[7/31/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: Doh! A once-edgy trend-setter reaches maturity. By Jonah Goldberg Hello, I’m Jonah Goldberg. You may remember me from such medical films as Alice Doesn’t Live Anymore and Mommy, What’s Wrong with That Man’s Face? Or perhaps you know me from my work in Earwigs — Ewww! and Man vs. Nature: the Road to Victory.
Woops, actually that’s Troy McClure.
I’m Jonah Goldberg and I recycled that opening from a column from six years ago.
I have a good reason for recycling material. I am writing this in one of the emptier corners of Wyoming (where they like candy for the sweet, sweet, taste) while my wife drives some 80 miles an hour and my daughter watches her DVD of Angelina Ballerina (or is it Barbie Pegasus?) and Cosmo the Wonderdog wonders why we’re driving so far just to put him in a kennel.
But I promised Kathryn Lopez that I would write something about The Simpsons in response to all of the hype about the movie. I was hoping to review it. There’s even a ticket to a screening waiting for me in Seattle, but, as I write, it doesn’t look like we’ll make it there in time.
To be honest,I have no Internet access to speak of at the moment. So I can’t really look up the facts, figures, and quotes for a big thumbsuck piece on “The Meaning of The Simpsons.”
(You don’t know the quotes by heart? A mocking, Nelson-like reader might object, “Hah-hah!” To which I might respond that getting a Simpsons quote wrong is a surefire way to invite a couple hundred correcting e-mails, so I’ll be sparing).
It’s just as well. By now the “The Meaning of The Simpsons” piece has been written ten million times.
They recycle the same stats and anecdotes over and over again: Longest-running sitcom ever, most widely watched cartoon ever, Matt Groening invented the show in a few minutes so he could hold onto the rights of “Life in Hell,” George H. W. Bush attacked The Simpsons as a sign of cultural rot: Homer Simpson likes his beer cold, his TV loud, and his homosexuals flaming. Etc.
The reason these pieces have been written so many times is simple: It’s been around for so long. It’s difficult for younger fans to fully appreciate that the show was in fact controversial when it first appeared. Thanks to its progeny — South Park, Family Guy, and the rest —- it now seems almost stately.
Indeed, seven years ago, I wrote a piece for National Review on Dead Tree on The Simpsons in which I argued that conservatives should make peace with the show. [more at National Review]
[7/30/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: found in the ebag from Shawn Steel - The Best Summer Movie : Rescue Dawn Friday night I had an amazing experience. I saw a war movie, made in Hollywood, that wasn't anti-American. How could this be?
The folks from the Liberty Film Festival warn us to expect a flood of hate America war films blaming Americans for shooting Islamic terrorists, increasing global warming and trying to upset leftists dictators. Assuredly, those films will lose tons of money, take George Clooney's embarrassing Syriana failure last year.
Rescue Dawn is a true story of an American POW pilot Dieter Dengler. WIth his first mission for the Navy. he was shot down by Soviet anti aircraft weapons in Vietnam. His story of capture, refusing to submit, torture, humiliation but tempered with a spirit of optimism and survival is inspiring. In fact, not a single word was expressed against the Vietnam War. The commies looked like lousy commies. The good guys were good.
Who would support such a movie? A new film company called Gibraltar produced the feature. One of the two principals is a 6' 8" NBA star 254 lbs power forward for the Clippers , Elton Brand.
So a double whammy. A pro American war film, by a sports figure.
Take two minutes to check out the movie trailer, and then go out our your way to see this film. The reviews are strong and positive. And, enjoy the big screen once again.
[7/27/07]
[Patrick Hurley - scriptwriter] 12:01 am [permalink]
Why "Evan Almighty" has a Hole in its Boat! I am a Christian. I am also a political conservative. According to Mark Joseph’s terribly misguided article, I am a member of the Christian right-wingers who did not appreciate Hollywood trying to mix entertainment and religion in the tongue in cheek saga of Noah. [The ExileStreet article "Evan Almighty, Hollywood Strikes Out Again" by Mark Joseph is here] I appreciate Hollywood trying to make a funny movie. I did not appreciate Steve Carell trying to carry a film. THAT…was the problem, not the blending of God and humor.
There are two men badly out of their element here. Steve Carell is a wonderful ensemble comedian. He works best in a niche role with goofy people around him a la, “The Forty-year old Virgin, “Anchorman,” and, “The Office.” Giving him the lead is like asking Tim Conway to be Rhett Butler. Both of these comedic actors are hilarious WITHIN THEIR REALM. Want more examples of funny men who could not carry a movie? How about John Belushi, Dana Carvey, Martin Short and ultimately, Chevy Chase. The sequel needed Jim Carrey. He was missing and so was star power. This film could have been about atheism and it would have tanked.
The other misplaced guy here is Mark Joseph who should stick to rock and roll books. As a movie critic, he stumbled badly in the dark and splattered his buttered popcorn everywhere. He goes on and on and ON about the failure of Hollywood to make a film applicable to faith. “Evan Almighty” is as much about the Christian faith as “Batman” was to baseball. The targeted audience here was NOT church goers, it was teenagers. As someone who is sympathetic to the red states, I already know that Hollywood is capable of making a spiritually blessed movie, as in, “Ben Hur,” “A Man for All Seasons,” and, “Chariots of Fire.” Mr. Joseph has too much time on his hands to roam aimlessly in the cinematic valley of faith when he should be in his office typing up some more musical scores instead of the airball he offers up for Fox News.
Maybe he needs to find a new job working for Steve Carell in the office, of course!
First published at Political Mavens.com
[7/26/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: Princess Envy Uneasy lie the heads that wear the crowns. By Jennifer Graham - “Who is Lindsay Lohan?” I asked my 12-year-old, just to see what she would say.
”She’s a singer, and a movie star,” she replied, a little too quickly and a lot too enthusiastically, making my faint vision of Ivy League schools grow even fuzzier and further away.
A movie star, eh? Time to introduce my kids to thesmokinggun.
It’s been a long time since I used the phrase “movie star” to describe anyone, and for good reason. It doesn’t seem to apply anymore. The word has become quaint, something to be retired from Merriam-Webster to make room for ginormous. [more at National Review]
[7/25/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: Potter Plants By Katharine Boswell I'd like to start by clarifying: I am not one of those rabid Harry Potter fans. I'm not a member of one of those online fan communities, I am not one to dress up in costume and, until Friday, I had never been to one of the fabled midnight release parties.
A midnight release party, for those of you who have been living under a rock for the past ten years, is a festival held at bookstores the world over for Potter-philes who can't wait until morning to get their fix of the boy wizard. With each release, the books are embargoed and don't go on sale until a set date. Booksellers take that literally, and at 12:01 a.m. July 21, copies of the seventh and last Harry Potter Book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, went on sale.
My roommate and I are casual Potter fans, and we decided a few weeks ago that it would be fun to go to the party. It was the last one, we reasoned, and though I tend to think the books are a bit over hyped and overrated, it seemed like the event was a cultural phenomenon not to be missed. Besides, we would have the added fun of watching all the little kids compete for the best costume prize. [more at American Spectator]
[7/20/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: War Over The War When Ken Burns releases a documentary, America watches. This is partly because of his uniquely compelling style, but also partly because his stories are those of America itself: the Civil War, jazz, baseball.
But now some ethnic activists and politicians are decrying Burns's latest project on World War II, The War, as not reflective of America -- and are seeking to impose that judgment. If they get their way, there may be more such spats on the horizon.
Why the ruckus?
Burns's narrative technique relies heavily on individual accounts and The War is no exception. He aims to tell the story of how World War II affected the people of four towns -- Sacramento, California; Waterbury, Connecticut; Mobile, Alabama; and Luverne, Minnesota. Interviews with survivors from those towns are integral to the story and, naturally, the survivors are few in number today. [more at American Spectator]
[7/18/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: MTV's Kurt Loder on Michael Moore's "Sicko" - Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one.
As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.) [more at MTV.com]
[7/16/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: Moore “World of We” Michael Moore is practically the Leni Riefenstahl of socialism. Michael Moore set out to make a movie attacking the American insurance industry and ended up attacking the American character. By the end of his movie SiCKO, his plaint is less about American resistance to government-run health care than its overarching rejection of collectivism. As Moore puts it, everywhere else it’s “a world of we,” but here a “world of me.”
His voice thus joins a vast, age-old chorus of left-wing bafflement and disillusion at American exceptionalism — our national traits that have prevented the development of a statist politics along continental European lines. Moore’s explanation for this phenomenon is typically twisted: Americans are saddled with debt from college loans and health care, and that keeps us from demanding French-style pampering from our government for fear of foreclosure by The Man.
Tellingly, Moore picks up this theory in an interview with Tony Benn, an old-school British socialist of the sort who simply doesn’t exist in the U.S. Here, our left-wing politicians vote for war funding before they vote against it, always trimming to keep from rubbing too strongly against the American grain. Moore fervently wishes that grain were different, and he celebrates all countries where government has a vaster reach and tighter grip — from Cuba to France.
He is practically the Leni Riefenstahl of socialism. [more at National Review]
[7/12/07]
[from our friends @Mediacrity]
12:01 am [permalink]
Israel, 'Colonialism,' and 'Reality' in the Times The New York Times Magazine has a cover article Sunday on Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, and it is an
outstanding example of the newspaper's anti-Israel bias. It was a
perfect companion piece for the full-page Times editorial today. calling for unconditional withdrawal surrendering the country to al Qaeda and Iran.
The
author is Roger Cohen, a former Times foreign desk bureaucrat now
exiled to the International Herald Tribune, noted for his anti-Israel
bias and he lived up to that reputation in the article. His bias colors
the entire article.
Thus Hezbollah and Hamas, the former being
the "A Team" of terrorism and the latter being the originator of dozens
of suicide bombings, are not terrorists at all but merely have been
"branded" as such.
Thus Resolution 242 demands "total withdrawal" to the pre-'67 lines (which it does not, as CAMERA pointed out).
Even
though Cohen acknowledges that "a Palestinian return en masse would
condemn the Jewish state" (to extinction, though he doesn't use the
word), and even though he acknowledges that "Livni is only stating the
obvious," he asserts that "Whether such bluntness is helpful is another
question. Palestinians are not about to trade one of their biggest
chips up front."
In another words, the problem is not that the
Palestinians are making an unreasonable, ridiculous demand that they
should drop, but that it is Israel that is being unreasonable and ridiculous by refusing to negotiate its
own descruction. He reinforces that nonsensical point with a quote from
a Palestinian propagandist that "Livni wants us to do is give up before
we start negotiations.”
Obviously the Palestinians are living in
a dreamworld and cut off from any semblance of reality. Any fair-minded
journalist would have pointed that out. But we are not dealing with a
fair-minded journalist here. We are dealing with the New York Times. "
"But
Livni can be relentless," Cohen says immediately after the Palestinian
quote, using the Yiddish expression "nudnik" or nudge. He clearly means
that it is Israelis like Livni, and not the Palestinians, who are being
unreasonable and stubborn for forcing the Palestinians to "give up
before we start negotiations" by dropping an insane demand.
He
then uses vague innuendo to lambaste Livni and Condoleezza Rice, saying
each "sometimes appears to lack the subtlety of wisdom." So now it
"lacks wisdom" to negiate your own destruction.
Then, concluding
his disapproving discussion of rejection of this cherished but
admittedly impossible demand, comes the coup de grace:
I believed in Livni’s good faith, her energy, her honesty, her determination. What I was not sure about after our first meeting was he grasp on reality.Isn't this amazing? Remember that what he is talking about here is not Livni's insistence on a Palestinian state--a Utopian goal if ever there was one--but her insistence on stuff like Israel not insisting on self-destruction. "The fact is, Israelis and Palestinians have parted company. I could see little evidence that Livni, for all her lucidity, was any exception to this," says Cohen, driving home the point.
As is commonplace in the Times, Cohen equates Palestinian obstinate rejection of Israel's existence with Israeli obstinate insistence on its existence. To the Times, both are just two coequal forms of "being obstinate," making no distinction between the two. It is not only amoral and hopelessly biased, it is simple-minded and plain stupid.
But you have to remember that this is calculated, malicious stupidity. The malice finally bursts open in a crucial paragraph on the poor poor Palestinians of the West Bank, in which Cohen tearfully describes "checkpoints where Palestinians see themselves reflected in the stylish shades of Russian-immigrant Israeli soldiers. If you are looking for a primer on colonialism, this is not a bad place to start."
This didn't just sneak past the copy desk, mind you. The editor of the magazine proudly took out the "primer on colonialism" quote and used it as a "pull quote" in boldface in the print edition of the magazine, to be sure that we did not overlook that vile display of bias.
Though ending with a quote from unreasonable, reality-starved Livni, the real stars of this article, as usual, are the poor poor Palestinians and their reasonable, "moderate" leaders. This is a splendid example of how the Times skews its coverage of the Middle East, with a bias and a contempt for Israel that is always simmering just below the surface. [go to Mediacrity blog]
[7/10/07]
[Steve
Finefrock - scriptwriter Hollywood Conservative Forum] 12:05 am [permalink]
What Was Missing: The GREEN METER! The greens burned a nasty carbon-footprint into the earth’s rear hindquarters, in several places on the globe. Didja watch?
Not me, but they could have tempted me with a singular on-screen ‘crawl’ throughout the event, to draw attention to the ‘wastefulness’ of ‘capitalist society’ and all its wastrel ways.
That would have an ongoing tally-meter of how much carbon, by the ton, and by location, throughout the concert. Like that national debt meter once on display in Times Square. Like they tell us of every error of ways by the right.
Yep, I’d have tuned in for a regular “update” of the concert’s footprint.
See that tally-meter spinning, ton by ton, dozens of tons, hundreds of tons, then the on-screen running-tally graph, with the spike upward as the G-4 and G-5 jets were landing, then at the end as they took off after the show was supposedly over.
Lots of footprints, all over the globe. What was the final tally? Did ABC News and CBS News and NBC News and NPR and PBS tell us all about it? Maybe it was as important as the endless raving about Scooter’s commutation.
How about commuting the sentence of the globe, if you believe that way, by showing the errant ways, ton-by-ton, on the TV screen?
Not this week. This month. This year.
But it would have been real entertainment, and education, to see those digits spinning in a blur, site-by-site around the globe. TV’s supposed to be a visual medium, but when it comes to slamming a leftwing theme, it proves it’s a medium that’s rarely well-done.
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Opinion Sweepings: Lost Eden The world of Robert A. Heinlein By John Derbyshire - On “The Corner” the other day, by way of commemorating the centenary of the sci-fi writer Robert A. Heinlein, I posted Heinlein's contribution to the 1950s radio series “This I Believe." Eschewing any religious or metaphysical affirmations, Heinlein laid out his social credo: “I believe in my neighbors... in my townspeople... in my fellow citizens.” He went on to write about his local priest, whose “goodness and charity and loving kindness shine in his daily actions. ... If I’m in trouble, I’ll go to him.” (Heinlein was an atheist, by the way.) Heinlein’s next-door neighbor, he tells us, was a veterinarian: “Doc will get out of bed after a hard day to help a stray cat — no fee, no prospect of a fee.”
Heinlein went on to praise the charity and conscientiousness of his fellow citizens: “For the one who says, ‘The heck with you, I've got mine,’ there are a hundred, a thousand, who will say, ‘Sure, pal, sit down.’ [more at National Review]
[7/9/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: Doing the Robot Transformers is big, loud, dumb — and loads of boyish fun... Toward the end of Transformers, the latest overblown summer epic from explosion-maestro extraordinaire, Michael Bay, two giant robots in the midst of one of the film’s countless robo-rumbles tumble off a highway overpass and crash into a stream of traffic below. Tires screech, metal crumples, and glass shatters in a storm of sure-to-be extremely expensive vehicular destruction. For a young boy in a nearby car, however, there’s only one thing to do: Point out the window and exclaim, “Cool, Mom!” The mother screams in fear, but the kid’s gleeful shout is the only appropriate reaction — both to the ensuing robot-on-robot fracas and, indeed, the entire movie. Mothers and other authority figures may recoil in horror at the gargantuan, incoherent, violent mess of a movie Bay has loosed on the world, but boys the world over know that, no matter how incoherent, inane, and willfully ludicrous it is, Transformers is just plain cool. [more at National Review]
[7/3/07]
[Streetsweeper]
12:05 am [permalink]
Streetsweeper's Cinema Sweepings: Pixar This - Leave the rest for rats. by Frederica Mathewes-Green My companion at the screening of Pixar’s new animation feature, Ratatouille, pronounced this “the best movie I’ve ever seen.” Granted, she’s only six years old, and might not have seen as many movies as you have. But she’s seen virtually every great animated movie since the genre began, from Disney’s 1937 Snow White till today. I think the little lady knows what she’s talking about.
Ratatouille is a charming, engaging, and above all original fantasy tale. It’s a story you haven’t heard before, which can’t be said of 90 percent of animated features in recent years (that ten percent occupied almost exclusively by films from Pixar studios). On top of that, the animation is not just vibrantly realistic, but truly beautiful. Standards for animation art have just been raised a few notches. Many times I looked, for example, at scenes of Paris on a rainy autumn day, and thought that even a brilliant live-action director would be hard-pressed to create such shots. [more at National Review]
q