which by extension suggests directed accountability. That's why conservatives are against frivolous lawsuits which tie up the court system. You heard Rudy bring it up numerous times in the debates, I'm sure. You blame the person responsible, they pay for the crime, and that's that. Spreading the blame around doesn't work. If you were for suing NAMBLA in that particular case, the same principle would suggest that you're also for suing gun manufacturers every time someone is shot. The men who killed that boy killed that boy. They were solely responsible for their actions.
Are NAMBLA scumbags? Yeah - but, whatever. Scumbags have a right to peddle their scum as long as they don't break any laws. And talking about illegal activities is not in and of itself illegal.
So... deal with it.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 11:16PM
Steven Mark Pilling said...
Rant over, Kim? Feeling a little cocky, maybe? After all, it must be good to release that much built-up America-hate and elitism... before you explode from it. Aside from the usual litany of liberal talking points and billious accusations about everything, you managed to do what even most of your cohorts would feel uneasy at doing; defending indecency with children on the silver screen... and behind the camera. It takes a truely dedicated comrade to purvey that without the smallest sense of shame. Be sure to be first in line at your neighborhood "art theater" when "Hounddog" comes to town this summer. Nothing like seeing a child's life and spirit being destroyed right before your eyes... and knowing that you helped make it happen.
Reply