National Review’s Best Conservative Movies
When you learn that National Review is going to list the 25 best conservative movies of the past 25 years, you know you’re in for a good time:
For example, as Isaac Chotiner observes, Andrew Breitbart doesn’t seem to have actually seen the end of Gran Torino. Isaac, meanwhile, likes any list that encourages people to go see The Lives of Others. And I agree, but we’re really defining conservatism down if we take “the pervasive intelligence state of Communist East Germany” to be a distinctly conservative notion. Perhaps more truly typical of the conservative worldview is that after Lives of Others comes in at the number one slot, The Dark Knight takes position number twelve specifically because of its alleged advocacy of pervasive surveillance. Many movies on the list, (Pursuit of Happyness e.g.), aren’t even remotely good.
93 Responses to “National Review’s Best Conservative Movies”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
You’re going to have to do a different blog post on the Pursuit of Happyness, because that was actually a pretty good drama.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:49 am
||
David Brooks is trolling Matt in his column today.
||
February 17th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Hmmm. I’m really surprised that Red Dawn slipped to 15.
Anyways, movies are often ink blots. Many of these movies could be flipped around and examined in a progressive light.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
OK, I just got a look at the list —
Are you HONESTLY giving Will Smith crap when 300 is #5!!!
February 17th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Here’s my favorite conservative movie of the morning: idiot pseudo-economist glibertarian Megan McArdle gets completely disassembled by real economist Dean Baker when she tries to argue that ‘government jobs aren’t jobs’, especially that the WPA jobs were not real, the government was ‘just paying people to do stuff.’
NYT Bloggingheads Video here.
She can’t respond to any of his points. None. She just keeps either shifting the terrain or repeating the same hack phrases.
Finally Dean Baker gets blunt: ‘You don’t like these jobs, but you don’t get to say that these aren’t jobs just ’cause you don’t like them.’
This is the first of these McArdle videos I watched. I thought she was going to be more clever. Nope.
If I weren’t an American used to our idiot culture, I would say I can’t believe a complete hack idiot like McArdle is paid to pronounce upon anything, but, you know, that’s what we do.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I knew it. Red Dawn. A cautionary tale based upon the fantasies springing from the minds of permanently adolescent conservatives. Wherein the fact that any invader of the US would face a well armed gorilla force of 200 million giver or take, and would be chopped to ity bitty pieces, assuming the entire US military happened to be on leave that day, including those self same ‘conservatives’ because defending home and country with ones own gun is the dream of a huge portion of all Americans is ignored so as to produce a cautionary tale beloved of permanently adolescent conservatives.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Actually, National Review’s list is hilarious, given the unintentional irony that arises from conservative stupidity, venality, and selfish hypocrisy:
a) Red Dawn: Wolverines! This from the party of self-serving draft dodgers who extoll the virtues of the military while never joining it and who “support the troops” by sending them off to die for Dick Cheney’s Big Oil buddies
b) Braveheart? Actually, Bin Laden more closely resembles William Wallace than does George Bush. Who has invaded and enslaved whom, after all? See again “Big Oil, Empire Of”
c) Blast from the Past: A reminder of the virtues of America’s middle class Engineers in the 1950s and 1960s. Whose intelligence and hard work won the Cold War — or at least staved off nuclear war, for the moment.
Their reward? Massive layoffs after the Berlin Wall fell– across the Fortune 500. In the defense industry alone, 1 Million defense contractors — and almost as many military personnel –were tossed out on the streets in the early 1990s by Dick Cheney and George H Bush. As they struggled to rebuild new careers, the Republican Congresses –whoring for Silicon Valley’s campaign contributions — raised H1B visa limits to let in a few million foreign engineers. Plus gave the Fortune 500 CEOs tax breaks to relocate overseas. And told the survivors that they could compete with 2 billion Chinese and Indians for a limited number of jobs.
Why do you think Bronze Star winner and Army Vet Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building?
The Rosenbergs were right — We should have nuked the RNC building.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:15 am
The inclusion of the Will Smith movie was also hilarious. If the southern conservatives had their way, Will Smith would still be picking cotton in some field.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Hey McCardle, what the hell is ‘natural demand for labor’? Oh my goodness, she sounds foolish. Whenever she can’t figure out what Baker is saying, she just says “that’s not the point”. I hate to betray my sex, but she looks like an overwhelmed sorority girl. I wanted to scream at the end “Stop touching your fucking hair!”
February 17th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I actually was glad to see this list, because it taught me how to redefine anything as “conservative” in eight easy steps.
/shameless self promotion
February 17th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Well, at least someone besides me noticed the creepy Democrats-under-my-bed tones in The Incredibles.
Plus, I bet the reviewer thought the scene where Mr. Incredible explains to the woman whose insurance claim is being denied how she should game the system in order to actually get paid is a beautiful illustration of how, um, human goodness makes “for-profit” healthcare the best system in the world.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I have no idea what Isaac is talking about. I think Breitbart’s short summary is accurate, and I’ve seen the whole movie. And I even agree that it is a conservative movie, maybe even one of the best 25, though not a particularly good movie.
It would have been great to have liberal opponents of communism when it was around. If Matt had been alive during the Cold War does anyone doubt where he would have stood? A clever IR argument, some equivocation, mixed with a little partisanship, and voila–communism aint so bad that we must oppose it.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Oh, and Pursuit of Happyness: not a bad movie.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am
El Cid–I thought the best bit was when Dean was able to identify a make-work job, but only in the private sector.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I can’t wait to hear about how “Watchmen” is a conservative movie. It is! If the plot follows the comic book, the main villain is a (SPOILERS) East Coast liberal elite intellectual using illegal aliens* for a social engineering plot, the U.S. used overwhelming force in the Vietnam War and won it, and the heroes are a small businessman and genius inventor who withdrew from the world when regulations got too restrictive, and a vigilante with a strongly defined sense of right and wrong who does not, no matter what anyone says about him, have sexual hangups.
* Not the kind of illegal aliens conservatives are generally concerned with, but maybe it’s a metaphor or something.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Pursuit of Happyness as a conservative movie? The big joke there is that the real life protagonist got rich due to affirmative action — California (and other states’) minority set-asides in muni bond underwriting. He started his own company to take advantage of these.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Apparently what makes “The Lives of Others” a conservative movie, according to The Corner, is that William F. Buckley liked it. Really, that’s what they wrote.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I can’t wait to hear about how “Watchmen” is a conservative movie. It is!
Are you being ironic? Because when I read Watchmen, that was exactly my take on it—Ayn Rand as the best possible solution to The Problems Of The Modern World. (That Moore hedged his bet by making that solution ultimately inadequate seemed—to me—poltroonish rather than profound.)
February 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Thomas: Clearly there are no make-work jobs in the private sector that aren’t temporary in design, and clearly there are no public jobs that are actual jobs, particularly not if they’re taking on tasks no one else had been doing.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:00 am
I’m almost surprised that Falling Down wasn’t on there.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:03 am
El cid, Dean went on for forever with his “who can say” whether a job is make-work. And then, when the private sector was discussed, he quickly found a make-work job. I laughed. And whenever I see him from now on, I will laugh at him.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I like the Dark Knight, because every time they try torture, it blows up in their faces, and the romantic lead ultimately dies because they tortured a prisoner into giving faulty intelligence.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I’ll give them The Incredibles as a terrific movie that also has terrible Harrison Bergeron politics. I’ll give them Ghostbusters for making the EPA man the heavy — that was pure Reaganite bandwagonism. They can have Team America, which tries to be evenhanded but shows its true colors when it comes down on people who opposed the war by name and twits the warmongers themselves pretty gently. And they can have Forrest Gump, which proposes a genial dullard who falls in line as an ideal citizen. (They can have it again!)
But they can’t have Brazil.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Also, Blast from the Past?
I mean, there’s just very little imagination here. Of course it’s probably harder to find 25 good conservative movies than 25 good liberal movies. Hollywood is surely more liberal than conservative. But there have to be more out there than this crap. An obvious recent omission that comes to mind: No Country for Old Men.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Too much of this all falls into the category of “I liked it. I’m a conservative. Therefore it’s a conservative movie because good things are conservative.”
As Wrongshore implies, there are conservative movies: they tend to be ones where the villains are liberal caricatures and the heroes embody various right-wing tropes. They exist, but the NR probably should have limited themselves to 10 rather than getting desperate for 25.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am
There Will be Blood: The free market made the strongest guy rich, baby!
True Lies: Not afraid to point out that Moooooslims are terrorists!
February 17th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Re: Thomas:
I assume you’re talking about Red Dawn in #15. The reason its inclusion is amusing is because it’s about how people whose country is invaded and its government toppled by ‘liberators’ fight back as guerilla warriors. You know, like people in Iraq have been doing for the past five years while we occupy their country.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Thomas: Who cares who you laugh at? Dean Baker is capable of making sense. You, not so much.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:27 am
An obvious recent omission that comes to mind: No Country for Old Men.
Only if you watch the first half. Tommy Lee Jones is constantly trying to grapple with society getting more violent and succumbing to “corrupt modern values” until the end when he realizes that things have always been like that and the idealized past was just a fictional one… which is really the liberal critique of conservatism’s demands we return to a simpler age. Unless you want to use the angle that it just shows the never-ending, constant depravity of man, which feeds into conservatives’ inner Calvinists.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I really thought the inclusion of Metropolitan was pretty amusing. Yes it does not vilify the very rich preppy party going set, but is that all it takes to be conservative. I think the movie is pretty funny because they characters take themselves so seriously and all they can manage to do with all their education and wealth is go to each others’ parties and gossip about each other. I guess though for the National Review conservatives that is the goal, not a jumping off point for introspection.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I guess though for the National Review conservatives that is the goal, not a jumping off point for introspection.
Yeah I like Walt Stillman movies, like Barcelona. Regarding Brazil, the two union characters aren’t very sympathetic, but National Review conservatives can’t seem to decide where they stand on surveillance and the police state. Is it good or bad?
I liked 300, with the democratic underdog against the religious, despotic invader.
Dark Knight was by far the best movie of 2008 and it’s a crime it didn’t get nominated for more awards. Harvey Dent = Dick Cheney. 9/11 pushed him over the edge.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
>Isaac, meanwhile, likes any list that encourages people to go see The Lives of Others. And I agree, but we’re really defining conservatism down
Um, TLoO seemed to encourage massive state support of the arts. That doesn’t square with current Repub decrying of the stimulus bill.
From the comments:
>I can’t wait to hear about how “Watchmen” is a conservative movie.
Um, the original graphic novel had Nixon still as the U.S. President.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
* Not the kind of illegal aliens conservatives are generally concerned with, but maybe it’s a metaphor or something.
Didn’t you hear? Metaphors and analogies are politically incorrect. They’re reactionary.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Tyro, there’s certainly a heck of a lot to wrestle with in No Country for Old Men, and that’s a fair enough argument. But I think there are still plenty of conservative-ish overtones. For one, I think distrust of the world, the acknowledgement of pure, omnipresent evil or darkness in the world–whether it is only a recent development or was always there all along–is the sort of cynical perspective I would associate with conservatives (from Mexican-haters to neocons to McCarthy). Sure, Bell resigns from trying to fight these things anymore, but that’s neither a traditionally liberal or conservative approach.
I think another theme that maybe could cut both ways is the film’s damning of ever trying to improve anything. A condemnation of idealism. And yes, the idealism of neocons can be pretty dangerous, but that’s not the point the movie makes. No Country is basically saying it’s futile, it’s impossible to ever make this country or the world a better place. And that’s a line of thinking I sometimes hear from libertarian conservatives who don’t necessarily want people to be poor or uneducated or whatever but think it’s futile to do anything about it.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Brent, all good points. I’d actually be heartened to see the NR actually articulate those ideas in print because at least they’d be honest and thinking about the issue.
To a degree, the way that the NR lists movies like this reminds me of CAP Alerts or “Christian” pop culture artifacts. The NR’s audience doesn’t necessarily like movies or is worried that they’ll be made uncomfortable by any liberal themes they might be exposed to when watching them. These lists exist basically to give a “green light” to conservatives that these movies are “safe” and give them something they feel they can be allowed to enjoy. This is an audience that feels its constantly being attacked and oppressed by hollywood, and giving them a list of movies that they can feel good about serves a psychological purpose– but the problem with this is that these articles aren’t essentially truthful.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Interesting discussion on No Country For Old Men. I would agree with Brent that there a lot of old-fashioned small “c” conservative tropes in that movie, particularly in the whole notion of “there are forces in the world that are greater than you and that you will not understand.”
I think the reason why NR side-stepped this movie is that this trope isn’t necessarily shown to be a comforting thing… life and death can be cruel and seemingly arbitrary. I’ve read a lot of McCarthy’s stuff (the movie was a very close adaptation of the book) and his work tends to have a much more resigned and sort of Old Testament sensibility than a personally-tailored (God care about YOU and YOUR needs) mega-church type sensibility.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
This list reminds me of that list of the 25 best conservative rock songs that appeared on NRO a few years back, mainly an exercise in demonstrating conservative cluelessness. These people need to stick to Perry Como and, well, Forrest Gump.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I think this is a ploy to make money for the National Review. Each movie title is a redirect to Amazon that identifies you as coming from The National Review. Thus, they will get a small percentage of the sale resulting from people clicking through to Amazon and purchasing a movie.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Also, Gattaca is a weird pick for National Review. Gore Vidal is in it (like Patrick Leahy is in Dark Knight) and you’d think conservatives would approve of the genetic class system portrayed in the movie. It’s what insurance companies are moving us towards.
I don’t see No Country for Old Men as a conservative movie and I loved when liberals complain about the “idealism” of neocons. The world is a dangerous place!
February 17th, 2009 at 11:43 am
As others have pointed out, what this list really does is highlight how far the intellectual standards of the National Review have fallen. Buckley would find most of these movies to be adolescent dreck, and rightly so. Does anyone with a graduate school education really think Dark Knight is anything more than comic book adolescent angst? Can any intelligent person really sit through Forrest Gump without screaming? Where are the Alan Blooms now?
February 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
It’s also chock-full with sentimental nihilism and a nightmare straight out of The Leviathan. So, yes, it’s a modern conservative wet-dream.
Maybe people feel it’s conservaive because the protaganists are Texan and you can’t have southerners as good guys can you? The south is so backwards after all.
Plus Josh Brolin’s character is a Vietnam vet, even worse. Plus Bush is Texan so Texan is bad.
It’s set in the early 80s and the violence is all caused by the new drug wars (which continues today.) A liberal would repond to this by suggesting a sensible drug policy, not throwing up their hands in despair.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Are you being ironic? Because when I read Watchmen, that was exactly my take on it—Ayn Rand as the best possible solution to The Problems Of The Modern World. (That Moore hedged his bet by making that solution ultimately inadequate seemed—to me—poltroonish rather than profound.)
Despite the political elements, it seemed to me like at most 5 percent political commentary and at least 95 percent super hero commentary. Doctor Manhattan didn’t symbolize dropping nuclear weapons on North Vietnam or something, he just showed how it’s impossible to square superpowers of the caliber of the Silver Age Superman with the course history actually took. Nite-Owl had a few similarities with John Galt here and there but he had a ton of similarities with the Blue Beetle. If evil geniuses like Lex Luthor were anywhere near as smart as they supposedly are, sooner or later one of them would succeed, and they definitely wouldn’t give away their plan until half an hour after it was completed.
But even if I’m being too forgiving there, “Watchmen” was definitely not completely and totally right-wing, because of Rorshach (sp?). The guy was a complete wreck, pitiful and contemptible, and was explicitly stated to be politically conservative in every way.
I’m basically taking the Roy Edroso position and saying that art/entertainment/whatever should be judged aesthetically rather than politically, and good art usually defies political labels. Sooner or later I expect some really nutty wingnut to make seriously the same claims I made ironically, partly because they view everything through the filter of their politics and partly because they’re too dumb to notice all the various parts where “Watchmen” doesn’t demonstrate a right-wing mentality at all.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
This is an audience that feels its constantly being attacked and oppressed by hollywood, and giving them a list of movies that they can feel good about serves a psychological purpose– but the problem with this is that these articles aren’t essentially truthful.
I think that’s spot on.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Building off of what Cyrus said- not only was Rorscharch pretty damaged, but he was also an analogue for the old Charleston character The Question, which was Steve Ditko’s ultimate love letter to Ayn Rand. I don’t know if Moore intended him to take the piss out of objectivism, but I think that’s a reasonable interpretation.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I haven’t read Watchmen (though now I really want to), I just saw a commercial for it and then went and read the Wikipedia article because I was confused. So that’d put me squarely in the category of Not An Authority. But, anyway, it has this to say about the intentions of the author:
So…probably not intended to be particularly conservative? At least, not insomuch as conservative = I <3 Reagan!
February 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Does anyone with a graduate school education really think Dark Knight is anything more than comic book adolescent angst?
Speaking as someone with a “graduate school education” (and I’m not sure why that should be any sort of standard for film critique) I will say yes, I think the film is a great deal more than that.
In fact, I think it’s a good deal more compelling than much more critically lauded films (Benjamin Button comes to mind). It seems to me this sort of rejection is based, as in your quote, on the “comic book = adolescent = not to be taken seriously” equation that causes the entire medium (and films related to it) to be unfairly dismissed out of hand.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Metropolitan” like all good movies could be interpreted either as liberal or conservative. The conservative character is presented as a ridiculous, though lovable anachronism. The hero is a socialist and there’s no indication that his views undergo any change throughout the film, at least on that score. His casual male chauvinism is spoofed, when he confesses that he hasn’t actually read any Jane Austin, only Lionel Trilling’s criticism of her. “Last Days of Disco” really is conservative in its attitudes and is therefore a lesser film. “Barcelona” resembles “Metropolitan” and could be seen as either liberal or conservative (except for its positive portrayal of religion, perhaps, but who says a liberal can’t be religious, or even socially conservative?). Good art resists labels. I wish Whit Stillman would make more movies. “Blast from the Past” is another one that resists categorization, but one suspects a Soviet Marxist would find no disagreement with its criticism of a debased commercial culture. I would suggest adding the Charleton Heston and Christian Bale’s 1990 version of “Treasure Island” to the list of movies acceptable to conservatives but which can be enjoyed by all. Another good one would be the great “Tale of Two Cities” with Dirk Bogarde and Dorothy Tutin, but perhaps that is two old to make this list. (Lord of the Rings and Braveheart should be dropped in the sea, IMO). As I see it, one of the biggest problems with “conservatism” is the dodgy character, ignorance, and vicious bigotry of its of its “defenders”.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Treasure Island, a cult film.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I can’t believe “Birth of a Nation” (1915) didn’t make the list. What can be more conservative than evil northerners oppressing “Real America?”
February 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
no mention of United 93 on the conservative list? A movie with absolutely no political ideology is automatically assumed to be a conservative movie because it’s about 9/11…..
February 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
what
United 93 is #23 on that list.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Blast from the Past doesn’t deserve to be associated with those people.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The “Lion King” ought to please the National Review Crowd because it is all about what happens when you let the wrong crowd move into your segregated village. A deeply offensive cartoon.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
But even if I’m being too forgiving there, “Watchmen” was definitely not completely and totally right-wing, because of Rorshach (sp?). The guy was a complete wreck, pitiful and contemptible, and was explicitly stated to be politically conservative in every way.
Moore specifically stated in 1986 that he was writing Watchmen to be “not anti-Americanism, [but] anti-Reaganism”….
I read Watchmen twice (once in the early 1990s and again about a year ago.) I liked it, but I just found its politics hopelessly confused. If Moore says he was being anti-Reagan, I’ll take him at his word, but from the standpoint of a reader without access so secondary sources, it’s hard to tell. Rorschach’s actions, after all, are more or less successful while (semi-spoiler alert) the other characters tend to waffle and flail.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
James Gary-
The politics are confused because, while he might’ve been aware of a political message, he was far more focused on a literary message.
And now, some room for spoilers…
However, in terms of “success”, I have to disagree. Rorscharch ends up smeared in the snow without stopping Veidt or bringing him to justice. I mean, we don’t KNOW if he successfully exposes the truth, but given the fate of his diary, we can’t be too optimistic. On the other hand, Veidt, who’s presented as quite liberal, pulls off everything he intended. As he even tells Rorscharch and the other heroes, “Your biggest accomplishment is that you failed to stop me from saving the world.”
February 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Does anyone with a graduate school education really think Dark Knight is anything more than comic book adolescent angst?
Yes. Sorry if you can’t get past your English teacher telling you comic books = adolescent crap back in the day. If you’d like, you’re welcome to check out any of the many news articles describing how “comics aren’t just for kids anymore” published in the popular media over the last two decades.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I’m surprised no one has brought up the NRO list of conservative rock songs from a few years back. Basically, the formula is the same: anything that shows the artistic qualities of complexity or ambivalence about a complicated topic is seen to be 100% on the conservative side. Then the other half of the list is just pure right-wing delirium. On the music list, that means that “Revolution” and “I Can’t Drive 55″ both get listed; on the movie list, “Brazil” and “300.” Basically, it’s the misguided view of art that sees every work as either Republican or Democratic, rather than as a reflection and commentary on the world we live in. (A few of us on this thread have shown that tendency, but luckily not very many.)
February 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I think Vanya will find that people “with a graduate school education” these days are more likely than other adults, not less, to like comics and superhero movies, myself included.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I’m not sure it would take much (mind you, I haven’t seen it). There was a puff piece on it on NPR yesterday that was entirely about the special effects and the charm of Brad Pitt. Both these things are fine, but if that’s the best you have going for you….
February 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Gilliam’s “BRAZIL” was a parody of contempore Anglo-American fascism. It was a counterpoint to Orwell’s “1984″. And, in “THE EDGE”, Bart the Bear was clearly a terra firma version of Moby Dick, i.e. God, not a furrier Brezhnev.
A good conservative movie is Henry Hathaway’s “KISS OF DEATH” (1947). Convict Victor Mature sees the light and rats out his cronies to a righteous Law & Order DA (Brian Donlevy) in order to reunite with his little girls whom he’s entrusted to the tender mercies of a medieval Catholic orphanage.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
The politics are confused because, while he might’ve been aware of a political message, he was far more focused on a literary message.
Perhaps I should have said: Watchmen’s attempt to combine political commentary with deconstruction of comic-book superheroes comes across as hopelessly confused to me. That’s a literary criticism, not a political one.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Groundhog Day:
“This putatively wacky comedy about Bill Murray as an obnoxious weatherman cursed to relive the same day over and over in a small Pennsylvania town, perhaps for eternity, is in fact a sophisticated commentary on the good and true. Theologians and philosophers across the ideological spectrum have embraced it. For the conservative, the moral of the tale is that redemption and meaning are derived not from indulging your “authentic” instincts and drives, but from striving to live up to external and timeless ideals. Murray begins the film as an irony-soaked narcissist, contemptuous of beauty, art, and commitment. His journey of self-discovery leads him to understand that the fads of modernity are no substitute for the permanent things.
— Jonah Goldberg”
This made me laugh. Actually the movie is about a guy who’s depressed because he’s an obnoxious dick and because people don’t like him and he doesn’t even like himself. (and maybe he’s a dick because he’s depressed?)
And what are the “fads of modernity”? Bathing? Exercise?
February 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Tomemos, the list of conservative rock songs was the first thing I thought about when I saw this post about 20 minutes ago. I’ll have to see which list is wackier.
And Thomas, ever heard of Cold War liberals? Like Reinhold Niebuhr?
As for those with a grad school education and their liking for comics and movies based on them, you can’t generalize. It is so much a matter of personal taste that it’s like asking whether someone prefers classical music or jazz. But I wouldn’t be surprised if more men than women of the same educational level liked superhero movies.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Tyro said:
Exactly. I’m certain that was behind the list of “conservative” rock songs too.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Well, at least someone besides me noticed the creepy Democrats-under-my-bed tones in The Incredibles.
James Gary, are you familiar with the internet?
Results 1 – 10 of about 67,300 for incredibles rand. (0.18 seconds)
February 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Basically, it’s the misguided view of art that sees every work as either Republican or Democratic, rather than as a reflection and commentary on the world we live in.
I think the real misguided notion is the incredibly superficial attitude they use. I haven’t seen a lot of movies on the NRO list (it’s something called National Review/Digital, actually. I assume that abbreviates to NRD, pronounced “nerd”) and don’t remember well some of the ones I have seen, but “Three Kings,” in the also-ran list, seems like the perfect example. It’s easy to see a superficial case for it being conservative: it’s about heroic American soldiers during the first Gulf War, Iraqis want to be free, and one of the main characters is a redneck and he isn’t racist. Simple, right? No more examination needed.
But if you got that impression, you’re either an utter moron or you watched the DVD with the volume turned down to mute. Turn the dialogue on, and there’s an explicit denunciation of American policy in the first Gulf War, even the good guys take a condescending attitude toward the Iraqis, and the tolerance demonstrated by the guy with the Southern accent is the direct result of character development during the movie.
I doubt the people who contributed to these “most conservative” lists generally watch movies with the sound off, so that only leaves one possibility.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Did anyone notice that Isaac Chotiner got it wrong? He said this was a list of the best conservative movies of all time, when the NR article covers only the last 25 years–no films before 1984 are on the list.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
James Gary- yeah, it is, and I think it’s a fair one. It does little more than “mention” some political themes, and when it does that, it almost seems like it’s just to seem “important”.
Cyrus, I think you’re exactly right- it’s not just a superficial examination of movies, but a superficial examination of CONSERVATISM, too. If conservatism can be boiled down to “willing to confront evil” (as NRO indicates in the LOTR write-up), then it’s a pretty meaningless philosophy. If conservatism really thinks discrediting a single EPA agent is worthy of praise (As in “Ghostbusters”), then it’s a pretty weak and defensive idea. If anything that chafes at unnecessary, ineffective buerecracy is “conservative” (As they seem to think in the “Brazil” entry), then EVERYTHING’s conservative (And to paraphrase another entry on the list, “If everything’s conservative, then NOTHING is.”) That’s a really stupid (and often contradictory) view of conservativism…and an inaccurate one.
But let’s not pretend they put any deep thought into this- in fact, let’s not pretend it’s anything other than ideological blinders. I do it, too, when I see a movie I like, I read values and ideals that I admire into it, even if it’s quite a reach. That’s all that’s happening here, but NRO ought to be careful, as it does more to discredit conservatism than prop it up.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Is Lives of Others on the list because they approve of Bush’s eavesdropping on citizens or because it’s just so different when Republicans do it?
February 17th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“Brazil” is “1984″ if it had been written by Evelyn Waugh instead of George Orwell Think about it.
Brazil’s co-screenwriter Tom Stoppard lists Waugh along with Nabokov and TB Macaulay as his three most influential writers.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The best anti-Communist film is “The Legend of Rita.” Rita is given a new identity in East Germany because she participated in a terrorist assassination over in West Germany. In East Germany her Communist ideals are mocked and derided by a populace that hates its repressive government and is avid for forbidden consumer goods.
So she goes back to West Germany and is shot. I think this film is too subtle for conservatives, who might also be put off by the fact that it has subtitles.
The same people who made “Legend of Rita” also made “Rosa Luxemburg”, a great film, unfortunately not on DVD.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
This review is hopeless:
“Gattaca (1997): In this science-fiction drama, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) can’t become an astronaut because he’s genetically unenhanced. So he purchases the identity of a disabled athlete (Jude Law), with calamitous results. The movie is a cautionary tale about the progressive fantasy of a eugenically correct world — the road to which is paved by the abortion of Down babies, research into human cloning, and “transhumanist” dreams of fabricating a “post-human species.” Biotechnology is a force for good, but without adherence to the ideal of universal human equality, it opens the door to the soft tyranny of Gattaca and, ultimately, the dystopian nightmare of Brave New World.
— Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.”
This guy is a complete idiot. Transhumanism has literally nothing to do with this at all, short term or long term.
And I really can’t see where “The Incredibles” fits at all – it was pure comic book comedy. All the villains are corporate types, from the insurance boss to Syndrome, and it was the government who banned superheroes due to a public outcry against them (similar to “Watchmen”). My favorite character was Edna Mode – there was a woman with attitude! (and voiced by a guy, no less.)
February 18th, 2009 at 1:08 am
They just don’t get the moral to the story do they? The point to Gattica was that there was nothing wrong with the genetically un-enhanced human being.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:47 am
I’m surprised that “A Few Good Men” didn’t make the list. Now I know Rob Reiner doesn’t have much truck in conservative circles, but my right-wing uncle has been quoting that “You sleep under the very blanket of freedom I provide and then question the manner I provide it” line to me since George Dubya Bush’s first inaugural.
In the movie, Col. Jessup is the villain, but to right-wingers everywhere, he’s a national hero.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:29 am
And I really can’t see where “The Incredibles” fits at all
I think The Incredibles makes some sense. Conservatives love blaming excess litigation, like the type that forces Superheroes into retirement (although, yes, this was driven by the public, but conservatives don’t care if people like to be able to sue for malpractice).
I also think the not-allowing-awesome-people-to-stand-out theme gets at the conservative psyche since they probably identify rich people born on 3rd base as somehow fitting this mold.
So this one makes a little more sense than some of the other insane shit on that list.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:03 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
The Watchmen is a conservative movie? That’s a new one on me. It was definitely anti-Reagan (arguably he was just the Republican continuation of the Nixon-era policy-making, sans Watergate) as you could get and was definitely left-leaning on the meter compared to say…No Country for Old Men.
I compare those two because one of the biggest themes I got from No Country was way you couldn’t stop things, or really anything, from changing. In Watchmen, the times wouldn’t change and the world was in a kind of stagnation.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra