In every film targeting a female audience, the climactic event involves setting aside a duty to demonstrate the value of a personal relationship. In ever film targeting a male audience, the climactic event requires that a character overcome their feelings to perform their duty. Better films show respect to both sides. Is it any more complicated than that?
While I agree with your overall thesis, Andrew, I am not sure we can say Schindler's List is dishonest because it focuses on acts of kindness that were exceedingly rare. Doesn't the unusual make for a good story, whether in fiction, in drama, or in journalism? Isn't the fact that it is unusual what makes it interesting? And doesn't the juxtaposition of the rare kind acts with the horrors of the camp magnify the overall horror of the Holocaust? I thought it did.
There was a certain young lady from Ireland who’d been awarded an Oscar for some film, who’d spoken lovingly of her family: mother, father, siblings and almost reverently of her child and of motherhood itself.
I will look again for her name, and the film in which she acted, although I’m concerned that she may be unceremoniously sidelined due to her speaking so far outside of the Hollywood ethos.
Hamlet really is the perfect play as entertainment, as analogy, as warning. While teaching it, I'd go fairly far afield knowing that half or more of my students wouldn't quite go there with me as I discussed playing mad to uncover reality, but succumbing to the playing of mad while not actually going mad. And all the while, understanding that this play is fortune telling. Here's to a better age.
Thanks so much for the insight on how movies became so dishonest during the 90's, disguising this with directorial and thespian brilliance...especially in the case of American Beauty. I heard about it at the time, and was repulsed by what I heard. Nevertheless I rented in on VHS (I am as old as you!) and was again mystified that people should like this movie, and even more than that, disgusted by nearly all its characters. What the F@#$ was this movie and director trying to sell us? I told others how terrible it was, and of course the kneejerk reaction was "But it won an Oscar. It must be great!" I tried asking them to decide for themselves, and believe this actually worked on a couple of them. But the damage was done. A deeper cynicism, based on a pack of lies, was woven into the fabric of American life. At least now, when people talk about great old movies, I never hear them mention American Beauty.
PS I also thought Schindler's List was overrated, but given its Holocaust message, it was difficult to make that point then. And guess what, it couldn't be made today...too nice to Jews!
Do you think that Hamlet's murder of his uncle--which he does in rage because he wants his uncle to go to Hell rather than repent and be forgiven--also goes along with this reading of the play? It seems to me that it can--if we remake the cosmos so that WE have to provide the meaning and make everything perfect in the material world that alone exists, then WE have to decide who is damned and the thought that someone we want damned might actually be spared is intolerable.
Maybe he's pretending because he's avoiding something in reality that he needs to look in the mirror and face. In any given moment it seems easier to play at a false reality that doesn't force us to face what we need to do. Is it not just another version of being acted upon instead of the true definition of "to act"?
I generally enjoy the content on here. I'm happy to subscribe and continue supporting. But are these essays just going to be write-ups of exactly what I've already heard Andrew say from listening to his podcast as a paid subscriber to The Daily Wire?
I for one miss the Oscars because it was very entertaining back in the day. Talented hosts (Johnny Carson, many others, and notably Billy Crystal)were funny and hugely entertaining. The movies were not horrible, and occasionally you got to see brilliance (the ever suave David Niven as a presenter commenting about a streaker airing his shortcomings, live on TV). I especially miss it because traditionally it was the one time of year my wife would break out the ironing board and iron my handkerchiefs. I haven’t had one ironed in about 20 years now.
I would also take exception to the characterization of Schindler’s List. I thought the insights of the Nazi head of the death camp entertaining himself by randomly shooting inmates, and refusing to drink the good liquor offered by Schindler as telling of the emptiness and self-destruction of Nazis by the lack of any moral center. This Nazi tries to feel something, but seems unable to. The moral failing that he has allows such atrocities to occur throughout totalitarian regimes. When God is dead to them something else takes its place, and it too often is the materialistic urges, or the belief that each is his own god (or that a monster such as Hitler, Stalin or Mao are, or their poisonous philosophies are). When unmoored from moral absolutes anchored in the Judeo-Christian world, these atrocities will continue to be propogated.
Just because a story is told of one man (extremely flawed, as the movie did point out) who finally did do something, indicates the enormity of the failure of so many others who did not believe in the Nazi propaganda and did nothing, or very little. We know of the family who hid Anne Frank, but do not belittle the story because more were not saved, or that it may have hidden the monstrosity of the Nazis. Schindler the movie said to me, even in the enormity of such reckless hatred and depravity, every now and again, someone may act for good. It does not negate the Holocaust, it does validate human nature. The inscription on Schindler’s ring (A man who saves one man saves the world in time…quoting from memory) is valid.
You can always tell Hamlet is feigning madness because he never once uses a seemingly inappropriate hysterical Tucker Carlson laugh (the genius actor) between sentences. Or ever says “Jews” spelt with 5 “O” & 2 “Zs” - jooooozz.
You know like the unhinged guy at the bottom of that dimly lite stairs case would’ve if he needed clicks . That’s right , the guy you used to represent demonic possession. He would’ve had a devout following if he knew what click bait was .
He’s not what ?
I’m never usually pushed to use the “c” word but :
I watched An American President (Michael Douglas) for the first time a couple weeks ago. It was almost satirical, with a hagiographic view of Democrats-in-Office.
Rotten tomatoes listed review after review lauding it. Its pretense was so annoying, I only stayed until the end to mock it.
Republicans are bad. Democrats are pure good. Fake, fake fake fake
In every film targeting a female audience, the climactic event involves setting aside a duty to demonstrate the value of a personal relationship. In ever film targeting a male audience, the climactic event requires that a character overcome their feelings to perform their duty. Better films show respect to both sides. Is it any more complicated than that?
As is so often the case, both father and son give language to that which I feel and believe. Thanks to you both.
While I agree with your overall thesis, Andrew, I am not sure we can say Schindler's List is dishonest because it focuses on acts of kindness that were exceedingly rare. Doesn't the unusual make for a good story, whether in fiction, in drama, or in journalism? Isn't the fact that it is unusual what makes it interesting? And doesn't the juxtaposition of the rare kind acts with the horrors of the camp magnify the overall horror of the Holocaust? I thought it did.
There was a certain young lady from Ireland who’d been awarded an Oscar for some film, who’d spoken lovingly of her family: mother, father, siblings and almost reverently of her child and of motherhood itself.
I will look again for her name, and the film in which she acted, although I’m concerned that she may be unceremoniously sidelined due to her speaking so far outside of the Hollywood ethos.
Or maybe…
Hamlet really is the perfect play as entertainment, as analogy, as warning. While teaching it, I'd go fairly far afield knowing that half or more of my students wouldn't quite go there with me as I discussed playing mad to uncover reality, but succumbing to the playing of mad while not actually going mad. And all the while, understanding that this play is fortune telling. Here's to a better age.
Thanks so much for the insight on how movies became so dishonest during the 90's, disguising this with directorial and thespian brilliance...especially in the case of American Beauty. I heard about it at the time, and was repulsed by what I heard. Nevertheless I rented in on VHS (I am as old as you!) and was again mystified that people should like this movie, and even more than that, disgusted by nearly all its characters. What the F@#$ was this movie and director trying to sell us? I told others how terrible it was, and of course the kneejerk reaction was "But it won an Oscar. It must be great!" I tried asking them to decide for themselves, and believe this actually worked on a couple of them. But the damage was done. A deeper cynicism, based on a pack of lies, was woven into the fabric of American life. At least now, when people talk about great old movies, I never hear them mention American Beauty.
PS I also thought Schindler's List was overrated, but given its Holocaust message, it was difficult to make that point then. And guess what, it couldn't be made today...too nice to Jews!
Do you think that Hamlet's murder of his uncle--which he does in rage because he wants his uncle to go to Hell rather than repent and be forgiven--also goes along with this reading of the play? It seems to me that it can--if we remake the cosmos so that WE have to provide the meaning and make everything perfect in the material world that alone exists, then WE have to decide who is damned and the thought that someone we want damned might actually be spared is intolerable.
Did you just ask AI to copy a transcript of your show from Friday?
You keep saying Hamlet “pretends to be mad.” Is there a better word that gets to why he’s doing that? Is he rebelling? Is he joking? Is he provoking?
I don’t mean to nudge. Your insight is brilliant, but I wonder what the next level deeper is. Why, and to whom, is he pretending to be mad?
Maybe he's pretending because he's avoiding something in reality that he needs to look in the mirror and face. In any given moment it seems easier to play at a false reality that doesn't force us to face what we need to do. Is it not just another version of being acted upon instead of the true definition of "to act"?
I generally enjoy the content on here. I'm happy to subscribe and continue supporting. But are these essays just going to be write-ups of exactly what I've already heard Andrew say from listening to his podcast as a paid subscriber to The Daily Wire?
For all that, great piece.
I for one miss the Oscars because it was very entertaining back in the day. Talented hosts (Johnny Carson, many others, and notably Billy Crystal)were funny and hugely entertaining. The movies were not horrible, and occasionally you got to see brilliance (the ever suave David Niven as a presenter commenting about a streaker airing his shortcomings, live on TV). I especially miss it because traditionally it was the one time of year my wife would break out the ironing board and iron my handkerchiefs. I haven’t had one ironed in about 20 years now.
I would also take exception to the characterization of Schindler’s List. I thought the insights of the Nazi head of the death camp entertaining himself by randomly shooting inmates, and refusing to drink the good liquor offered by Schindler as telling of the emptiness and self-destruction of Nazis by the lack of any moral center. This Nazi tries to feel something, but seems unable to. The moral failing that he has allows such atrocities to occur throughout totalitarian regimes. When God is dead to them something else takes its place, and it too often is the materialistic urges, or the belief that each is his own god (or that a monster such as Hitler, Stalin or Mao are, or their poisonous philosophies are). When unmoored from moral absolutes anchored in the Judeo-Christian world, these atrocities will continue to be propogated.
Just because a story is told of one man (extremely flawed, as the movie did point out) who finally did do something, indicates the enormity of the failure of so many others who did not believe in the Nazi propaganda and did nothing, or very little. We know of the family who hid Anne Frank, but do not belittle the story because more were not saved, or that it may have hidden the monstrosity of the Nazis. Schindler the movie said to me, even in the enormity of such reckless hatred and depravity, every now and again, someone may act for good. It does not negate the Holocaust, it does validate human nature. The inscription on Schindler’s ring (A man who saves one man saves the world in time…quoting from memory) is valid.
You can always tell Hamlet is feigning madness because he never once uses a seemingly inappropriate hysterical Tucker Carlson laugh (the genius actor) between sentences. Or ever says “Jews” spelt with 5 “O” & 2 “Zs” - jooooozz.
You know like the unhinged guy at the bottom of that dimly lite stairs case would’ve if he needed clicks . That’s right , the guy you used to represent demonic possession. He would’ve had a devout following if he knew what click bait was .
He’s not what ?
I’m never usually pushed to use the “c” word but :
Crikey , he not acting !
It's dishonest. Yes.
I watched An American President (Michael Douglas) for the first time a couple weeks ago. It was almost satirical, with a hagiographic view of Democrats-in-Office.
Rotten tomatoes listed review after review lauding it. Its pretense was so annoying, I only stayed until the end to mock it.
Republicans are bad. Democrats are pure good. Fake, fake fake fake