I don’t really distinguish between entertainment and criticism, though doing both of an audience with an average of a fifth-grade education (if Wendy Kaminer is right in that claim) is extremely difficult.

I think you’re right about the mix of criticism of, and fondness for, the figures in the story. Like how the rich woman played by Roberts can turn on and off her religiosity as it pleases her. (Jesus never said, “Screw people to get things done,” anywhere, did he? Or “Splash religious rhetoric around to manipulate your more simpleminded fellows”? Yet you have to kind of admire her get-it-done-ness, even as the gorge rises, and even as you find what she’s getting done stupid and short-sighted, and motivated by wrong-headed religiosity as well.

A weird bunch of characters, anyway.

I loved Charlie Wilson’s War because even if I knew nothing about Afghanistan or Iraq it still would have been entertaining; on the other hand, if you do know some of the issues, well you can read it on a deeper level.

I didn’t go to deeply into the political issues or using history as metaphor for current events when I reviewed it because a lot of people had worked that angle (really well), and I thought working a different angle would make for an interesting review. It’s a critical film, but there is definitely some affection (the rag tag band of misfits working together) mixed in with that criticism.

Yeah, Running with Scissors is weird. Apparently the book is closer to reality, though I’ve not read it (yet?). Apparently some of the stuff — like the relationship between the protagonist and the older man — were much creepier in the book (and real life).

My impression of Charlie Wilson’s War is that, as Mark would say, the criticism is muted in the interests of entertainment. I think there was implicit criticism, but it’s the kind where people who don’t want to see it won’t. Like, for example:

• Republicans who want to praise Wilson for his “achievements” despite him being a horndog
• leftists who want a movie to rant about
• anyone else who just doesn’t care to see criticisms when they’re paying money to be entertained

… which is probably the majority of the moviegoing population. But yeah, I saw criticisms, though also a kind of fondness for the crazy, renegade attitude that went into it.

By the way, I’m mulling over Ben’s earlier comment about the mujahideen being “one of the most vile political movements in modern history.” I mean, I’m no fan, but are they so vile because it’s in vogue to point at them as the most evil? They seem like rather less inefficient genocidal maniacs than several European states, not to mention several African and Asian political movements. Yes, they treat women like crap, but so do lots of other groups. They’re brutal, but that’s sadly common worldwide.

What I see when I look at the mujahideen looks disappointingly par for the course with theocratic, or other doctrinal movements (like race-fetishists, or ideology-fetishists) in benighted corners of the world.

I might be wrong, I haven’t given it a ton of thought, but I am tempted to wonder whether this special new rage against the mujahideen isn’t also fueled by rage at a government that was happy to be pally with them when it was useful geopolitically, and resentful when the same people turned around a few decades later and started biting the hand that once fed them? (The resentment/anxiety that I also suspect got the movie made at this juncture.)

I kind of agree about Knocked Up.

Running With Scissors is a pretty weird movie. I wonder how much of it is really true.

I’m guessing we’re both worn out on this subject. :)

Knocked Up, well, I think I’ve pretty much said everything on that subject.

Interesting thoughts about masculinity. I thought both films made men look like big babies. By “the truth coming out” I mean that Bateman was not ready for a kid, being, mentally, relatively close to one himself.

One interesting argument I read somewhere (about Knocked Up was that the film contrasts male sexuality with the life-changing, reproductivity of female sexuality, and questions the “strength” of males confronted with it.

But I still hold to the Bill Hicks theory on Knocked Up.

The adoptive couple being split up is a little more problematic. I don’t think it’s just a matter of “the truth coming out”. Bateman’s character is quite obviously not ready to grow up. Given his age, one would assume he would be ready to settle down. He isn’t quite the man that J.K. Simmons character is, and along with Juno’s boyfriend the film presents a bleak view of more contemporary forms of masculinity. I think the one flaw with Juno was when it was released; comparisons with Knocked Up were inevitable, and the film suffers (unfairly) because of that. It get’s pigeoned holed as a pregnancy comedy/drama, when I think there is a lot more going on.

Hmm. Interesting argument. I wonder how much of that I might have agreed with if Knocked Up hadn’t been floating around in my mind when I saw it. But I do know I would still have thought the dialogue was unbelievable and I would probably still have been uncomfortable with how the pregnancy seems to make everything better. (Sure, it splits up the adoptive couple but this is better in a “the truth comes out, no longer living deluded” kind of way.)

I agree that funding the people who ended up getting funded in Afghanistan was disastrous for Afghanistan. (And that’s not missed in the film.) Now, I don’t know enough about what the scene was like in Afghanistan to say, but it’s depicted this way:

1. Wilson ends up visiting there after major waves of relatively brutal (ie. massacre) Soviet invasion, knowing that the budget going there is paltry. He encounters what is represented in the film as a consensus among Afghans who seem widely to want to be armed and sent to fight off the Soviets.

2. He returns, and then agitates for more money to be sent there, using all his favors and so on.

3. Policymakers decide to funnel the money through specific groups, meaning the guys who were yelling, “They’re teaching our women to read!” This ends up being a pretty quickly mentioned policy decision by someone behind a desk.

4. History as we know it happens, but with a strong focus on the fact that the US, after the Soviet’s were beat off with a stick, pulled out without establishing anything further in terms of development, infrastructure, aid, or (especially) education.

5. History thereafter happens as we strongly regret it.

So to me, the movie seems to describe a problem with “exit strategy” policies, which seem to involve leaving in power whichever thugs were recruited to do the original dirty work.

It’s fascinating stuff, especially the role of education in postwar societies. I’m reading a history of postwar educational reform in South Korea, and the role of the US there is in some ways profound, despite failures to influence the system in (what I would consider) positive ways that are also profound.

And yeah, I think part of the big problem about Iraq right now is that any presence there IS going to have to involve military presence, which is going to keep the Iraqi people under occupation and only exacerbate the domestic problems that exploded after the US invasion. But just as the Iraqi people are not subject to some kind of “You break it, you buy it” policy,” neither should it be thought that the US can simply say, “Whoops, broke your country. Sorry. Well, have a nice day.” I suspect the real problem is that so much of the redevelopment going on there is not human — not mass education programs, the reestablishment of higher education and training, but rather pseudo-development that puts money in the pockets of contractors, as well as huge military expenditure. Without human development, the problems the US created (and the problems that predate any US involvement too) will be self-perpetuating.

As for the “will of the people,” I’m sure more people would welcome American nonmilitary presence if it were devoted to rebuilding all that was bombed flat, to education and development, and so on. And again, the people in Afghanistan who wanted Americans to stay out were the same lot who wanted women to remain illiterate, who silenced anyone who might have wanted American influence to continue (such as women and moderates and intellectuals and so on) and who indeed ended up in charge. Brutally so. Having a right to self-determination means little when you’re abandoned to live in poverty under the warlords someone else’s government skyrocketed to prominence, if you see what I mean.

Mark,

Yeah, Juno is certainly less horrible than Knocked Up but I still thought it a failure. I am wondering whether this is starting a trend in pregnancy films, and hoping not. It’s just kind of… I don’t know. Meta-political, maybe? There’s so much potential for manipulation there, I guess.

As for CWW, I don’t find entertainment and political messages to be mutually exclusive, so think even less evasiveness would have made it a better film. And yeah, your review was part of the reason I was curious to see it.

Charles,

I have the first book of the Pullman trilogy on my shelf, but haven’t gotten to it. I should, huh? (I also have some BBC TV movie of the first book from another series of his, if you’re curious… The Ruby in the Smoke? I haven’t yet seen it.)

Yeah, I saw your review of Lost 3 as well, and it sounded about right to me. Feel free to email me about those issues, as there are tons available to discuss. I’ll try to remember not to mention anything from Season 4, as Lime and I are watching those as they come out, these days…

So you liked Lost 3. It’s good to hear that not everyone has lost patience with it. Did you read my review of the season? I’d be interested in hearing what you thought about certain issues, via email maybe.

It’s been years since I’ve seen a dramedy about pregnancy – the last one was Citizen Ruth, an interesting failed experiment, as any way you hack, slice, or dice it, abortion is a real comedy buzzkill.

I liked Charlie Wilson’s War because while there is definitely a political message, everyone involved in the production never lost sight of the bottom line – putting out the most entertaining product imaginable.

I wrote a review of Charlie Wilson’s War when it first came out:

http://www.markguppy.com/2007/12/silly-rabbit-tits-are-for-kids.html

Charlie Wilson’s War, though? Really?

Either the previews are severely representing the movie, or “Charlie Wilson’s War” is the most revolting piece of fascist propaganda ever put out by a mainstream movie studio. The first time I saw a preview in a movie theater, my jaw dropped, and I still haven’t gotten over my shock or disgust about the basic premise.

I really don’t care whether the movie includes ‘criticisms’ or ‘subtleties’ or ‘balance,’ the bottom line is portraying a guy involved in funneling U.S. support to one of the most vile political movements in modern history (recall that the Mujahadeen’s anti-Soviet war slogan was “they are teaching our women how to read”) as the plucky flawed-but-lovable guy battling against the odds for a noble cause.

…and who is this ‘everyone’ who’s eager to stop killing men, women and children in patrols and bombing raids in Iraq? (Let’s be honest with ourselves here. In real world terms, that’s what ‘staying in Iraq’ means. Continuing roadblocks and armed patrols, which the locals will shoot back at–just like Americans would if the roles were reversed–and continuing massive violent retaliation against insurgent activity.) Last I checked, the mainstream consensus in both parties was that ‘we have a responsibility’ to stay in Iraq. Clinton and Obama, both of whom vote to continue funding with clockwork consistency, try to put an anti-war spin on their positions, because that’s what the majority of the public wants to hear, but if you look at the fine print, neither plans to get entirely out anytime in the term of office they would be elected for.

(To me, whether we have a ‘responsibility’ to stay there depends entirely on whether the people who live there want us to stay. As far as I know, every poll that’s ever been done of the Iraqis–including polls I’ve seen cited on Fox News, etc.–confirms that the overwhelming majority want the foreign troops to leave immediately, and for that matter that the majority supports armed attacks on U.S. troops. I’ve never heard *anyone,* even the most rabid supporters of the war, suggest that this is not true. As such, how does that not settle the issue? The people of Iraq are not some piece of pottery to which ‘you break it, you own it’ rules apply, they’re a nation composed of human beings who should have a right to self-determination.)

Not because I’m prim, dour, and uptight — I have a sense of humor. But I shouldn’t think people were happy to pay to hear the same lame gags and quips that weren’t even funny in high school.

Transporter — it’s all very vague in my mind. I have flipped through the original — jump, jump, jump — and found it kind of boring too. Like, a vehicle for a handsome white guy and a pretty Asian girl to interact onscreen. That director seems to like that dynamic.

I think people do more political documentaries now because the US is in the middle of a dire political/social crisis (at least in the minds of people willing to sacrifice years of their lives on these projects, or on speaking tours like Naomi Wolf is right now — her talks are quite scary, really) and people care about that desperately — the filmmakers I mean — while few people care so much about true crime that they’ll spend time on it.

The Ice Harvest was a brilliant little film. I thought the book it was based on was one of the best first novels I’ve read in a long time, and I get through quite a few of those.

The Transporter 2 easily surpassed the original. I could have done without the kid, but I thought the action sequence were a lot more kinetic, at times, almost as visually arresting as what the Coen brothers did at the end of Blood Simple with the shafts of light.

Cocaine Cowboys was interesting, but at times a little bleak. I’m surprised more people don’t do documentaries like it – true crime is always more compelling than politics, unless they intersect in some unsavory manner.