Introducing ‘For Conservative Movie Lovers’
by Leo Grin
YouTube -- click here to watch in full-screen HD
A thousand years ago in Cairo, surrounded by ancient pyramids and the ghosts of lost civilizations, the great Arab scientist Alhazen conducted a peculiar optical experiment. Building on observations made by Aristotle thirteen centuries earlier, he first constructed a room, one completely shuttered from the light of the outside world, as dark as death. He then cleverly lit the space around the room with an array of bright lamps. Finally, he punched a single pinhole into one wall, just large enough to let a small beam of lamplight bleed in.
Alhazen confirmed that if you entered such a room, and sat in the darkness until your eyes had ample time to adjust, and then followed the beam of light emanating from the pinhole to where it splashed onto the wall opposite, you would be privy to an amazing, almost magical sight. As you watched, shapes and colors would begin to coalesce. Familiar forms would appear. And eventually, when your eyes had acclimated enough, you would be staring at nothing less than an exact upside-down projection of the outside world, perfect in every detail. Alhazen marveled at this, and gave the experiment an evocative name: Al-Bayt al-Muthlim, translated by later scribes into Latin as camera obscura — The Veiled Chamber.
In a sense, it was the very first movie theater.
A millennium after Alhazen, the world now brims with Veiled Chambers — tricked-out IMAX theaters with stadium seating, careworn revival houses, happily unkempt family rooms. Each plunges us into a darkling twilight that induces a spectacular hypnosis. Think about it: we’ve seen the likes of Kevin Costner, Meryl Streep, or Denzel Washington in countless films, we’ve watched them give interviews on television, we’ve read about them in tabloid exposés. We know, consciously, that they are actors. Fakes. Pretenders. And yet no sooner does the darkness engulf us than our logical, skeptical, twenty-first century minds shut down, allowing them to become a Civil War soldier, or a queen, or a mafia kingpin, or a globetrotting archaeologist. Over the course of two hours they pretend to fall in love, to risk their lives, to make and lose fortunes, to die. And somehow, through it all, we believe. We laugh, gasp, scream. We weep, with tears of genuine grief streaming down our faces. Only when cast back into the daylight does this madness pass, leaving only a bittersweet nostalgia as we realize that all the monsters and magic and galaxies far, far away were just so much hocus-pocus.
That, Dear Reader, is the essence of cinema (from the Greek kinēma — “motion”), and no other art form is as capable of such focused, vibrant, transformative power.
The power of cinema, I humbly propose, is at its peak when harnessed to the task of refreshing and strengthening our civilizational confidence — our deepest loves, our noblest aspirations, our cherished traditions, the beauty and poetry and truth of our language and songs, our regenerative myths, our moral certitudes, our martial might. Above all, the best films revel in shared humanity — that realm of pure feeling that soars far above politics, religion, race, age and gender, allowing us to commune with “the better angels of our nature.” By necessity, civilizations establish notions of perfection, of heroism, of worthy sacrifice, of right. To thrive, they must continually enforce and perpetuate these tenets through the medium of culture. The boundaries imposed by a strong culture act not as the walls of a prison but as the battlements of a fortress. Decorum, manners, styles of dress, the developed forms and structure of art — these serve the same purpose in a healthy civilization as the deadbolt on the front door of a house or the fence surrounding a backyard. They provide comfort, surety, self-possession. As such, they are an absolute good.
Alas, civilizations are also home to damaged and deranged people, twisted with bitterness and hate, who seek to become purveyors of what can only be described as cultural leprosy. Like any virus, they thrive wherever a civilization has succumbed to weakness, confusion, lawlessness, decadence, doubt. Incapable of real artistry, they resort to cruel acts of desecration and graffiti. A crucifix dipped in urine. A Madonna covered in feces. Songs that delight in scatology, rape, murder, fear, perversion. Movies that provide no sense of composition, sequence, or movement. Paintings that defy explanation or even description. Poetry bereft of form, meter, rhyme, or import. Criticism that warps meaning, denies standards, and condemns beauty. Left free to attack and spread, all of these things carve grievous wounds into a culture, breaking down the battlements of a civilization brick by brick. They are agents of anti-humanity, and their weapons are cancer, disease, and dissolution. While they can never be wholly eradicated, a healthy culture will fight these malevolent usurpations with the assured ruthlessness of a gardener ridding a prized flowerbed of poisonous weeds.
Ask yourself: what is the current state of our civilization? Of our culture? Are we awash in civilizational confidence? Or is our fortress crumbling and graffiti-littered and strangled by an ocean of weeds? If we set ourselves to pulling the weeds, what forgotten gardens might reveal themselves? What lost temples or treasures might be found? What senses of pride, glory, and strength might be enjoyed again? Most important of all, given the mission statement of this website: what part might cinema — that most powerful and hypnotic of art forms — play in rebuilding our cultural fortress and reestablishing a healthy and humane civilization?
In the words of Andrew Breitbart’s inaugural editorial here on this site: “Something has gone drastically wrong. . . Hollywood should return to its patriotic roots. . . [Until conservatives] recognize that (pop) culture is the big prize and that politics is secondary, there will be no victory in this important battle. . . We need to discover that spirit again.” The purpose of this blog series, For Conservative Movie Lovers, is to seek out those roots and that spirit, to make them relevant once again to modern conservative filmgoers, and to express a great many things regarding film and conservatism that I care about deeply — lonely, forgotten things that get precious little hearing in today’s high-octane, news-driven cultural arena, but which in the end constitute our only real protection against the darkness of cultural debasement and decay.
By way of achieving these goals, I have carefully selected a different film to represent each year from 1915-2009. Every Saturday here at Big Hollywood, my time and your interest permitting, I will introduce these pictures to you via rich, multimedia-enhanced essays. You will learn about the men and women who made each movie, and discover a cavalcade of actors destined to bring you countless hours of delight. You will learn something about cinematography, film music, costume design, dance choreography, and much else, becoming conversant with the names and careers of revered geniuses in each discipline. You will gain some knowledge of French cinema, German cinema, Hong Kong cinema. You will learn about what makes good criticism good, bad criticism bad, and why films do indeed need critics. Again and again you will be brought face-to-face with the old studio system, the facts and myths surrounding the “Golden Age” of American cinema, the infamous blacklists (both past and present), and many other things of high interest. All of this will be addressed from a conservative perspective and made relevant to the cultural battles of today.
Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to follow along with each group of posts, then seek out the movie in question and watch it. And by that, I mean really watch it, with all of the things you have learned informing and enriching the viewing. If you have any pertinent observations or are otherwise so inclined, you can light up the COMMENTS section of each post with additional discussion and argument. I’ll also provide a vast assortment of links for further reading and viewing, so that if a particular director, genre, actor, or thematic idea seizes your imagination, you can travel down those side-paths as far as you like. Think of For Conservative Movie Lovers as a graduate course in film (taught by a conservative, wonder of wonders!) right here at Big Hollywood U.
My hope is that, by the end of this long march through cinematic history, I will have armed despairing conservative readers with the certitude that they are far from defeated in this sphere, that they are in fact the heirs to an immense store of cultural wealth. If a Hollywood conservative uses something they find here in their next film or performance, if someone at home passes a telling anecdote or story onto their kids, if people leave this series feeling inoculated against those who yearn to destroy them and everything they hold dear, and if they achieve a sublime elation regarding their history, heritage, and especially their cinema, I will consider the effort as time well spent.
For in the end cinema is, by its very nature, an intensely conservative medium. Look at the movies from any decade of the last century, and you’ll get an education in how people looked, spoke, dressed and thought. No amount of nanny-state whining can take the cigarettes out of their mouths, steal the oh-so-offensive words from their lips, or dissolve their humanity in the acid-bath of nihilism. They and the times in which they lived are conserved, free from fleeting and ever-changing notions of political correctness and censorship. This is good to see, because it preserves truth, in a form that glitters and glows like only the very best art can, as beacons of light and hope.
I’ll leave you for now with a quotation from the late critic and filmmaker Lindsay Anderson, whose magnificent treatise About John Ford bears heavily on the first film to go under our microscope, and indeed remains the most penetrating and moving defense of conservatism in cinema I’ve ever read. Attempting to explain the natural appeal of old movies, he wrote many decades ago that:
With all the brilliance, the intelligence and sophistication that goes into filmmaking today, with all the multiplicity of elaborate and costly techniques, there is still this lack of feeling, of emotional exposure and commitment. Which is one reason why, again and again, we return in our dissatisfaction (not just with nostalgia) to the great films of the past in which we can still feel “the freshness of the early world,” and from which we can still receive refreshment.
The freshness of the early world (a phrase originally penned by the poet Matthew Arnold, while describing the appeal of Wordsworth upon the latter’s death in 1850). I like it. Let us begin, then, to refresh ourselves at the well of great cinema by meditating on some great films, with an especial focus on their makers and their making.
Coming tomorrow, For Conservative Movie Lovers begins its journey into The Veiled Chamber with our first film.







Subscribe via RSS
78 Comments
[...] Read the original post: Introducing ‘For Conservative Movie Lovers’ [...]
Sounds fantastic! I'm in!
Oh, fantastic! i AM so THERE!
First film? 1915, you say? Hmmmm…. okay, Birth of a Nation, maybe? First half great, second half seriously open to misunderstanding, and damn, do I have some comments ready if it is indeed the Chosen Film.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Lisa Gunnoe. Lisa Gunnoe said: Introducing ‘For Conservative Movie Lovers’ http://is.gd/4mukC [...]
Last of the Mohicans (1992) would be my vote for the first film.
[...] View original post here: Introducing ‘For Conservative Movie Lovers’ [...]
Hope you get to 'The Edge' eventually!
I've actually seen the film. I consider myself a right-wing, patriotic guy with a deep hatred of political correctness.
The film made my skin crawl. I merely responded "damn." No movie I know of even approaches the unvarnished hatred oozing from Birth of a Nation.
Here is a Youtube link and an Internet Archive link. I'm warning you, though…be prepared for cinematic racism the likes of which you've never seen in your life.
That is an amazing read. Thank you for that!
[...] Movie Lovers That’s the name of a new series of posts from Big Hollywood (starting with this one.) Will it be an insightful analysis of what makes certain films conservative, beyond the obvious [...]
Lindsay Anderson, early on that is, was brilliant. And that rare thing, the honest, intelligent lefty.
"This Sporting Life", "If…", "O lucky Man" all great.
On another note:
JOKER IN BATMAN 3 TO BE PLAYED BY BRILLIANT NEW ACTRESS!
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/joker...
Great idea! As someone who isn't in the entertainment business, at a minimum, these coming essays, will give me better appreciation of conservative themes in cinema. And maybe it will give me the inspiration to write the treatment that has been bouncing around in pea-sized brain for about 15 years. I doubt it would go anywhere, besides the waste can of treatments in somebodies office, but at least maybe it will enhance my political philosophy.
Sounds awesome. I'm looking forward to the series and finding some great films to watch.
Oh, for God's sake, grow up. You act like you had just seen evil incarnate devour your children for a snack.
"Hatred" italicized? Get a grip.
Beautifully written introduction….What a great idea and I'm looking forward to following this site.
I hope when you mean "For Conservative Movie Lovers" that its more than a conservative who talks about movies. Please also be movies that are conservative or how good movies that lean liberal can actually be seen as conservative. By the way, while watching all those clips I actually picture an audience getting up and cheering and clapping when John Wayne stood in the doorway. Not a fan of his, but that one is a good movie.
I doubt it would go anywhere, besides the waste can of treatments in somebodies office, but at least maybe it will enhance my political philosophy.
If you do get around to writing it, don't preach — make it entertaining.
Sorry, but WHO said Birth Of A Nation? Not the guy running the blog. Just some random person.
Let's not get all huffy prematurely. If it turned out that this WAS true, I'll gladly join you in outrage.
But I'm not falling for any liberal tricks where somebody tells me what to believe, what to expect or what to enjoy.
any movie where Alec Baldwin gets killed is an instant classic. no matter how bad the rest of the movie is, seeing Alex Baldwin die is a highlight.
Be sure to watch Leo's video!
Be sure to watch Leo's video!
Be sure to watch Leo's beautiful video…!
Be sure to watch Leo's beautiful video…
Good advice. There is probably a fine line between inspirational, talking about freedom and the founding principles, and coming off like the protagonist is prefect. He isn't and acknowledges it….towards the end. Then goes about fixing his mistakes and misconceptions about freedom.
First off, after "The Dark Knight" and the circumstances surrounding it, I really do not believe the Joker should be brought back for the third movie at all. It would just be a mistake all around. Secondly, how do you have a woman play the Joker? I know movies have to take artistic license with the comics once in a while, but come on!
Great job of editing, (I could name all the films!) and the use of Jerry Goldsmith's score from "Star Trek-First Contact" makes the piece work perfectly! I will be looking for more!
Yay, I'm so excited!!!
Last time I checked, there were no l Chinamen in Birth of a Nation
I won't be going in chronological order (fifteen years of silent movies back-to-back would be a tough slog), but THE BIRTH OF A NATION will definitely be discussed here — how could it legitimately be avoided by any series professing to deal with notions of culture and civilization, or of the history of cinema? That it's a hard movie to watch today is hardly news, but it still looms like a shadow over the last century — over the film industry, over the civil rights movement, you name it. It cannot be ignored, only confronted.
I don't want to give away all my choices prematurely, but I will say that the hardest decade to find ten films I was jazzed enough to write about was the one we are now close to bidding farewell (and good riddance). The aughts have been a veritable desert for this particular conservative movie lover.
The second-hardest was the sixties.
Yeah, this isn't going to be some rah-rah series that focuses solely on blatantly patriotic and uber-conservative films — in fact, such films will be subject to more than a bit of criticism when warranted (many of them are terrible, and were seen as such even back in the "Golden Age").
I'm of the opinion that the best films defy easy political categorizations, and that liberals (pace Mr. Anderson) are often far more conservative at heart than they think they are, something radio host Dennis Prager has often stressed with his "Are You a Liberal" pop quiz:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390257/...
There is plenty of red meat to be found within movies and filmmakers that are not currently on most conservatives' cultural radar, and introducing Big Hollywood readers to these hidden gems will be a major goal of this series. Given the worries you've stated above, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Hey, I happen to love silent film! But I know I'm in the minority there, so however you do it, I'm still here!
(And hey, I'm not just a "random person" – sheesh.)
I mentioned "Birth" because my great-grandmother, who lived thru the Civil War and Reconstruction in a small town in Mississippi, had some interesting comments on the movie back in 1915, when it finally showed up in Fayette – and I wanted to share. Besides, the only other even semi-important film from '15 that I could think of the top of my head was Theda Bara's "A Fool There Was" and although I like the movie (and the book and the poem), I'm forced to admit that other than popularizing the term "vamp", it's not exactly a cultural landmark.
Beautiful video and the essay was well written, also. The only suggestion I have is that it would be nice if we could buy the DVD's from a link here at Big Hollywood. I've bought several already from the "Movies We Like" series but I bought them through my normal link to Amazon. I would have bought Anatomy of a Murder the other day but I couldn't find a link and then forgot about it. If there is a link here at Big Hollywood to purchase movies, and benefit BH in some way, I'd do it. But I don't see one.
That's for movies that are available. I don't mean to suggest the list should be limited to only available movies.
"Movies are not about what they are about, but HOW they are about them"
–Roger Ebert.
A beautifully well-made film about something dark or "vile" or "low-culture" has every bit the same value as a beautifully well-made film about something "civilizationally confident." Someone who holds the content of a piece as being of greater importance than the execution of the piece has very little in the way of artistic comprehension. And I say that as someone who likely shares the author's evident dislike for much of post-modern Western art.
The problem with regarding cultural "boundaries" as an absolute good is that it neglects the basic fact of science that civilizations are made of living things and thus constantly evolve. More cultural "fortresses" have fallen because the "walls" were too rigid to meet the changing needs and wants of the people within them than have ever been destroyed from without.
Oh, and btw, your video made me tear up there at the end. I LOVE The Searchers! (book and movie both)
And what's the music? That had a lot to do with the waterworks, I think.
On this I would agree.
All content and no execution? Congratulations, your movie is talk radio with pictures — and that's not a good thing.
All execution and no content? Your movie is mindless spectacle — it looks cool, but it isn't saying anything.
A great movie has to be excellent on both fronts.
(P.S.: I enjoyed your recent Game Overthinker video. Keep it up!)
But sometimes…ya just want to laugh at someone getting kicked in the nuts, benefits to civilization be damned.
I think this is going to be excellent.
I agree–the music brought tears to my eyes. I'd love to know what it is.
Quote Leo Grin, "There is plenty of red meat to be found within movies and filmmakers that are not currently on most conservatives' cultural radar, and introducing Big Hollywood readers to these hidden gems will be a major goal of this series.", unquote.
–Like THE NAKED PREY (1966) and BLACK NARCISSUS (1947), clips of which are among those featured in that exemplary YouTube video.
Good on you, Leo! This will be great!
"Confronted"? No, embraced for some of it's honesty and reflection of the values of the era…not the 1915 era, but the Reconstruction Era and how blacks and whites interacted and what level of esteem (low) they held each other in.
This is possibly the only film you'll ever see where you will cheer as the KKK rides to the rescue.
What was it that President Wilson said about BOAN? "It's like seeing history being written with lightening."
The link, dude, click the link.
JOKER IN BATMAN 3 TO BE PLAYED BY BRILLIANT NEW ACTRESS!
Wait…what?
Ebert? Ebert has been thoroughly politicized in recent years and not been shy about the fact that he has rated movies based on their (anti-Bush) politics. He is right in one respect: content matters a lot. "Well made" isn´t good enough for me. I love art, but human life is more important than art.
"More cultural "fortresses" have fallen because the "walls" were too rigid to meet the changing needs and wants of the people within them than have ever been destroyed from without".
Are your sure? That is the conventional wisdom, but can you prove that? I wouldn´t know enough about world history to back that up. I might as well claim that many civilizations evolved into a dead end and faded away. Some were overrun by empires that didn´t outlast their founders, unable to evolve but still strong enough to destroy what came before. Don´t forget that evolution works through countless mutations most of which are discarded. And what does "evolving" entail? A one way street towards fewer moral boundaries and social norms, is that it? Germany in the 1920s comes to mind.
You´re not alone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU
If the introduction and video are any indication of what to expect regularly, I'll be dropping in!
I am looking forward to the series, but there is no way "Dances with Wolves" is a conservative movie. It seems to me that everything about it is opposed to "civilizational confidence."
I would never cheer for the KKK, even in a movie.
I would never cheer for the KKK, even in a movie. I'm not asking the movie to be politically correct; I'm just saying what I think of heroic treatments of those hooded man-beasts.
From where I sit, content is a lesser thing than execution because ANYONE, even one devoid of genuine skill, can elicit a reaction with raw content: For example, those ghastly "9-11 remembrance" paintings you can buy in the mall (usually from the same kiosk where the guy is hawking the charcoal sketch of Scarface, Fiddy Cent and Tony Soprano chilling at the Bada-Bing) y'know the ones I mean? It's usually a "building-plus-smoke-trail" panorama, sometimes with opaque flag hovering against the clouds? Yeah, that's the cheapest form of "art" possible because there's no skill involved: ANY image of 9-11 is moving and evocative of the event.
Now, on the other hand, evoking the emotional/allegorical connection to 9-11 in a Batman movie? THAT took skill.
"And what does "evolving" entail? A one way street towards fewer moral boundaries and social norms, is that it? Germany in the 1920s comes to mind."
The problem with most societies that falter after embracing greater individual freedoms is that they refuse to "commit" to the freedom itself; or rather to accept that greater freedom ALWAYS means greater peril and thus requires equivalent responsibility. For example, the "hedonism" of the 70s ground to a halt once AIDS showed up because people suddenty realized that surviving AND maintaining the same freedom would require both accepting that BAD STUFF will come with the good stuff and greater vigilance either way.
Paradise is a jungle, and it's fun to go, but staying there requires that you work hard and accept that your sharing the place with the lions. A depressing majority of humanity does not have that fortitude, which is why – given the chance – they'll surrender freedom to a church, government, whatever… because it's EASIER.
If you have not done so yet, I suggest you read some of the history of the Reconstruction Era KKK vs the post 1915 KKK.
"man-beasts"? You know, silly stuff like that just makes you sound foolish.
Ah, good old Mattkare, another grizzled and scarred fellow-veteran from the old battlefields of the Dirty Harry comment boards. Nice to see you still in the fray here at BH. I expect we'll be circling the wagons together down the road when I bring Donald Bogle and his wonderful books into the discussion. Rest assured I have nothing against kicks in the nuts in theory, and hope to prove as much as this series progresses (IF it progresses — we'll see how it goes). Anyway, nice to see you here.
Is there any doubt among anyone that 1939's movie of choice is going to be "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".
If it isn't, the fix is in. Just sayin'.
For someone with "movie" as part of your nic, you appear to know very little about movies, movie history, and movie content. Add to that, you also don't seem to be cognizant of history.
What, you imagine that AIDS is the first disease associated with sexual activity, that mankind has ever faced?
Do you really believe that sexual hedonism/immorality is something "NEW" and/or something "new" to movies ?
And frankly, the rest of the post you wrote, to which I am replying, is sophomoric gibberish.
Do you remember the end of HONDO? Ward Bond muses that the arrival of a promised army of American soldiers means "That'll be the end of the Apache." John Wayne looks out at the retreating braves wistfully and replies, "Yep — end of a way of life. Too bad. . . it's a good way."
DANCES is an expansion and fulfillment of those lines. It shows what was good about their way without shirking from the bad (the savage traditions, the wonton murders of Timmons and the pioneer family of Stands-With-A-Fist, the horse thievery). It depicts the members of an encroaching civilization at their most noble (Dunbar's many kindnesses, the general who saves Dunbar's foot, the compassionate soldier played by Charles Rocket, the uncouth wagon driver in his last moments thinking only about the safety of his poor mules) and at their most cruel (Spivey and his illiterate buddies, the deranged Major at Fort Hays, the mass slaughtering of the buffalo). It conveys the sadness of one Way crumbling before another without silly cries of "genocide!" or the exclusive demonizing of one side at the expense of the other.
Native Americans are Americans, too, and their history is now our history. That DANCES is a balls-out brilliant cinematic evocation of that history doesn't hurt. But I'll save my full arguments for the essay. Nice to have your ear, W.
An excellent essay – I look forward to the series and will have my HS (home educated) daughter participate also . Heh heh – I foresee a few more essays in her future. The suggestion to have a link to purchase the featured film was great, and I second it.
I'm in!
Yes and no. I never agree with MovieBob on world view or politics, but he cares about and understands movies.
"Native Americans are Americans, too, and their history is now our history."
I think that is a very good point. I was always torn about Dances with Wolves. I think it is quite onesided but that is not necessarily the same as untruthful. And it was a great moviegoing experience, one of the last with a symphonic score that people fell in love with – that era is now almost gone.
Looking forward to your essays.
STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT Jerry Goldsmith
That's 2 "a's," 1 "t," my friend! And I look forward to the nut-kicking montage! ;-D
Jaynie59,
Don't know if BH benefits, but I'll definitely have links to buy or rent each movie I discuss in at least one of the posts about each movie. I would like nothing better than for NetFlix to look at their inventory and wonder why they keep running out of this-or-that movie a day after we discuss it here.
Thank you, Leo, for the response. I respectfully disagree. Please include in your essay a comment about the way the film glorifies Native American warfare as somehow pure, but directly claims the American Civil War (the basis of much of our "civilizational confidence" and the event that revealed the best and worst of our civilization) was fought for "dark political objectives" or some such description. Sad, and clearly anti-American. Also, if anyone made a film where only the Native Americans farted and drank to oblivion, and wiped their rumps on the pages of books, while the whites were somehow noble, if occasionally harsh, it would with some justice be regarded as a racist slander. I think if we were to choose a film that presented the legitimate concerns of the Indians, and their struggle, while showing in human terms the weaknesses and strengths of encroaching white civilization, it would be Ford's Fort Apache, a vastly superior movie.
Where in DANCES is there any reference to \”dark political objectives\”?I've seen the film innumerable times, virtually know the entire film by heart, and can recall no such judgement.
Where in DANCES is there any reference to \”dark political objectives\”?I've seen the film innumerable times, virtually know the entire film by heart, and can recall no such judgement.
He may "cares about movies", but he most assuredly doesn't "understand" nor even know very much about them, from what I've seen him post here.
Watch it again, my friend.
From the voice over section by Dunbar after the battle with the Pawnee.
"It was hard to know how to feel. I'd never been in a battle like this.
There was no dark political objective. This was not a fight for territory or riches
or to make men free. It had been fought to preserve the winter food stores…"
Somehow, fighting on the prarie for food was morally superior to fighting to make men free, a "dark political objective." White man fight for land, Indian fight for food. Indian better. It's leftist nonsense.
You explain yourself why nobody would want to live and raise a family in such a world. So we are back to the choice between those who hate society (liberals and some libertarians) and those who want to protect it (conservatives). To put it bluntly, liberals will not even preserve many of the liberties we already had, but they will do away with rules about f****ing. That is about the extent of the love of freedom of many of the drones out there. Inevitably they end up in the liberal camp. But the absence of restrictions on personal behavior is not liberty.
This sounds amazing. Terrific first essay. Looking forward to the whole series!
I doon't care about conservation movies, just want a good story that doesn't contain Liberal preaching preaching preaching
W. Wilson,
Thanks for refreshing my memory, and I can understand how your reading of those lines gives you pause. I would note by way of rebuttal that he also says the battle was to "protect the lives of women and children and loved ones ONLY A FEW FEET AWAY." That's a distinction of immediacy, not morality, and hardly a sentiment fraught with Leftist nonsense.
You seem to be reading the word "dark" here to mean "evil, nefarious," whereas I took it to mean "not illuminated, obscure," which resulted in a very different interpretation for me. I saw Dunbar as a wayward, suicidal loner in search of meaning, purpose, and later love, family and acceptance — all things I would loosely file under "civilizational confidence." Granted, by the end he has found it all in a DIFFERENT civilization — but I never saw his embracing of the nobility and humanity of the Indians as a de facto repudiation of the nobility and humanity of their conquerors.
When you say the film tries to float an "Indian better" meme, I find myself recalling the scenes of Indians murdering settlers, scalping a defenseless wagon driver, and stealing horses, as well as the scenes that depict the courage and kindnesses of our side (I especially liked the General's heroic charge and rout of Tucker's men, along with his promise that "As God is my judge" Dunbar will keep his foot.) In light of those moments, I've never been able to consider the movie's subtext as simplistic as, "White man fight for land, Indian fight for food. Indian better."
Your POV has given me much food for thought about one of my favorite films, and I thank you for it. it will probably be awhile before I address DANCES WITH WOLVES in essay form, but when I do I'll try to give your take the respect it deserves.
RoB68,
Alas, the fix is in, at least for Round 1. The film I chose for 1939 has, in my estimation, a much more pointed interest for conservatives, but gets talked about far too little in my opinion. Let's hope you like it. But I'm with you — three cheers for MR. SMITH!
GemStateMom:
Oh, that poor defenseless little girl — what did she ever do to you to deserve being condemned to read THIS? I may have to toss in a few girl-friendly flicks out of pity.
But seriously, hearing something like this is great. Kids learn about these things by osmosis. i grew up watching all sorts of things that my Dad put up on the TV, stuff like THE SEARCHERS that I never would have bothered with otherwise, and over time it changed my life and made me the conservative I am today. Kids have a much greater capacity to view and appreciate old movies than we give them credit for, especially if there is a lot of explanation and context to go along with it. Kudos to you for home-schooling your daughter, and for thinking about this aspect of her education. Makes my day to read comments like that.
See what you did! I went and downloaded the First Contact opening theme….and now I can't stop listening to it.
[...] [There is a video which cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit a blog entrance to see a video.] A thousand years ago in Cairo, surrounded by very old pyramids as well as a ghosts of mislaid civilizations, a good Arab scientist Alhazen conducted a rare visual experiment. Building upon observations done by Aristotle thirteen centuries earlier, he initial assembled a room, a single utterly shuttered from a light of a outward world, as dim as death. He afterwards deftly illuminated a space around the Blog Source [...]
spoken like a person who has no understanding of history
You must be logged in to post a comment.