With a measured equanimity, Roger Simon pans both W. and An American Carol. From “Political Movies: It’s the Quality, Stupid”:
Hollywood and others have made numerous political films that were critical and commercial successes from Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and Judgment at Nuremberg to Battle of Algiers and Z. The Lives of Others  the 2007 Oscar winner for best foreign language film about life in East Germany under the Stasi  is to my mind the finest filmmaking of any kind in this century so far.
Now we come to W. and An American Carol  the political movies of the hour. (I am not writing here of documentaries, but feature fiction films.) Both were made quickly in an attempt to influence the election and have a rushed, slapdash quality about them, so they have about as much of a chance of influencing that election as a bad episode of Geraldo. But that is the least of their problems. They are both abysmal movies in almost every way.
I feel badly writing that about An American Carol because its director David Zucker and co-screenwriter Myrna Sokoloff are terrific people and I very much wanted for their movie to work for admittedly political reasons. Almost no “conservative†films are made by the movie industry and when one slips through you root for it fiercely, so I waited until the film mercifully disappeared from the marketplace before making this opinion known. But I think it is important that negative “inside†opinions be known; because if there is one thing that is bad for conservative filmmaking in general, it is to make bad films. Because of the bias, they have to be better than the liberal ones. Furthermore, dwelling on being “victims†of Hollywood by conservative filmmakers is a surefire prescription for continued failure, just as it is for other minority groups. To applaud this kind of filmmaking is to applaud affirmative action for conservatives. Not good.
What’s fascinating about W. and An American Carol is they both suffer from the same basic failure  the underestimation or “misunderestimation,†in the parlance, of their protagonists. In their film parody of Michael Moore, Zucker and Sokoloff give us a Moore (the movie’s Michael Malone) who is a self-centered dolt who overeats. Self-centered? Of course. Overeater? Obviously. But dolt? I am not so sure  at least not to the degree the filmmakers want us to believe. I am no fan of Moore’s by a long shot, but nowhere in evidence in this movie is the crafty, ambitious weasel who was able to turn his own mediocre film talent into box office magic and, for a while at least, massive political influence.
While it might work in a sketch, this dumbing down of Moore has negative comedic implications for a feature film. After the first few fat jokes, the movie goes flat. Structurally, since there is no serious adversary, there is no real plot tension. The audience is just left waiting for the obviously imbecilic Moore finally to see the light, making for a totally predictable experience. (Compare this, for example, to Dr. Strangelove, in which the doctor is an evil genius. We have no idea where it will all go.) This forces the filmmakers to rely on jokes and gags and, unlike in the director’s original Airplane, there are nowhere near enough good ones in An American Carol.
One reason for this is that the themes of Carol are far more complex and serious than those of Airplane. The intellectual demands of political satire are much more stringent. Preaching to the choir and taking pot shots at liberal shibboleths are not enough. That may have worked for the audience I saw the film with at the Republican National Convention (they laughed intermittently) but obviously not with the public. The movie predictably got atrocious reviews, but its box office returns were almost as bad.
If anything, W. is worse. At least Zucker knows his movie is supposed to be funny. Oliver Stone seems to be confused even about that.
So it seemed Monday night when I watched the film with a small audience at the West Hollywood Grove. From the demographics of the area, the crowd would have had to be liberal to ultra-liberal, but they didn’t seem to know when or if they were meant to laugh. Mostly they shuffled their feet uncomfortably, a few titters breaking out only when Bush made the obligatory grammar mistakes.
The problem is that W. is a strange and extremely boring movie. There is some red meat for the left  particularly in a Richard Dreyfuss caricature of Dick Cheney  but mostly the movie is a neo-Freudian reverie explaining all of George W. Bush’s life as a duel with his seemingly more powerful father George H. W. Bush. Cliché-ridden as that reduction is, it’s not necessarily bad dramatically  it worked well for Olivier in his Hamlet  but here it is peculiarly arid. I haven’t bothered to count, but what feels like half the movie consists of the father-son scenes between Bush 41 and Bush 43 at various ages. They are numbingly repetitive and almost always consist of the father flatly stating his disapproval of his son (or his approval of brother Jeb).
None of it rings true. This plays like a film made by a director who has never experienced real family life over time. He doesn’t seem to realize how family members interact with each other. He has them all making speeches to each other instead of behaving, well, like people who have lived together for decades. Even George’s long marriage to the estimable Laura Bush is barely dramatized, just presented.[…]
So it’s not the politics, liberal or otherwise. It’s the bad dramaturgy that dooms this movie in which nothing is subtext and everything is text. The audience is treated like idiots, never allowed to figure out anything for themselves. Everything is told them again and again… and again. And then it’s repeated. The emotional climax of the movie is, guess what, another dream by George W. Bush with his father telling a desperate W. that he is once again… a failure.
Enough.
Having seen neither of the movies, I can’t really comment on Simon’s reviews, except to offer a bit of a generic critical gloss — one that will disagree, at points, with a few of Simon’s more generic pronouncements.
Yes, bad dramaturgy will certainly doom a movie as ostentatiously symbolic and Freudian (if Simon can be believed) as W. But we shouldn’t underestimate failure based primarily on the politics, as well.
I think it remarkable, for instance, that Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weisner, along with those responsible for greenlighting the project, are given to so seriously misreading the political climate. It is one thing, after all, to criticize a sitting President. But it is quite another to dedicate two hours to a cartoon portrayal that, though many of Bush’s critics give lip service to believing the particular personal mythology of Bush the son (for purposes of political expedience and rhetorical effect), only a vocal minority actual does believe in the reality of that mythology.
And it is to these people whom W. will resonate, leaving most others — even hard-core liberals, as Simon notes — feeling a bit, well, embarrassed, by the unnuanced portrayal that seems to take itself seriously. To the vast majority of Dems and liberals, Bush is a political adversary — and maybe even an enemy, in a very limited sense; but the kind of stupidity they ascribe to him is of a different sort than the caricatured buffoonery evident in the trailers I’ve seen. And they realize this — while Stone and co. evidently did not. And worse, they didn’t allow enough time to pass for the mythology they’re pushing as fact to solidify — making this attempt to remake Nixon rather baldly revisionist.
American Carol, on the other hand, too suffers from a political problem — not merely from a problem with its writing and dramatic arc (which, given its obvious referent, was never meant to surprise: the predictable outcome that bothers Simon was, that is to say, structurally and referentially predictable, and so in no way should have effected the film’s success). Instead — and again, I base this on general principles and what little I’ve seen in trailers — the political message of the film is equally at fault for the film’s failure, most certainly because it advertised itself as reducing to gags the pernicious progressivism of the Moore character. In that regard, Simon’s analysis seems dead on.
Beyond that, though, we again come to a misreading of the political climate, this time on the part of Zucker. I can’t speak for “conservatives,” but I like to think many of us a bit more sophisticated than the movie gives us credit for being — the upshot of which is that many of us, I suspect, felt a kind of preemptive embarrassment about the film’s gag-driven premises. I feel certain that a biting, socially important, and even very funny film can be written from the perspective of conservatism. But when your political opponents already view your positions as in many cases rather predictable cutouts of moldering philosophies, the last thing you want to do, it seems to me, is present them with a film that works within that premise, and that does so unselfconsciously.
If I do see either of these movies, I will do so as a social critic — not as a partisan. But the biggest failure of each, it seems to me, is that they were constructed to appeal to partisans, and when all is said and done, they will have failed precisely for having misread what it means to be a partisan in rather serious political times.
Give me Zabriskie Point or The Strawberry Statement. 3 Days of the Condor, M*A*S*H, or Parallax View. In short, give me a movie that is either interesting artistically or else ambiguous in its conclusions, despite its purported political underscoring.
These are the movies that stand the test of time; while both American Carol and W. are the kinds of topical ephemera that will never last beyond the next election cycle.
I wonder, though, if we ought to cut Zucker any slack because of the type of film he was making. Yes, I’m sure the humor was all gag-driven, but what should I expect from the guy who is most famous for the Naked Gun and Airplane movies?
I don’t mind that An American Carol is full of running gags and lowbrow humor. Those kinds of things are what draw me to a Zucker movie in the first place.
At least neither of them lied and claimed to be documentaries. They have that going for them.
I speak only for myself.
The time when a politically pertinent movie could be crafted in this country that wasn’t partisan has passed for the next slice of history.
I’m not competing with the Left, I am opposing it. And I’m hugely late in realizing the semantic import of the difference between the two words.
Although I generally find Antonioni as mind-numbingly boring as reading thor touting his own intellect (he reads Celine in case you didn’t know), I agree with you that Zabriskie Point is a pretty cool flick if only for the exploding refrigerator set to Careful With That Axe, Eugene. But for movies with Pink Floyd on the Soundtrack, Schroeder’s More is the best.
I always thought that John Sayles did “political” fairly well. He actually lets his well-crafted art subtly serve as the vehicle for his left-of-center politics and therein raises reasonable points. I think his City of Hope and Lone Star are both excellent films that present interesting takes on cultural identity, urban politics, and alienation without pounding you over the head with his point of view.
When you’re as insultingly obvious as a hack like Stone, nobody wants to sit through two hours of what you got across in the first two minutes.
The main problem with Stone isn’t necessarily his politics – his films suck. JFK? Natural Born Killers? Platoon? They were all unremitting dogs.
But dolt? I am not so sure  at least not to the degree the filmmakers want us to believe.
On first read, when I got to that I immediately thought, “taking a page from leftist propaganda”.
The review of W. confirmed the tactic.
I am interested in watching neither.
I feel certain that a biting, socially important, and even very funny film can be written from the perspective of conservatism.
Great idea Jeff! I look forward to seeing your forthcoming screenplay!
Natural Born Killers is one of the worst fucking movies ever made. It is the absolute epitome of what a sack of shit hack Stone is.
Natural Born Killers is one of the worst fucking movies ever made.
You can get an Amen, Brother Jack.
I don’t think W is so much written to be an appeal to partisans as it reflects the stupid, narrow, and insular worldview of its creators. That’s what they think the world is like, that’s all they know.
“making for a totally predictable experience”
Well, yeah. As said above – it’s a Zucker movie. For another thing, it’s based on A Christmas Carol for Christ’s sake. The thing that bugs me about it is that it should have come out in 2005 when it was almost relevant. In other words…who the hell is Michael Moore?
W just looks awful, it’s being pushed as a comedy in the commercials, but it’s by Oliver Stone…which means it has as much resemblance to comedy as Any Given Sunday had to football or Wall Street had to working a real job.
I watched the “Day of the Jackal” on TV with my Dad and oldest son this weekend, great movie. Haven’t seen a really good movie in a while that you could watch with a teenager without cringing. It wasn’t funny though…except all the French dudes had British accents, that was kind of funny. And the cars were beautiful.
I haven’t seen these movies either. Why would anybody? Recent branded-as-political films don’t even survive their run times, let alone an election cycle.
What’s the last one that was good?
I can’t think of one newer than Full Metal Jacket that isn’t shockingly bad. And that was made twenty years ago.
It’s an anti-military film — the most anti- ever, I’d say — and military guys love it, because artistry and its subject have primacy over its “point,” which Kubrick knew better than to mistake for its point. Which is that it’s a damn movie.
W isn’t. It can’t be. Stone doesn’t know how to make them.
I don’t hate his stuff the same way you guys do. I think Natural Born Killers would have been great if he left in the things he took out. But he cut precisely everything that made it work. The FAIL was perfect. It’s sort of amazing.
And I would have liked JFK if it weren’t framed in and continually eviscerated by Stone’s deification of (any) Kennedy (to the specific detriment of Martin Luther King, if you notice).
That movie’s dishonesty should be interesting, artistically. It should work as an additional layer of theme-illustrating irony. It would, if not for the constant reminders that Stone’s just a groupie wackjob making the world’s most monstrous commemorative plate.
He can’t make art. He doesn’t even know what it’s like. Any of it. Have you read his book? HOLY SHIT. There’s not one worse. Not one.
So– LOL BUSH. Yeah. Whatever.
And LOL MOORE is no less boring.
I haven’t seen An American Carol either, but it’s always seemed doomed to me by it’s choice of Moore as a “villain.” He’s been fairly irrelevant for a couple of years now, and lends himself to fat jokes and cheap ad hominem attacks. I think a much better, smarter movie could be made with a George Soros figure at it’s center, even if it requires more exposition to bring the audience up to speed on who he is. (Then again, for those who don’t know, he’ll seem like an unbelievable figure. Everyone knows that anyone who’s that rich must be a Conservative Republican.)
“It’s an anti-military film  the most anti- ever, I’d say  and military guys love it, because artistry and its subject have primacy over its “point,†which Kubrick knew better than to mistake for its point. Which is that it’s a damn movie.”
Definitely so, which is why as art FMJ works, and as polemic, it doesn’t. Ideology dies when it sucks in too much truth.
“What do I think about the war in Vietnam? I think we should win.” -Animal Mother
Some people think that line’s satirical, but I never read it that way. Kubrick may have so intended, but Animal Mother never quite fits the box that critics draw for him. Anyway the actor makes it sound not naive, but the only answer that makes a damn bit of sense.
EricJ, I concur. American Carol would have made sense four years ago. Now it seems like it’s just late to the party.
re;lost my cookies/ have u seen JACKAL w dicky gere and that die-hard guy?….heads up-DON’T/ loved the day of the jackal tho- oh those 70’s espionage movies-macintosh man/eye of the needle/odessa file/boys of brazil/they don’t make movies like that anymore/though ronin was good
I think JFK, for all it obvious propaganda, is a fantastic movie. So I can’t agree that Stone can’t make a good film.
I thought the distribution of American Carol was interesting. I live in the Charleston, SC area, which is hardly a liberal market. Fahrenheit 9-11 played here (in one theater), Control Room, a documentary that suggested only the Arab media was reporting the “real truth” about the Iraq War, made it to a mainstream theater, and W is everywhere.
A buddy of mine and I had planned to see American Carol when it came to a theater near us. It never did. I’d like to see the distribution plans. Wouldn’t surprise me if, apart from its merits or flaws as a movie, it were set up to fail.
Natural Born Killers is the only movie I’ve ever walked out on in my adult life. This from a guy that sat through Jaws 3.
Both movies are propaganda. Debate the levels, but…come on!
I don’t want to jump on board the whole concept of a misinformation war. Painful as it is to be on the shitty end of the propaganda stick, the counter is truth, not diversion.
I agree with complaints of Carol’s protagonist, M. Moore. Very dated and actually playing to the other side by keeping the focus on Bush years. Why not a hard slapdown of Obama himself? If a sitting president is fair game to caricature, a running one should damn well be too.
Film what we know about Obama, featuring Wright, Rezco, and Ayers, as well as his foreign adoption and residence, and close relatives and causes in Africa. His drug use, and writings(ha!) in college. Contrast the Chicago neighborhoods before and after Obamas best efforts and lavish contributions as community organizer. Portray Obama as a mask that rarely slips, hiding a subversive radical smirking behind.
Seriously, if a Bush snuff film can be shown in Toronto, and Stone can purposely show a sitting American president as weak, where are the limits?
Here in Austin they actually broadcast the last Presidential debate at the local beer-n-movies theater Alamo Drafthouse. I cannot understand why in a town where 99% of the population is going to vote for Obama would these geeks actually pay money to sit in a theater and listen to something that means nothing to their opinion or politics. Circle jerk potential I guess.
I don’t mind that An American Carol is full of running gags and lowbrow humor.
Part of the problem with AAC is that it isn’t “full” of gags. The gags were sporadic, and the lulls in between are filled with the narrative necessity of following the Christmas Carol arc.
It got preachy, that’s the problem. The Michael Moore character would have been more effective if they’d made him more arrogant and less clownish. Scrooge certainly wasn’t a moron.
If Zucker had chosen a story line that didn’t require that Moore have an epiphany (which was not particularly convincing in the movie), it might have been more effective.
Zucker could also have just had him some fun skewering all of the Left’s sacred cows, one after the other, for no other reason than to skewer them. He probably should have stuck to his strengths: parody of an established movie genreâ€â€in this case, the anti-war film, Stone-styleâ€â€and gone to town with it.
I watch AAC on its opening weekend just to lend support. I wasn’t rolling in the aisles, but it did have some genuinely good gags here and there, and the gaps in between weren’t particularly painful.
But at the same time, I don’t feel like seeing it again, nor did I recommend it to others.
But yeah, Jeff. Get to work on that screenplayâ€â€in between stints on blip.tv, that is.
Bookmark it, team! http://proteinwisdom.blip.tv/
pdbuttons I can’t watch gere any more.
Not since that night I drank a 2 liter of Bartles and James and stood in the back of a Wawa store for an hour and a half inhaling from all of the whipped cream canisters. I had a pretty vivid dream about Gere and my driver’s ed teacher. Can’t watch gere. Or eat apple pie. Or get within 200 feet of any Wawa in PA or NJ.
WAWA! *Sigh* I miss Wawa here in Texas. I can’t wait to grab a Wawa Shorti and their iced tea when I go back to Philly to watch the Phillies stomp all over the Rays!
WRT Natural Born Killers, the first time I saw that was at a party, the kind where people break up into different rooms to joke and smoke. A good party. I was in a room where NBK came on cable and after a while I just said ‘This movie is awful – who gives a F^&$ about these two F^&$*?’ There was general agreement and the channel was changed. And this was at a time I was in college, the viewers were in college, and everyone was drinking heavily. If you can’t win your core audience – college kids too drunk/distracted to bother to change the channel – then it is beyond bad.
WRT to ‘W’ – why spend $10 to get what the Huffington Post gives you for free? You don’t like GWB – got it. Why should I see this? It may be skillfully put together, the film techniques may be great, but if the story is just terrible it just fails.
I think just once Ollie Stone should write a movie about the world outside of his skull.
To echo some of the other early comments, Carol is a David Zucker film and to suggest that you’re disappointed that it’s not some other sort of film done in some other style is a little silly.
It’s at least as good as “Scary Movie 3”. I mean, come on, what’re we talking here?
By the way, it’s also not all that vicious against the left. More than anything it’s pro-America, with a sideswipe at socialism. It could’ve been made during WWII.
I don’t know if my review link will work but here:
http://bitmaelstrom.blogspot.com/2008/10/american-carol-fa-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.html
I should probably add that I’m neither a Republican nor conservative, but that doesn’t keep me from seeing the anti-W folks beclowning themselves for eight years.
And, I should admit, I really liked BASEketball, so, you know. Grain of salt and so forth.
Grain of salt? That’s like one of those blocks of salt they stick out in the pasture for cows to lick.
I’m a big BASEketball fan too. I…I thought I was alone…I think I’m going to cry.
Give me Zabriskie Point
That’s a joke, right? Unless you are *really* into obscure Pink Floyd music, that film was really foolish. Although yes it was a period piece of the times.
LMC! We could form a club! The BASEketball lovers club! There’d be you. And…me.
And maybe Steeeeeve Perry!
That makes 3 of us. I own the DVD of Baseketball.
Natural Born Killers is one of the best murder movies ever made!!!!! And if you don’t agree YOU SUCK!!!!