Little Moron Annie

I guess it's pick-on-conservative-dumbass night here on Crushed by Inertia. This item, helpfully highlighted by Alicublog, demonstrates why political pundits, particularly conservative ones, should never ever ever try their hands at film criticism.

Take law misinterpreter and general shrill weirdo Ann Althouse. She writes occasionally about movies, which she often professes not to "get." It's an interesting phenomenon. So many of these right-wing bloggers dismiss Hollywood product and ceaselessly mock entertainers for their supposedly naive, sheltered brand of liberalism. And yet they are all obsessed with movies and pop culture - dissecting it, looking for buried meanings, obsessing over its effect on the ultra-religious and the impressionable.

I mean, it's always "Hollywood doesn't understand Americans" this and "movies aren't appropriate for the whole family" that and "everything has a shameless left-wing bias." You'd think, if the movies were so out-of-touch, people would stop watching them and discussing them, but it never happens.

(And don't give me that "people aren't going to movies as much any more" crap, because it's just not true. Roger Ebert helpfully pointed out last week that 2004's receipts were higher than 2005's in part due to the independently produced, unexpected smash hit Passion of the Christ. 2005 had some successful films, but no grassroots phenomenon like Gibson's blockbuster.)

Anyway, in this first post, Ann rants about Oscar movies and how they all suck for some reason.

I haven't been reading many of the ten bests lists this year. Here's one, rounding up the usual suspects, the Oscar-y crap with landscapes/history/biography and those heavy-handed sexuality and violence themes.

It's a link to CNN's Best Movies of 2005 list, which is fucking dreadful. They have some winners on there - Capote, Match Point, Munich, Good Night and Good Luck. But Cinder-fucking-ella Man? Are you goddamn kidding me? Crash? (Unthinkably, both of these films are also up for WGA Awards).

Also, Ann, you can accuse Hollywood of a lot of things, but "heavy-handed sexuality"? What does that even mean? And Hollywood movies are so neutered. They're not nearly sexual enough. Check out some European films some time.

Out of CNN's entire list, the only movies that are even vaguely sexual are Transamerica, a serious drama about a transsexual where the sexuality is frank but not titilating, Match Point, a drama about lust and desire that's surprisingly demure about actual on-screen sexuality, and Brokeback Mountain, which features largely unconsummated homosexual love. Other films deal with sexuality only in terms of theme, not content - Capote is about a gay man who never does anything gay on-screen, and King Kong does grapple subtextually with issues of inter-species love. How is any of that "heavy-handed"?

Also, "violence themes"? Does she mean violence? Because I can see objecting to on-screen violence in films, but without any kind of conflict, there can be no movie. In most stories, somewhere lurking beneath the surface is at least the threat of violence.

What a big drag! I especially loathe the biopic. This year, we're supposed to care about Truman Capote and Johnny Cash -- I mean a pretentious actor impersonating Truman Capote or Johnny Cash. Last year, we were supposed to be excited about Liam Neeson pretending to be Alfred Kinsey and Jamie Foxx pretending to be Ray Charles. Both of those '04 movies played on cable TV yesterday evening and I was switching back and forth trying to get a bit of a sense of what was thought to be so good there.

Ugh. She was switching back and forth ebtween two movies trying to see what, if anything, was supposed to be good about them? What a terrific environment in which to perform film analysis. Ann, you fucking twit. Would you say, "You know, I ran at top speed past that Rembrandt painting, and it didn't look so great." We're talking about art, here...You actually have to allow yourself the chance to appreciate it in some way, shape or form.

Although, I agree with her that Jamie Foxx isn't as good in Ray as people said. I have always found him kind of hammy, and that film was no different. Some movies (like Any Given Sunday) use this aspect of his performances well, but Taylor Hackford's film plays it too straight.

Why can't we just see actual footage of Ray Charles? It's disconcerting to imitate his mannerisms. Since there's plenty of film of the man, why not make a documentary?

Uh, cause it's a movie, and the two are totally different. I'm no fan of Ray, but this is just retarded. What's she even trying to say?

Is it because the actor can show us the actual consumption of drugs and alcohol, and we can drag in an actress for him to have big, loud fights with? Those awful domestic disputes! I'm never interested in seeing a man and a woman just yelling at each other about their relationship! I think Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton are interesting in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," but, after that, I really don't need any more.

She is such an idiot! What is she talking about? Because once Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton played a warring couple in a film, there can never again be a movie about arguments between spouses? So, okay, Ann the Critic officially requests the following:

- No more biographical films or historical films
- No more movies about sex or sexuality
- No more movies with violence or dealing with "violent themes"
- No more fictional movies about subjects for which actual footage exists
- No more movies about husbands and wives and their relationships

Anything else, Ann, as long as we're declaring whole genres of films unneccessary with no further discussion?

[Lindsay] Lohan is scheduled to begin shooting her latest film, "Chapter 27," about the man who murdered former Beatle John Lennon, later this month in New York City. Lohan will play a fictional character who befriends Lennon's killer (portrayed by Jared Leto) days before the rock star was gunned down in 1980.

That man should never be mentioned, never given any attention, and no film should ever be made about him. I don't care how much the filmmakers think they are expressing disapproval, when a movie is made about a person, he becomes, in some sense, a hero. No one should ever see that man realize any part of his dream of linking his name to Lennon's. The news was reported when it happened. You can look it up if you want to know who did it. Now, the media should black out his name, forever.

Okay, one more rule...No movie about anyone who ever did anything bad.

Basically, March of the Penguins. That's what Ann wants to see. Any other filmmakers, shut the fuck up.

If you can imagine, her anti-Chapter 27 rant gets even loopier. Bear in mind, she has not read the script or seen the film or talked with the filmmakers or anything. All she knows about the film is that it deals in some way with the life of Mark David Chapman, and that he's a murderer. And with this information, she's decided this is a "disgusting film."

Some commenters asked Ann why she would call for the censorship of films based on content. She denies wanting to censor films (she's just saying people should stop making them on their own), and then drops more bombs.

Only a very rare, unusual person takes things the wrong way and does something bad. But I'm not recommending censoring or boycotting every film about a violent person. Frankly, if I was going to choose one thing to censor with the hope of stopping acts of violence, it would be "A Catcher in the Rye."

Holy shit, is this the mid 70's? Have I entered a time warp? Is she really stating that she believes if kids didn't read J.D. Salinger, they would be less violent? Wow, I mean...wow...How do you respond to that kind of lunacy?

But I'm not saying that. I'm not talking about acts of violence generally. I'm talking about the idea that lodges in the brain of some mentally ill persons that killing a famous person would be the road to glory. This is not an important idea for debate by the general public. It's a stupid, ugly fantasy. We should take care that we not participate in making it true.

Again, bear in mind, Ann has not seen this movie. How does she know it's a stupid, ugly fantasy? What if it's about the impact that MDC's mistake had on the lives of those around him? What if it's about him realizing the weight of his crimes, and living out a tortured life of guilt and sorrow? What if it's a beautiful movie?

I realize it stars Lindsay Lohan, which makes this unlikely, and that it may very well be an ugly, senseless film about a maniac. Such movies exist. There's one that just came to DVD called Green River Killer, recounting the actual crimes of the real Green River Killer. I don't really understand the need for a film like that.

But sometimes, as any thinking person who has seen films could tell you, a movie can take a true story and turn it into a timeless piece of art. Alicublog dutifully points out that Taxi Driver was inspired by the man who assassinated George Wallace. Last year's The Assassination of Richard Nixon told the story of a real man who died while plotting the titular crime. And what about In Cold Blood? That's a classic, based on the story of two real-life killers.

If there were any chance that this "Chapter 27" thing is a great screenplay along the lines of "Taxi Driver," I might make an exception. But you know damned well it's not. The moviemakers are just trading on Lennon's fame and trying to grab what they think is a built-in market of people who are interested in him. We should shun them.

We should shun them? For making a movie? Wait, how is that not censorship?