I haven't posted because I've been both in Hilton Head and sick. Great combo, but I've come across this list that is like any good list because it instills debate. There are a few surprises here. Ultimately I wished they would have had the authors write more than a paragraph for each.
I certainly agree with the Whit Stillman selections. Why won't that guy make another movie?
NATIONAL REVIEW
You end up writing when...
2 weeks ago
Posts
6 comments:
I had no idea what you guys were talking about last night, but now I get it.
I disagree with 300 being on this list. For if the real-life Herodotus said “Law is their master, which they fear more than your men[, Xerxes,] fear you” then the real life Herodotus would surely have rejected the unitary executive theory. He rejects that law and leader are one and the same.
Also disagree with 12,13, 19.
Don't know about Red Dawn, bc I've never viewed it as satire. (Wolverines!)
What a timely post though, Oscar party and all. Had fun, thanks.
Kristen I love you.
I don't think Herodotus wrote the screenplay or the graphic novel of 300, nor did he contemplate unitary executive theory. Nor does every (or any) conservative film have to kneel before this theory either. The Bush Administration Boogey-Man does not represent Conservatism for all time though I'm sure that already dead horse will be beaten for some time. [And off all the people that I read on both the right and left and center you are the only person who uses that theory again and again :) ]
Director Zach Synder was pretty clear that the film had no particular axe to grind or had any political agenda. Though many conservatives hailed its central message, which is Western Civilization based on individual freedom is superior to the Eastern Civilizations of Xerxes Persia and their divine right of kings persona and we have a heritage of democracy and individual accomplishment that reaches back in time to this era (albeit not Sparta at all but Athens). The idea of a few determined, skilled individuals aligned against the enslaved masses resonates with many Conservatives.
Though I would personally contend that if there is any conservative streams in the film it harkens not to the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment but to that of Sparta, Imperial Rome, Napoleon, and the glory through war expressed in Fascism.
Also, the film certainly displays more American Exceptionalism than American Cultural Pluralism, hence a conservative film.
Not going to go into #12 since I already linked Andrew Klaven's piece about it on my blog before
http://marktrexler.blogspot.com/2008/09/fromandrew-klaven.html
[Which if you type in klaven and dark knight in google my blog is fifth, pretty cool]
As for 13 and 19, really? Mel Gibson movies about war not conservative? I don't know what to say. I thought you'd point out Juno or Ghostbusters or something.
As for Red Dawn I haven't really seen it. Only parts but I have a feeling John Milius wasn't writing a satire.
I love, LOVE, how every conservative is running away from Bush faster now than every before. You can say he didn't represent your views well or fully all you want, but you can not deny that it was your party that nominated him, and your vote that helped elect him.
And I didn't go looking up Herodotus to quote, he was quoted in the NR article. So even though he didn't write the screenplay, NR looked to him to prove conservatism.
Anyway, I think all this proves is that the director's intent washes away when the movie meets the audience. If not totally washed away, it usually significantly blurred. It takes two parties, performers and audience, to give any meaning at all to performance. I know what I see through my perspective. I also think Democrats of an earlier generation would disagree with me RE: We Were Soldiers. Them funky Boomers. We may vote the same way, but we don't think the same. Being vested with their cultural baggage, I'm sure they would disagree. I am not of that time. And, as they say, the times, they are a 'changin.
And yes, the strong unitary executive theory either peeves me off more than those who have a national voice, or it bugs them too but they have more to think and write about. It really, really, bugs me though.
Related to the that theory - Some signing statements drive me nuts. McCain might have had a better stated campaign position on this than Obama, btw. To prove I'm not a member of the lunatic fringe - signing statements really bug the ABA too.
The strong ( and growing stronger) unitary executive theory and the use of signing statements to invalidate laws that are simultaneously signed seems to me to be a slow erosion of our system, so slow that it won't ever really be the issue of the day. I feel about this the way you might feel about that road to serfdom, the difference is that you are getting your day to argue your case in the public opinion.
No one cares because no one reads law review articles. No one cares because the line between acceptable executive power and executive power which abuses the system of checks and balances is not a fun dinner table topic. I know that.
It is hard to explain to people that some things are ok, some statements and zones of executive privilege, and some other zones,or presidential/executive actions, which seem like extensions of those good things are in fact very bad. People want clear and easy bright lines - A is alway bad, B is always good. I can't and don't want to argue away all executive privilege, but that doesn't mean I have no argument. Damn, I'm about to launch into a mixed economy speech again.
Anyway, it really, really, really, bugs me. But you knew that :)
Wolverines!
Leave to you to make me spend more of my limited time researching unitary executive theory. :)
We definitely need citizens who are vigilantly guarding the gates of freedom.
What are friends for, if not for making you embark on research trips?
Thank you though, it makes me happy that you are looking into it.
Post a Comment