The “Al Gore for President” movie review

When Tina Brown took over The New Yorker, it got hip, edgy and, to me, boring. We continue to subscribe, though, in large part because Mr. Bookworm has always subscribed. And I still read it because it's there, which is how I got to read two movie reviews that give away entirely the new political strategy of focusing on Al Gore. But let's start with a little Bush Derangement Syndrome, which really is the intro to the Gore swoon. (David Denby, by the way, wrote both reviews.)

The first review covers the new Robert Altman movie, A Prairie Home Companion. The movie is about a hometown style radio show doing its final broadcast, because the station has been bought out. Throughout the review, we keep hearing that the show is being bought out by "religious" or "Christian" Texans. It's unclear from the review why their religious or geographic status matter — that is, the review doesn't indicate that these identifiers affect the plot in any way. Indeed, one is left feeling that these are just sort of standard Hollywood bad guy things — good radio show being destroyed by bad Texas Christians. But I'm just guessing. The end of the review, though, makes clear why Denby was so intent on emphasizing their unique characteristics. It gave him the chance to close a limp, lukewarm review with these sentences:

Emotionally, the movie is a queasy and unsatisfying experience. Texas Christians may have done a lot of damage recently, but the only person who will close down "A Prairie Home Companian" is Garrison Keillor. [Emphasis mine.]

To me, that last sentence is pure Bush Derangement Syndrome, appearing as it does out of nowhere, and having nothing to do with the movie or the review. It's just something that the writer couldn't keep inside.

The Prairie Home Companion review, though is just a warm-up. Denby's review of An Inconvenient Truth is even more political. Look at the very first paragraph:

Anyone in possession of a major truth that he can't get others to accept begins to feel that he's losing his mind. [That may explain so much about Al Gore's recent behavior. –ed.] The skepticism he meets turns him into a soreheaded obsessive. After a while, he becomes "pedantic," and then, inevitably, "condescending" and "humorless." [Thus, it's not that Gore is, in fact, pedantic, condescending and humorless. We, the skeptical public created this Frankenstein's monster. In the words of the old song, he's more to be pitied than censured." — ed.] Al Gore has been in possession of a major truth about global warming for than than thirty years [Gore's prescience was impressive because the era more than 30 years ago was the global cooling fear phase, a phase that occurred when we didn't have the current measurements we do regarding global warming. -ed], and he has suffered the insults of political opponents, the boredom of ironists, and, perhaps, most grievously, the routine taunts of a media society which dictates that if you believe in anything too passionately there must be something wrong with you [The point being that there's obviously nothing wrong with Gore, it's just that the media doesn't understand him — which really is strange, because I live with the idea that this same media has accepted entirely his view of global warming. –ed.]

Denby then goes on to describe a movie that, if it were about anything other than global warming, would get laughed off the screen. Even Denby acknowledges its faults:

[Gore] appears as the noble-browed warrior of englightenment, brooding over the ravaged earth and the weakness of man, once or twice too often. He mentions family tragedies, which were moving to me, but which strike some viewers as maudlin notes from a campaign biography.

Fear not, though, since "the faults of the movie, semi-excusable as self-vindicating ploys, are nothing compared with its strengths." The strengths, though, make it sound like one of those appalling 8 mm films we slept through in high school in the 1970s:

For long stretches, Gore is photographed talking before an audience with the aid of slides and charts. There are side trips to fissured ice caps, disappearing glaciers — the snows of yesteryear — and expanses of newly parched and broken terrain. The science is detailed, deep-layered, vivid and terrifying. Every school, college, and church group, and everyone else beyond the sway of General Motors, ExxonMobil, and the White House should see this movie. [Get it? Evil corporations, evil oil, and the foul Texas Christian in the White House are incapable of understanding Gore's greatness or simple science. –ed.] [Bolded emphasis mine.]

Denby isn't shy about calling the movie what it is: "It's great propaganda."

But in Denby's mind, what's really great about the movie is how it shows the human side of Al Gore (and you thought he didn't have one). Thus, Gore "speaks in an intimate voice that we've never heard before." When Gore talks about lying by a river, and keeps coming back to that image after global warming holocaust pictures, "it has a greater resonance." Denby claims that Gore has learned to speak in a less annoying way. Listen to this and tell me whether you believe that. The rhythmic up and down of Gore's speech — a rhythm that has nothing to do with emphasizing or deemphasizing actual content — is both soporific and bizarre.

But here's the real kicker. Denby assures us that the movie demonstrates that Gore has been purified in the crucible of past experiences:

[O]ne has the impression of a complex personality that has gone through loss, humiliation, a cruel breaking down of the ego, and then has reintegrated itself at a higher level. In the movie he is merely excellent. But in person . . . he presents a combination of intellectual force, emotional vibrance, and moral urgency that has hardly been seen in American public life in recent years.

Watch out, Hillary. It's Saint Al for President.

By the way, I don't actually have an opinion yet as to global warming. I do know that temperatures are changing, and that we (that is, humans) are definitely causing some changes. I also know, though, that the earth's climate has changed many times. Indeed, I've always found fascinating the fact that the mini-Ice Age was probably what resulted in the lavish costumes worn during the Elizabethan era — those layered clothes kept people warm.

Lastly, I know that, with China and India coming up the industrial pikeway, which means they're making increasing demands on oil while they don't have the resources to burn oil cleanly, there's little that changes in America will do to stop larger climate changes. If Gore's right, we Americans are helpless anyway, because China and India are not buying into his scenario. They just think he's selfishly trying to deny them the same industrialization America got to enjoy. So, if Gore's right, no matter what we do here, we can still kiss this planet good-bye.

Talking to Technorati: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate change, The New Yorker, A Prairie Home Companion, Media

The “Al Gore for President” movie review

When Tina Brown took over The New Yorker, it got hip, edgy and, to me, boring. We continue to subscribe, though, in large part because Mr. Bookworm has always subscribed. And I still read it because it's there, which is how I got to read two movie reviews that give away entirely the new political strategy of focusing on Al Gore. But let's start with a little Bush Derangement Syndrome, which really is the intro to the Gore swoon. (David Denby, by the way, wrote both reviews.)

The first review covers the new Robert Altman movie, A Prairie Home Companion. The movie is about a hometown style radio show doing its final broadcast, because the station has been bought out. Throughout the review, we keep hearing that the show is being bought out by "religious" or "Christian" Texans. It's unclear from the review why their religious or geographic status matter — that is, the review doesn't indicate that these identifiers affect the plot in any way. Indeed, one is left feeling that these are just sort of standard Hollywood bad guy things — good radio show being destroyed by bad Texas Christians. But I'm just guessing. The end of the review, though, makes clear why Denby was so intent on emphasizing their unique characteristics. It gave him the chance to close a limp, lukewarm review with these sentences:

Emotionally, the movie is a queasy and unsatisfying experience. Texas Christians may have done a lot of damage recently, but the only person who will close down "A Prairie Home Companian" is Garrison Keillor. [Emphasis mine.]

To me, that last sentence is pure Bush Derangement Syndrome, appearing as it does out of nowhere, and having nothing to do with the movie or the review. It's just something that the writer couldn't keep inside.

The Prairie Home Companion review, though is just a warm-up. Denby's review of An Inconvenient Truth is even more political. Look at the very first paragraph:

Anyone in possession of a major truth that he can't get others to accept begins to feel that he's losing his mind. [That may explain so much about Al Gore's recent behavior. –ed.] The skepticism he meets turns him into a soreheaded obsessive. After a while, he becomes "pedantic," and then, inevitably, "condescending" and "humorless." [Thus, it's not that Gore is, in fact, pedantic, condescending and humorless. We, the skeptical public created this Frankenstein's monster. In the words of the old song, he's more to be pitied than censured." — ed.] Al Gore has been in possession of a major truth about global warming for than than thirty years [Gore's prescience was impressive because the era more than 30 years ago was the global cooling fear phase, a phase that occurred when we didn't have the current measurements we do regarding global warming. -ed], and he has suffered the insults of political opponents, the boredom of ironists, and, perhaps, most grievously, the routine taunts of a media society which dictates that if you believe in anything too passionately there must be something wrong with you [The point being that there's obviously nothing wrong with Gore, it's just that the media doesn't understand him — which really is strange, because I live with the idea that this same media has accepted entirely his view of global warming. –ed.]

Denby then goes on to describe a movie that, if it were about anything other than global warming, would get laughed off the screen. Even Denby acknowledges its faults:

[Gore] appears as the noble-browed warrior of englightenment, brooding over the ravaged earth and the weakness of man, once or twice too often. He mentions family tragedies, which were moving to me, but which strike some viewers as maudlin notes from a campaign biography.

Fear not, though, since "the faults of the movie, semi-excusable as self-vindicating ploys, are nothing compared with its strengths." The strengths, though, make it sound like one of those appalling 8 mm films we slept through in high school in the 1970s:

For long stretches, Gore is photographed talking before an audience with the aid of slides and charts. There are side trips to fissured ice caps, disappearing glaciers — the snows of yesteryear — and expanses of newly parched and broken terrain. The science is detailed, deep-layered, vivid and terrifying. Every school, college, and church group, and everyone else beyond the sway of General Motors, ExxonMobil, and the White House should see this movie. [Get it? Evil corporations, evil oil, and the foul Texas Christian in the White House are incapable of understanding Gore's greatness or simple science. –ed.] [Bolded emphasis mine.]

Denby isn't shy about calling the movie what it is: "It's great propaganda."

But in Denby's mind, what's really great about the movie is how it shows the human side of Al Gore (and you thought he didn't have one). Thus, Gore "speaks in an intimate voice that we've never heard before." When Gore talks about lying by a river, and keeps coming back to that image after global warming holocaust pictures, "it has a greater resonance." Denby claims that Gore has learned to speak in a less annoying way. Listen to this and tell me whether you believe that. The rhythmic up and down of Gore's speech — a rhythm that has nothing to do with emphasizing or deemphasizing actual content — is both soporific and bizarre.

But here's the real kicker. Denby assures us that the movie demonstrates that Gore has been purified in the crucible of past experiences:

[O]ne has the impression of a complex personality that has gone through loss, humiliation, a cruel breaking down of the ego, and then has reintegrated itself at a higher level. In the movie he is merely excellent. But in person . . . he presents a combination of intellectual force, emotional vibrance, and moral urgency that has hardly been seen in American public life in recent years.

Watch out, Hillary. It's Saint Al for President.

By the way, I don't actually have an opinion yet as to global warming. I do know that temperatures are changing, and that we (that is, humans) are definitely causing some changes. I also know, though, that the earth's climate has changed many times. Indeed, I've always found fascinating the fact that the mini-Ice Age was probably what resulted in the lavish costumes worn during the Elizabethan era — those layered clothes kept people warm.

Lastly, I know that, with China and India coming up the industrial pikeway, which means they're making increasing demands on oil while they don't have the resources to burn oil cleanly, there's little that changes in America will do to stop larger climate changes. If Gore's right, we Americans are helpless anyway, because China and India are not buying into his scenario. They just think he's selfishly trying to deny them the same industrialization America got to enjoy. So, if Gore's right, no matter what we do here, we can still kiss this planet good-bye.

Talking to Technorati: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate change, The New Yorker, A Prairie Home Companion, Media

And now for something complete inane

I'm disgusted with the coverage of Al-Zarqawi's death, which focuses obsessively on how meaningless it is and how it will do little if nothing to make a difference in the President's war for oil. Oh, by the way, try telling that to the wildly celebrating Iraqis. The worst I heard was an NPR blip reporting the news from Zarqawi's hometown, as if he were an ordinary dead celebrity. It seems to me that the Press has lost all perspective on how to report a war.

In the old days, from what I gather, wars were reported by telling about troop movements, battle fronts, and battle outcomes. Victories (on our side) were celebrated, defeats (on our side) were mourned. The enemy was the enemy, and we didn't go to a mass murderer's home town to hear about how some people were sad that he died — and if we did, we'd hear about it with the appropriate level of disdain.

The press nowadays brings two mentalities to the war, both of which make for obscene war coverage: The first is a complete hostility to the war itself, which destroys any objectivity in its reporting. The second is a hopelessly parochial viewpoint, stemming from the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality in local news. Reporters are unable to distinguish enemy deaths from American deaths, they're unable to distinguish ideologies, they know nothing about warfare, they have no sense of history or geography — they operate from a complete basis of ignorance.

They're also completely uninformed about the psychology of the region and believe everything told them. This last is exceptionally stupid, because the region is a hotbed of lies. Many of the lies are intentional propaganda (and explicitly stated Al Qaeda tactic), and the press makes itself a collective useful idiot by blithely reporting everything at face value (which is why I'm reserving all judgment on Haditha).

Other lies are cultural. This is a culture that (a) tells people what they want to hear and (b) lies to save face. With regard to the first, the Iraqis have figured out that the media people they meet want to hear bad news and anger, so they oblige. It was common knowledge in the old days amongst Westerners dealing with Arabs that you never took such things at face value. If you asked an Arab "Is your father very old?" the Arab, assuming that great age was something that would impress you, would promptly answer "yes, he's very, very, old," regardless of the man's age.

As for the lies to save face, if you don't believe me, check out King Hussein's memoirs. I have to admit that I haven't read them personally, but one facet of them came in for heavy analysis in Raphael Patai's seminal book, The Arab Mind. In that book, Patai, when analyzing the "honor" lying that characterizes a lot of Arab communication, relates a story about the 1967 War that Hussein included in his own memoirs. As you know, the Israelis, within hours, decimated the Eyptian airforce. However, when Hussein spoke to the man in charge in Egypt (I can't remember if it was a general or the president), he was assured that the Egyptians had destroyed the Israelis. Hussein, who had been educated in Britain, took this statement at face value and did not send reinforcements — virtually guaranteeing the War's outcome in Israel's favor. Had he understood his own people better, he might well have delved behind the honor rhetoric, discerned the truth, and made a history-turning different decision.

So, as I said, I'm disgusted with the media generally, because of its routine hostile editorializing and credulity, and I'm disgusted with reporters specifically for their inability to recognize and rejoice that a very, very evil person is wandering disconsolate in the afterlife, wondering where the heck those virgins are. (Or, even better, is suffering in some Hieronymous Bosch type environment). And so, as I promised in the title of this post, I'm going for inane, rather than obscene. Here's inane:

A Missouri woman has been arrested for breaking into a dog breeder's home and beating her repeatedly over the head with a dead Chihuahua.

Now, I happen to like Chihuahuas, thinking them a much maligned breed, but that's still a funny opening line for a news report.

Talking to Technorati: Al-Zarqawi, Media, War reporting, Chihuahuas

Getting to the truth quickly

Mr. Bookworm took umbrage when, ten minutes into The Constant Gardener, I walked off, saying it was pompous, irritating and (because I knew from the movie reviews that the main point was evil corporations sucking African life blood), silly.  The trigger for me was when the lead female character, in the movie's first minutes, launched in a deranged, hysterical attack on the Iraq War, coupled with sobbing pleas for the UN's legitimacy.  The fact that the lead male character fell in love with her at that moment made it patently clear that this movie was a propaganda film, not a movie.

Mr. Bookworm felt I was making a snap judgment and not giving a critically acclaimed movie a chance.  Two hours later, to his credit, he admitted that he regretted watching it because it was "moronic."  He said after a good start, the movie got stupid, and then veered into polemics, followed by a confusing pointless ending.  

By the way, if you check out the reviews (I'm picking the New Yorker and the he New York Times), you'll see that, while they labor to praise the movie itself, what really impresses them is the movie's political point about evil corporations sucking African life blood.  

All I can say is that I spent my two hours much better than he did, since I was reading a wonderful book about Dolley Madison.

Talking to Technorati: Constant Gardener, Dolley Madison

The difference between tact and tactlessness

Ann Coulter's comments about a core group of 9/11 widows — that they enjoyed their husbands' deaths — was crude, rude and ultimately stupid.  Why stupid?  Because Ann's underlying point is lost, and it's actually a good point.  Fortunately, a couple of year's ago Dorothy Rabinowitz made the correct point in a Wall Street Journal article.  Here's an excerpt:

A fair number of the Americans not working in the media may, on the other hand, by now be experiencing Jersey Girls Fatigue–or taking a hard look at the pronouncements of the widows. Statements like that of Monica Gabrielle, for example (not one of the Jersey Girls, though an activist of similar persuasion), who declared that she could discern no attempt to lessen the casualties on Sept. 11. What can one make of such a description of the day that saw firefighters by the hundreds lose their lives in valiant attempts to bring people to safety from the burning floors of the World Trade Center–that saw deeds like that of Morgan Stanley's security chief, Rick Rescorla, who escorted 2,700 employees safely out of the South Tower, before he finally lost his own life?

But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back."

The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question–though in no way one would notice.

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

***

Out of their loss and tragedy the widows had forged new lives as investigators of 9/11, analysts of what might have been had every agency of government done as it should. No one would begrudge them this solace.

Nor can anyone miss, by now, the darker side of this spectacle of the widows, awash in their sense of victims' entitlement, as they press ahead with ever more strident claims about the way the government failed them. Or how profoundly different all this is from the way in which citizens in other times and places reacted to national tragedy.

From August 1940 to May 1941, the Luftwaffe's nightly terror bombings killed 43,000 British men, women and children. That was only phase one. Phase two, involving the V-1 flying bombs and, later, rockets, killed an additional 6,180. The British defense, was, to the say the least, ineffectual, particularly in the early stages of the war–the antiaircraft guns were few, the fire control system inadequate, as was the radar system. Still, it would have been impossible, then as now, to imagine victims of those nightly assaults rising up to declare war on their government, charging its leaders, say, with failure to develop effective radar–the British government had, after all, had plenty of warning that war was coming. It occurred to no one, including families who had lost husbands, wives and children, to claim that tens of thousands had been murdered on Winston Churchill's watch. They understood that their war was with the enemies bombing them.

Nor, to take an example closer to our time, did the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing give rise to a campaign of accusation (notwithstanding a conspiracy theory or two) against the government for its failure to prevent the attack.

Essentially, it's precisely the same point Coulter made, without the inflammatory viciousness that obscures the point's underlying merit:  namely, that these women, while they surely are not celebrating their husbands' horrific deaths, are glorying in the spotlight that allows them to put forward their (to me, dubious) political views.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead

This time it doesn't look like a rumor.  This time it looks like the real deal:

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., Multi-National Force-Iraq Commanding General, announced the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in the following statement during a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad June 8:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, Coalition Forces killed al-Qaida terrorist leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and one of his key lieutenants, spiritual advisor Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, yesterday, June 7, at 6:15 p.m. in an air strike against an identified, isolated safe house.

I guess that house wasn't as safe as Al-Zarqawi thought.  I'm only sorry it was a "clean" airstrike that took these evil men down.  I can't imagine that one of the bloodiest killers of the 21st Century suffered quite as much as his many victims did.  If you go here (although the lines are jammed, so to speak), you can see footage of the airstrike.
The President has already issued a statement, which is very polite.  I'd have preferred something along the lines of "we killed that Gosh-danged murderous bastard, and Bin Laden is next on our hit list."  You know, something along those lines.  Instead, the President was very polite.  In relevant part, about Al-Zarqawi's death, he said:

Good morning. Last night in Iraq, United States military forces killed the terrorist al Zarqawi. At 6:15 p.m. Baghdad time, special operation forces, acting on tips and intelligence from Iraqis, confirmed Zarqawi's location, and delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq.

Zarqawi was the operational commander of the terrorist movement in Iraq. He led a campaign of car bombings, assassinations and suicide attacks that has taken the lives of many American forces and thousands of innocent Iraqis. Osama bin Laden called this Jordanian terrorist "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq." He called on the terrorists around the world to listen to him and obey him. Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq. He masterminded the destruction of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. He was responsible for the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan, and the bombing of a hotel in Amman.

Through his every action, he sought to defeat America and our coalition partners, and turn Iraq into a safe haven from which al Qaeda could wage its war on free nations. To achieve these ends, he worked to divide Iraqis and incite civil war. And only last week he released an audio tape attacking Iraq's elected leaders, and denouncing those advocating the end of sectarianism.

Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again. Iraqis can be justly proud of their new government and its early steps to improve their security. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our armed forces, who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and put him out of business.

The operation against Zarqawi was conducted with courage and professionalism by the finest military in the world. Coalition and Iraqi forces persevered through years of near misses and false leads, and they never gave up. Last night their persistence and determination were rewarded. On behalf of all Americans, I congratulate our troops on this remarkable achievement.

Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue. Yet the ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders.

Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda. It's a victory in the global war on terror, and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of this struggle. A few minutes ago I spoke to Prime Minister Maliki. I congratulated him on close collaboration between coalition and Iraqi forces that helped make this day possible. Iraq's freely elected Prime Minister is determined to defeat our common enemies and bring security and the rule of law to all its people.

Talking to Technorati: Al-Zarqawi