An American Carol

[superluser]

There are three levels on which movies can be judged.

First, a film can be judged on how you were affected by it.  Did you cry at the end of Titanic, or were you simply indifferent?

Second, a film can be judged by how well it gets its point across.  It would be hard to say that Leni Riefenstahl's films are praiseworthy, but it's hard to deny that she got her point across.  (the comparison is deliberate, and I'll get back to it in a moment)

And finally, a film can be judged on technical merits.  Were the shots in focus?  Were the crew visible in the shots?

On all of these points, An American Carol fails.  Hard.

On a purely technical basis, many scenes had editing issues.  In one of the early scenes (and in many scenes thereafter), I noticed that dialogue did not stop with the scene, but erroneously showed up for a fraction of a second in the following scene, actually stepping on the lines of the same actor.  Scenes look as if the screenwriter was also the camera operator.

On a storytelling basis, we seemed to have two angels of Independence past, no angel of Independence present, and a strange angel of Independence future who shows us a vision of Hollywood embracing Sharia law and burqas.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I would note that reading past here would spoil the movie, but you cannot spoil something that is already rotten.

An American Carol is the story of Michael Malone, a paper-thin caricature of Michael Moore.  His latest film, Die, You American Pigs, has won the Leni Riefenstahl prize (I told you I'd mention it again) from some Hollywood liberals, effectively Godwinning the movie in the first ten minutes or so.  He also plans a rally to abolish July 4.  This attracts the attention of some terrorists, who seek his help in helping a terrorist recruiter blow himself up in an obscure civic center.  Why would they want the recruiter to blow himself instead of one of his recruits?  The movie does not answer this question.

Malone settles in to watch a History channel-type documentary on JFK, who is presented as an idol of the anti-war movement.  Why is JFK, someone who expanded the US role in Vietnam, seen as an anti-war idol?  The movie does not answer this question.  JFK is offended by the fact that Malone sees JFK as anti-war, so he steps out of the TV and declares that Malone will be visited by three spirits.

The first is General George S. Patton, who shows Malone a bunch of people protesting WWII.  Those of you who are familiar with your history might remember the guy who got the US involved in WWII.  His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  The Republicans were the ones who were fiercely opposed to US intervention in Europe, and supported the Neutrality Act.  Of course, the whole thing was scrapped after Pearl Harbor, when we realized that oceans could not protect us.  An interesting note: on Patton's sleeve, the four chevrons and five bars are wound chevrons and overseas bars from Patton's service in WWI, when he served under Democratic president Woodrow Wilson.

Patton shows Malone that if Lincoln hadn't gone to war, the western expansion would have stopped and the abolition movement would have foundered, somehow keeping slavery alive and profitable into the present day.  Thankfully, a line naming one of Malone's slaves as Barack was changed to President Mandela, suggesting that it's only slightly less silly to ship slaves from South Africa than from Hawaii.  And somehow become President.

Patton leaves Malone, who goes on Bill O'Reilly's show, where O'Reilly points how absurd the concept of Christian terrorism is, though he seems to forget The Troubles.

Patton then rejoins Malone, and shows absolute contempt for the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.  At some point, there is a scene of Neville Chamberlain signing the Munich Agreement with Hitler, Mussolini (who wasn't there, AFAIK) and Tojo.  Why is Tojo in Europe?  The movie does not answer this question.  Chamberlain was responsible for England's Great Pre-War joke, but the film depicts him giving Poland away, which is just kicking a man when he's down.  Patton leaves Malone in the hands of an unintentionally frightening Jon Voight as George Washington, who says the following:

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

Ha!  Just kidding.  He tells Malone that freedom can be abused, and if it is, the inalienable rights endowed by our creator can be taken away.  Then he shows him the remains of the WTC.

Washington then leaves Malone, who is visited by Trace Adkins, who is the angel of death, ``you freaking turd.''  Adkins shows Malone a vision of the future Hollywood, which has embraced Sharia law and forces all women to wear the burqa.  Why isn't Hollywood isn't sexually profligate, as the conservatives like to charge?  The movie does not answer this question.

So Malone returns to his life, now convinced that he must save July 4.  Why does Malone change his mind?  The movie does not answer this question.

At any rate, they find the suicide bomber, disarm him, and Malone sees off his nephew as he goes to Iraq and has a moment with his nephew's sick son and daughters.

As to how the film affected me, here's what I have to say.  All through this film, there are jokoids.  They have for all the world the appearance of jokes, but they are not funny, for the most part.  The film's producers seem to have bought their own propaganda and aim their message at those people who actually do want to harm America, which means that no one can connect with this film.  I suppose if you did think that JFK was antiwar and thought that we should never fight against terrorists, you might have your mind changed mind, but that position is not actually supported by any significant portion of the populace.

In other words, what this movie has just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in the rambling, incoherent response was it even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award the film no points, and may God have mercy on David Zucker's soul.

Still, David Zucker is partly responsible for Airplane! and the Kentucky Fried Movie, so I can't be angry at him.  One final point: The right-wingosphere is abuzz with allegations that the sales for this film are bein intentionally deflated.  To that, I have to say that there were fewer than ten people in the theater I went to, and I think I was the only one who can't remember where he or she was when Kennedy was assassinated.

[Alondro]

I figure this movie and 'W" are gonna be just about equal.  I mean, it's Oliver Stone.  Not exactly any real brilliance going on there.

Modern political movies are 100% partisan and always stupid.

Just look at "Lions for Lambs".

[superluser]

I figure this movie and 'W" are gonna be just about equal.  I mean, it's Oliver Stone.  Not exactly any real brilliance going on there.

W. should at least have good cinematography.

Sure, what Stone puts in front of the camera is crap, but it's really pretty crap.

[GabrielsThoughts]

um... I haven't seen the movie, but western expansion occurred before Lincoln became president... the south western states were territories of the United States since just after the  Mexican American war ended  in 1849 and Texas was more or less independent of Mexico since 1836.

The Idea that Lincoln had anything to do with western expansion, other than appointing governors for the newly minted states is downright silly.     

[Sunblink]

I haven't seen this movie. But from what Superluser says, it sounds really bad. Then again, it doesn't sound like my thing to begin with. I'd really rather see Religulous.

What sounds funnier than the movie is the conspiracy theory regarding the ticket sales. The whole thing shrieks of "we're being oppressed by the motherfucking underhanded backstabbing liberals" martyrdom. cry sum moar.

[bill]

Honestly, about Religious, someone who doesn't believe in germ theory has very little basis to lecture others about what they believe.

[Sunblink]

Honestly, about Religious, someone who doesn't believe in germ theory has very little basis to lecture others about what they believe.

Well that takes most of all the fun out of the movie for me.

[bill]

Yeah, he thinks most disease is caused by poor diet, for some reason, or other

[superluser]

um... I haven't seen the movie, but western expansion occurred before Lincoln became president... the south western states were territories of the United States since just after the  Mexican American war ended  in 1849 and Texas was more or less independent of Mexico since 1836.

The movie didn't talk about that, that was all me.  Here's my point.  The US House of Representatives was very firmly abolitionist.  The only reason slavery still existed in 1860 was that the Senate was composed of 19 free states and 16 slave states (correct me if I'm wrong), and that a 2/3 majority was needed to pass an amendment.

The western areas were territories, not states, which meant that they had no representation in the Senate.  But with more people moving west, states like Arizona and New Mexico, which would never have the agrarian base that derived any serious economic benefit from slavery, would eventually outweigh the states that still wanted slavery.  It's probably taboo to say this, but slavery would have ended as soon as the economic benefits no longer outweighed the costs, and inventions like the cotton gin and the spinning jenny (and in this century, the cotton picker) would have made plantation-style farming prohibitively expensive.

Yeah, he thinks most disease is caused by poor diet, for some reason, or other

Awww, I was hoping he adhered to Miasma theory.

[bill]

Personally, I adhere to the humor theory of disease.

[GabrielsThoughts]

It's probably taboo to say this, but slavery would have ended as soon as the economic benefits no longer outweighed the costs...

Agreed. Also, with  great minds like Ben Franklin opposed slavery, I'm sure  slavery was considered distasteful by those who were less ignorant and more educated.   Unless I'm mistaken, Franklin founded the first abolitionist party in the United states. Additionally, slavery was an international problem.  I'm sure England, or Spain could have put a stop to it with a wave of a hand, because I seriously doubt slavery would have continued without the slave traders.

[Alondro]

Miasma is real!  I mean, look how much of it Naraku emitted!   

[rabid_fox]

I hate moviefilms.

[superluser]

Oh, by the way, Alondro, I was talking to my mom yesterday, and she said something about Oliver Stone's film.  Apparently, Stone was on Larry King, and King said something about how balanced the film was:

KING: There is the assumption -- if Oliver Stone did it, it's anti-Bush. Yet, having seen this movie, I would say it's kind of balanced and he comes off sympathetic.
STONE: I would say empathetic.
KING: Or empathetic.
...
STONE: You know, a dramatist empathizes. When I did Nixon, which you liked --
KING: I sure did.
STONE: -- in 1995 they said I was going to do a hatchet job on Richard Nixon and everybody said it was an empathetic movie. You understood Nixon, you walked in his path. I really feel strongly that's my job with Bush, it's not to make judgments.

This is all quite entertaining for anyone who has seen Nixon.

[Alondro]

This is Larry King.  Larry King's idea of 'balance' as far as Bush is concerned would be that the film doesn't say Bush is retarded.   

UPDATE:  Both American Carol and Religulous made about $3.5 million.  The top 2 films for the week?  Bevery Hills Chihuahua and Eagle Eye...  The doggie movie was #1. 

...

I need to make a stupid movie about a talking dog.