Though I share AAA's and Coulter's contempt for the pretentious Hollywood bullshit that is Oscar, I'd like to comment on some of her comments, not from a political pov, but from a film-lover's: Coulter admits that she's not seen any of the films she vilifies, while ignorantly passing judgement on their "plots", proving that she really doesn't understand the first thing about the dramatic arts. Films aren't really "about" their "plots", films are about "themes" and plots are devices that illustrate those ideas. For instance, "The Godfather I and II" aren't really about "The Mafia", the real theme is the self-destruction of a family at its own hands. Every single moment in the films are connected by this leitmotif. It's no coincidence that at the end of pt 2, after everyone in the immediate and extended "family" has been murdered or utterly destroyed by their own devices, the last person Michael kills, in the interest of "protecting" a family that he doesn't even realize he no longer has, is his own brother. That is the true meaning of the films. In that regard, "Brokeback Mountain" is not about being "gay", it's about denying who you really are and the consequences of living a lie in a prejudiced society and the cowardice and courage of the characters as they deal w/this. "Capote" is a biography of a flawed man, who, like all of us, had both good and bad qualities. Capote sympathized and perhaps even loved a stone cold killer but he also used and manipulated the guy for his own selfish purposes and at times was quite despicable as he did so. "Crash", Coulter claims, is "liberal" because it's about "racism". (Since when was racism a liberal issue? What bullshit! Conservatives should take offense!) Coulter's one-word synopsis completely misses the human complexities the film presents. The racist cop (Matt Dillion) performs an heroic act at the risk of his own life to save the black woman he assaulted earlier and grows in the process, while his supposedly non-racist partner commits a heinous act of murder out of his own deep-seated racist attitudes, which he doesn't even know he has. "Good Night and Good Luck" indeed has a plot revolving around McCarthyism, but the theme is one of men and women who had the courage to stand up for what they believed at the risk of their own personal and professional lives and the price they paid for doing so. (Consider the sub-plot of the married couple who ended up sacrificing their careers, simply because they were in love and got married, which was against "the rules".) I haven't seen "Munich" yet, but if the theme of the film is, as Coulter states, that the Jews "had it coming", I will eat my words for this entire post. I just don't buy it. I will reserve judgement and comment until, unlike Coulter, I have actually watched the frigging movie. Is Hollywood liberal? Are the Oscars self-congratulatory crap? Of course. But these films weren't made to win a statue, they were made by people who deeply believed in the themes they were illustrating thru their stories. They were created for the reasons all good and great art is created: To present and explore the human condition and to give a perspective of it. There is a saying something along the lines that "All art is political." Art is about struggle, there is no plot w/o conflict and, indeed, perhaps all great and worthy themes are inherently political by their very nature. But these films are replete w/complexities and contradictions that Coulter tries to reduce to a simplistic liberal agenda, w/o ever having seen the films or (apparently) understanding the true nature of their art. Harold
I think you are missing the essence of Coulter's critique. Unlike the Godfather, which dealt brilliantly with a universal theme, each of the films cited by Coulter was basically political propanganda masquerading as art. The fact that the propaganda was simplistic PC jingoism, eg McCarthy=bad, made them easy targets for her.
Actually, he captured her essence quite well: she doesn't watch these movies, and has zero study time in art. Edit: by the way, how did the predictions turn out? Did Brokeback win everything?
Well, I finally saw Munich this wknd. How anyone could interpret the theme of the film as "Jew athletes at Munich had it coming", as Coulter has, is beyond me, it's a bizarre interpretation anyway you look at. I'd say the theme is more along the lines of "violence begets more violence in a never-ending, senseless tragic cycle". The protagonist, along w/four fellow agents, is dispatched by his government to avenge the Munich murders by killing those who planned it. As the assassins become successful, they themselves become targets for vengeance by their enemies for those they have assassinated. As his team gets killed off one by one, he mourns them, just as he realizes that there are those mourning his own victims. Ironically, the 3 members of his team that are killed all ultimately question the morality of what they're doing, while the 4th guy, who never doubts his "duty", is the only other survivor. Both sides use mercenaries, who are in it strictly for the money, to locate their targets, and by the end the protagonist, who has had enough of killing and renounces violence, is terrified for the safety of his family and is not sure if he is being targeted by his own people or the opposition. The film illustrates the madness of wartime politics and the endless cycle of violence that it perpetuates. Another theme is that it is always the innocent who suffer the most in warfare. During their last meeting, which takes place in NYC in the late 70's or early 80's, the protagonist tries to convince his oh-so-proud "boss" to renounce violence, to just live and just let live. Of course he fails and we know the cycle of violence will continue. As they both go their separate ways and the film ends, Spielberg has a long closing shot of Manhattan from across the East River, and the focus of the shot is the Twin Towers. He holds it there for a long time. It's quite chilling. Sorry, but whatever Coulter's political views and whether one agrees w/them or not, watching these movies one can only conclude that as a film critic she is an utter and complete incompetent. H
Your review indicates you totally missed the point of what she was saying. You saw the movies as "violence begets more violence." Others saw it as constructing a false moral equivalency between terrorists and those dispatched to stop them. Certainly you saw and felt what the filmmakers wanted you to see, but the question is whether or not that is an accurate or useful analysis. To accept the filmmaker's vision, we have to believe if the Israelis had passively sat back and let terrorists kill them, somehow peace would have broken out. Of course, Ann chose to put it in the most inflammatory terms possible. It was not a question of the athletes "deserving it", but of moral equivalency of those sent out to kill.
There is a difference between justice, and vigilante vengeance.... Both the Jews and Arabs are stuck in Old Testament thinking, and are eyeing and eye for each other for thousands of years.... As a film critic though, what can we say about Ann Coulter? She thinks Bed Time For Bonzo should have earned both the monkey and Ronnie academy awards....
One of the central themes of the film, which you and Coulter miss, or blatantly misinterpret, is the question: What is a Terrorist? Are you suggesting "those dispatched to stop them" were not employing the very same methods of terrorism used by their enemies? What does the protagonist say about using bombs because "they get the most attention"? Despite the much greater risk to innocent lives? That's one of the main points of the film. Are you and Coulter suggesting that it's ok for one faction to use terrorist tactics, but not the other? Because, why, one is for "revenge"? But the movie asks, What is Revenge? It's all revenge. That's what makes the cycle endless and sheer madness. "You killed my family, now I'm going to kill your family." At several points the protagonists ask if they even really know who they're killing and they get no satisfactory answers from those who sent them on their mission in the first place. They're never even sure about what they're really doing. So, yes, if you want to put it that way, the point is that it is a moral equivalency, or better yet and truer to the meaning of the film, an immoral equivalency. Terrorism begets terrorism. This is an anti-war film, it's themes are humanistic, it despises politics, and it doesn't take sides. In fact it says both sides engage in an equal and horrible madness, and that by murdering others, they are ultimately only killing themselves. Such is the nature of war and violence and vengeance. H