"How Dirty Harry Turned Commie"

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/13/05 at 10:59pm

There is an excellent article in the New York Times today (Sunday) written by Frank Rich about MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Has anyone read it, I think it's wonderful.

[Chloe]

Posted: 2/14/05 at 12:13am

Yes, I read it too. What a frightening illustration of how out of hand part of this country's turn to the right has become.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/14/05 at 12:15am

Some people really have nothing better to do than try to find ANYTHING to complain about, however small, in a movie that has absolutely no political connotations whatsover. It's really disappointing.

[Chloe]

Posted: 2/14/05 at 12:28am

The fact that someone like Clint Eastwood is now saying there's no pleasing the right wing is very telling.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/14/05 at 9:53am

Amen to all posts. This piece was a wake-up call about what the far right posits as their sense of moral superiority and entitlement -- dare I say 'mandate' -- in defining every aspect of our culture. Now, forget, say, a Mapplethorpe; all art is suspect, 'messages' tucked into the most innocuous places. The idea that MDB has a "left wing" agenda is beyond off the wall -- perhaps in keeping with the recent sleuthing to out cartoon characters.

Forget the fact that art owes no one an explanation for its motives or very existence. The search for agenda is part of the dumbing down of the culture the far right embraces. Movies, like the world view they insist upon, must portray good and bad in stark absolutes. No grays in human behavior, no nuance, no humane risk-taking, let alone mistakes, failures or flaws. As Rich points out, complexity in a drama resolution is seen as a bad "message." Good guys must win, and Do The Right Thing, bad guys must be punished. The end. Lots of wonderful literature is created from such a moral scheme, right? Forget Hemmingway I guess. And who else -- the list is endless. I loved the piece that M. Dowd wrote last week, how most of the work of Shakespeare would not be acceptable. Start with R&J -- that ending makes Clint's look feel good -- and work your way through most of the history plays (to say nothing of the sexuality in his comedies!)

Remember when 50s art was scrutinized for commie messages? Welcome to our past. It's our present.

Read Bob Herbert's piece today on Arthur Miller. He points out, in an era when evolution is suspect(!) -- evolution! -- and we worship the sound byte of Trump and Paris Hilton, ignorance is not only bliss, it's in, and sadly, defines us.

Updated On: 2/14/05 at 09:53 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 2/14/05 at 2:46pm

Sexuality in his comedies? Forget that- even Romeo and Juliet starts off with penis jokes, as I remember it. Heck, there's Old English riddles written by Anglo-Saxons that are entirely innuendo. I really find it hysterically funnny when conservatives act as if sex in art- or anywhere, really- didn't exist before the 1960's.

What I don't find funny is how they've managed to make people think they have a monopoly on morality. Heck, they can't even get Jesus' teachings straight. Don't tell right-wing corporate whores and welfare haters about Christian charity and all that helping the poor stuff. They'd much rather concentrate on smiting the sodomites.

Now, to be really fair, this habit of finding "messages" in art is something that occurs on the left and the right. Or am I just crazy to interpret things that way when I see the course descriptions for literature and film classes at my super-liberal college mention analyzing these works of art from feminist, Marxist, and other minority and alternate perspectives? Updated On: 2/14/05 at 02:46 PM