Politics and viewer habits

[selenak]

Here is a really interesting poll about how The West Wing would have been received if it had been about an Republican administration instead of a Democrat one, and whether or not it would have been as successful (always assuming the same quality of writing and acting etc.). It made me wonder about other shows and films, and how my own political beliefs influence my ability to enjoy a book/film/tv show.

The first two examples which came immediately to mind of something that revolted me ideologically to the point where I couldn't enjoy it anymore hailed from two opposite ends of the political spectrum. One was the 2002 movie Hero (directed by Zhang Ximou). Gorgeously shot, beautifully choreagraphed and acted, and I sat there, utterly chilled, being reminded of nothing as much as the seminar on Third Reich Propaganda movies I attended when at the university, though in the case of "Hero", we were talking left not right totalitarianism. But the basic idea - the invidual is nothing, the grand vision of a unified country under one leader is everything, and worth any sacrifice of lives and liberty - that was ever so familiar. Using Chinese history to express it the way Zhang Ximour did reminded me of the use of Prussian history by the Nazis in films such as the 1942 Veit Harlan film Der große König. (Vaguely based on events during the reign of Friedrich II., a Goebbels-ordered response to the defeat at Stalingrad, with scenes like the one in which Friedrich says it would have been the duty of a certain regiment to die to the last man rather than surrender, and scenes in which an officer saves a regiment by acting against a direct order but nonetheless is punished because he acted against the order which is presented as the right thing to do.) In a contemporary context - with the Tianmen massacre not that long ago when "Hero" was released, with the approval of the Chinese goverment - it really was just as horrifying, and to this day, I haven't been able to rewatch, or see any more films from this director, one of China's best.

The other example is the American show 24, the first two season of which I watched while being increasingly appalled and giving up after the first episode of the third. Glorification of torture in the age of Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo, vilification of human rights activists as stupid and lily-livered who just didn't get that A Man Had To Get His Hands Dirty In The Service Of The Greater Good - it was too much, it felt vile, and I stopped watching. Now, these two were extremes. But do I have shows/books/movies which aren't as extreme but have a conservative subtext or text I don't agree with, but which I nonetheless enjoy? Hm. Tolkien comes to mind. I have an old post somewhere about how much the concept of entire people as evil disturbs me (Gimli and Legolas competing about who has more Orc kills in a joking manner depends on the reader, or watcher in the case of the films, accepting the premise of Orcs - and trolls, and goblins - as creatures so single-mindedly evil and without any non-evil trait that it's impossible to do anything but kill them, a premise that much post-Tolkien fantasy copied), and there is an obvious implication in the general idea of West = Good, East = Bad. Same thing with C.S. Lewis. Still, I can read and enjoy Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. But they are dead authors, not contemporary ones. And for all the good points about the casting fail of a nearly all- white Sunnydale and Los Angeles in BTVS and AtS, or the utter fail of saddling the first regular black companion with an unrequited love story in New Who, I don't think anyone would seriously classify either Joss Whedon or Russell T. Davies or their respective shows as conservative, so I can't use these examples of shows I love who nonetheless occasionally do really stupid (to me) things. I'm trying to think of a show/movie/book that's meant to be conservative and which I nonetheless enjoy, and which isn't decades old or based on a text that's decades (or even centuries) old, and right now, I can't come up with any.

(Which isn't to say I haven't watched some. A few years ago, I was invited to the German premiere of The Patriot - aka Roland Emmerich directing Mel Gibson and shamelessly plagiarizing the grand finale of Hitlerjunge Quex for his climax, just substituting the Stars and Stripes for the swastika flagg and the sadistic Brit for the evil Communist, in the justfied confidence the American viewers wouldn't recognize it - and disliked every minute even before we came to that final embarrassment.)

There are, perhaps, some exceptions when it comes to comics. I'm thinking of Frank Miller before he went completely off the rails - I was impressed both by The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One, despite the fact I had huge problems with some of the content. Though again, decades old text; otoh the author is still alive (and ranting), so maybe that qualifies. Oh, and I liked the first trade collection of Fables despite knowing Bill Willingham was at right-wing as they come, though I'm really glad I didn't continue (browsing through the third collection aside), given what I've heard about later events both in terms of actuall Fables content and of authorial intentions. I don't think my walls would have benefited from books thrown at them once I got to evil abortionists and/or evil workers rising. Still. Now I can think of some moderate conservatives whose work I've enjoyed - Clint Eastwood (a registered Republican) as a director, for example - but in this case I don't think the work in question qualifies as an example of conservative texts. Unforgiven, perhaps? Though I'd argue the main character is actually the anti Jack Bauer and the film is a critique of the "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" topos, I suppose it could be read differently. Hm.

Comments

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Battlestar Galactica is arguably American right-wing.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Hm, I don't think so. I do think it's ideologically muddled, hence the right wing fans who were delighted in s2 suddenly going "What?" during the occupation arc in s3 when there were Iraq parallels, and not ones that coded the humans as Americans but the Cylons as Americans. And no, it's definitely not left wing. (But then I also think American Democrats would read as moderate conservatives over here.) But while I feel that it's murky just as how flawed we're supposed to read Adama, I think there is no question that he IS intended as flawed and not always right, that Roslin is intended to be derelict in her duties right now, that Zarek is supposed to have several good points (ditto Gaeta).

[ex_mrs260625]

For me, Dirty Harry is a good example of a movie I enjoy as quality art while being very troubled by its message, which is extremely conservative. Don't know if it's as extreme as what you're talking about: though Harry tortures Scorpio and it is treated as justified, I would not say it was glorified at all. Harry is depicted, even in the trailers, as being pretty much as bad as the villain. ("This is the story of two killers. The one with the badge is Harry.")

Of course, I think the way I consume has the "period piece" kind of distance that you mention with Tolkien, etc. I can't imagine that I'd enjoy a similarly compelling movie set in this decade. (I grit my teeth at NCIS's rosy treatment of Guantanamo Bay, and they're generally a very liberal-friendly show.)

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed Hero, although I agree that the message is disturbing, because I think the multiple presentations and lies seriously undermined the final conclusion, not to mention the title! But I found 24 seriously vile - I could cope with the first series, but just stopped there, and I'm glad. CS Lewis and Tolkein certainly have that idea that evil is evil and good is good, with the battle-lines clearly drawn, but I wonder how much of that was actually a longing for things to be that clear - unlike in WWII, we never see any civilians on the "evil" side, only the rightness of saving the civilians on the "good" side by wiping out evil.

What I liked about Frank Miller's early work was that there was no good side - Batman was not clearly good or right (and Superman, in particular, was not clearly good or evil). It was a big, anarchic mess which was far too big for Batman to actually solve, no matter how powerful he became, and Jim Gordon was always there as an antidote to the independent actions of Batman. Actually, I think it's Jim Gordon's presence that lets me enjoy those comics, whereas a Gordon-like character who is honest and good but works within the system, is noticeably absent in Miller's later work.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

You know, I never got around to watching Dirty Harry - all I know about it is via fannish osmosis, as for example the famous "make my day" line, which Terry Prattchet parodied when letting Vimes use it in Guards, Guards. So, having not actually watched it, I'm not sure how extreme it is. Interesting about the period piece distance observation, though, because age wise, I'm old enough I could have watched it not long after it was released. (Though I'd have been a child, so presumably my parents wouldn't have let me.) Do you think if you had seen the film in the early 80s (i.e. not as a period piece, but also without the knowledge of Guantanamo) it would have changed the way you see it?

[pandarus.livejournal.com]

Fascinating post.

wrt Fables - I loved it to bits, right up to the point where Bigby's attack on The Adversary (feisty little disposessed group battling a mighty foe and using extreme force to make their stand) was called Project: Israel, or whatever the hell it was called.

And I absolutely hadn't seen that coming, I have to say. Pole-axed doesn't begin to cover it. And it's a shame, because it's sullied the whole series for me. It's made me look back at other things (and particularly the portrayal of Arabs) and wince. Damn it.

[seriousfic.livejournal.com]

scenes in which an officer saves a regiment by acting against a direct order but nonetheless is punished because he acted against the order which is presented as the right thing to do.

That actually sounds a lot like a bit in a story I'm writing with two characters debating a similar situation. Could you go into a little more detail, if it's not too much trouble?

Unforgiven, perhaps? Though I'd argue the main character is actually the anti Jack Bauer

I think they were somewhat the same material, but different treatments of it (and not just weekly thriller series vs. western movie). 24 is the 80s action movie conception of the idea, sort of a glorification of the trope, while Unforgiven is the, well, Oscar-winning docudrama presentation. Bill's actions are presented as a necessary thing, but not as a good thing. When Jack Bauer kills someone, you're supposed to cheer. When Bill Munny kills someone, you're supposed to nod.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

CS Lewis and Tolkein certainly have that idea that evil is evil and good is good, with the battle-lines clearly drawn, but I wonder how much of that was actually a longing for things to be that clear - unlike in WWII, we never see any civilians on the "evil" side, only the rightness of saving the civilians on the "good" side by wiping out evil.

I think that's definitely the reason why the concept has prevailed in fantasy and sci fi so long. Some years ago when Independence Day was released Emmerich in an interview said the great thing was that "bugs have no lobby", which more or less amounts to the same thing. Within the context of Middle Earth as established, you don't have to worry about Troll X having a deep loyal friendship with Troll Y whom he sees brutally killed by Gimli the dwarf, and having flashbacks of Mrs. Troll and their children at home while dying himself of Legolas' arrow. Troll X is not capable of anything but wanting kill other people. There is no possible compromise with Evil Alien Invader Z because Z only wants to kill or enslave humans, and certainly doesn't have a family of his/her own or their own story. And so forth. As for Tolkien and Lewis themselves, I'm not sure. Tolkien did go to the trouble of letting Sam wonder about the killed soldier in The Two Towers (with the lines Faramir has in the film version), and Lewis even at his most ideological, in The Last Battle, had that exlanation that if someone acts good, it doesn't matter in whose name said acts were performed, they are good. But by and large, yes, they did probably long for a world where things were that easily divided.

Great point about early Miller versus later Miller. Actually, wasn't Miller the first Batman writer to really write Gordon in depth and to give him equal prominence to Bruce Wayne in Year One?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I must say I'm glad that I enjoyed the Who Killed Rose Red? arc but never fell in love with Fables enough to keep reading, otherwise stuff like this (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bwillingham/2009/01/09/superheroes-still-plenty-of-super-but-losing-some-of-the-hero/#more-12477) whould have been horrible to me instead of groanworthy...

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

It's more right than it is left despite that. You're right that it pissed the right wing fanbase off severely with the Occupation arc, but when you take the show as a whole gestalt, it would not fit in comfortably with the American Democratic Party. It's a thoroughly centrist-moderate Republican American viewpoint. Which is why we've never had a convincing character from the proletariat, the media only exists to be mildly annoying, and the various religions on the show mainly exist as easy ways for the main characters to manipulate towards political goals.

If Battlestar Galactica was a person, and I met it at a party, it would buy me a drink and try and convince me for half an hour that it was actually a Libertarian. It's faux-intellectual and embarrassed it voted for Bush. Twice.

(But then I also think American Democrats would read as moderate conservatives over here.)

...

I don't mean to take it out on you, I've just heard it a lot the past week and I think it's kind of a gross simplification of what happens in American party politics. In order to compete nationally, the two parties have to shade a wide range of views that tend to saw the radical edges off their opinions. The more competitive the party it is, the more completely center their views become.

(For example, however crazy Europeans thought the Bush Administration was during the last eight years? At least you'll be spared the crazy ranting of the much smaller regional Republican party.)

[ex_mrs260625]

I think if I could have seen it in the early 80s (pretending I'd be an adult) it would have made me a lot angrier. Part of the function of greater protections for the accused is, IMO, to prevent the police from having to become as bad as the criminals. If your first partner teaches you to question a suspect properly, you'll be a much more effective cop, as well as a more moral one, than if he teaches you to beat the crap out of a suspect until the suspect tells you what you want to hear. Et cetera. :0)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

The "officer acting against an order saves the day, but is punished, which in turn is accepted by him as right" topos is actually something that Veit Harlan stole from a literary classic, where it's treated in a more complicated fashion, Kleist's Prinz Friedrich von Homburg. Okay, it's also possible that he actually went back to Kleist's source, but it's hard to feel charitable about Harlan. In any case: the incident in question first is mentioned by Friedrich II. in his "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de la maison de Brandenbourg“, where he mentions that in the battle of Fehrbellin 1675, the Prince of Hesse-Homburg engaged the enemy against direct orders and thus won the battle. Historians actually disputed this as contrasting with the reports at the time, but anyway, that's where Kleist got it from for his drama, and that's the incident used as background for Harlan's movie.

Now, in Der große König, the plot happens thusly: In the middle of the 7-Years-War, Prussian officer Treskow is in love with miller's daughter Luise and marries her. Treskow gives the attack signal against direct orders because he recognized a trap laid by the enemy and thus saved the day. Friedrich has to punish him nonetheless, but plans on promoting him later. Treskow is hurt, responds that way, and thus doesn't get promoted. However, later he sees Friedrich had the superior vision, repents and dies gloriously in battle. In between, you have scenes where Prussia's luck in war seems to have run out, Friedrich's generals counsel capitulation, and his subjects succumb to despair. But Frederick soldiers on; his strength of will is Prussia’s safeguard and salvation. The film’s concluding montage underscores this message, showing an omniscient Friedrich, his gigantic eyes looming over homeland and people. The 1942 audience had no doubt about whom Friedrich was supposed to stand for.

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

Denny O'Neill wrote quite a bit of Gordon, but definitely not in as much depth as Miller. Gordon certainly was much more prominent after Miller's changes, though Barbara Gordon's transformation into Oracle (in the awesome but sadly uncollected Suicide Squad, not in a Bat-title) may have helped, too.

That Emmerich quote is awesome! As for Lewis, I actually interpreted the "good deeds are done in my name" part, especially as it was said by Aslan, as "good" heathens inevitably coming to Christian ideals and thoughts or deservedly being cast into Hell. He wasn't "good" for defending his own home and ideals, after all! You're right that Tolkein did let a touch of ambiguity in at the end, but I found it interesting that it was over an identifiably human soldier, not an "evil" race.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

the various religions on the show mainly exist as easy ways for the main characters to manipulate towards political goals.

But, err, wouldn't the proper right wing thing to do be to show the heroes as sincere believers?

...so BSG is basically Andrew Sullivan?

I order to compete nationally, the two parties have to shade a wide range of views that tend to saw the radical edges off their opinions. The more competitive the party it is, the more completely center their views become.

I can see that, and believe me, it's not just in the US - it's true for Germany and Britain both as far as the SDP and the CDU/CSU on the one hand, and the Tories and Labour on the other are concerned. However, our own middle way centrists in the SDP still get to say stuff which would mark them as leftist in US terms, I think. Mind you, most prominent American Democrats sound to me as if they'd be at home in neither the CDU or the SPD but the FDP. Which I mean as a compliment.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Question: have you watched Life on Mars (the original UK series, I mean - I have no idea how the American remake handles this) and/or its spin-off Ashes to Ashes? Because the way this issue is handled there is somewhat ambiguous, and these shows, while taking place in the past, are made in the here and now.

P.S.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

What's your take on the West Wing poll I linked, btw? Do you think you would have become a show if it had been a Republican administration?

[myfavouriteplum.livejournal.com]

Fascinating post indeed. Totally agreed about Hero. And hello - I'm a Chinese Doctor Who fan who've lurked on this journal for your beautiful metas for more than a year, hope you don't mind:-)

What I want to say is, Zhang's Hero managed to ideologically revolt most of China when it came out in 2002. Many people refused to watch his films any more. Historically speaking it's also the "let's rape the history" kind, with the original historical texts all sympathising strongly with the assassins, but not at all on the Emperor's side. And I absolutely hate the fact that the film appears everywhere as a representation of Chinese cinema. How I wish that it perished in dust and oblivion forever. *sighs and goes back to admire the ending of Watchmen and Romance of the Three Kingdoms*

I only write this because I want you to know your feelings are shared, and your well thought out post appreciated. Thank you. *hides once more in lurkdom*

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

The film of Lord of the Rings is more squicky to me during those scenes, because John Rhys Davies who played Gimli came out shortly after the films were released as a deranged racist who saw Muslim immigrants to Western Europe as an Orc Horde.

Disobeying orders and getting good results: I'm going to Brussels on holiday again in a few weeks and recently read a story about a Belgian fighter pilot in the RAF during WWII who broke away from his assigned mission to launch a one-man strafing run against the Gestapo headquarters in Brussels. He was first demoted one rank and then given the RAF's highest bravery honour, the DFC.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Hello, and thank you for giving a Chinese perspective! Wasn't there an earlier film based on the same story, The Emperor and the Assassin, directed by Chen Kaige? What is your take on that one? (I haven't seen it yet, due to being scarred by Hero.)

[lakrids404.livejournal.com]

I can still remember when I saw Hero, that I thought. That the emperor took the "easy" way, with killing his way to an emporium, and it would be better, if he instead took the time, and uniting the countries with diplomacy and trade agreements... and then I thought, hey I am more European, than I would have guessed.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I had read the John Rhys Davies stuff at the time and was appalled, but as far as the film was concerned, it was balanced for me by the fact that Viggo Mortensen (wearing his "no blood for oil" t shirt in most cases) vigorously opposed any such interpretations in every chat show and every interview he gave, and got far more publicity. (Except for Time Magazine, which at first refused to print the letter he wrote after Richard Corliss had reviewed The Two Towers while admiringly equating Aragorn with Bush, the hobbits with Americans and Saruman with Osama Bin Laden. Let's just say Mortensen did not agree (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-viggo-1102nov02,0,699080.story), emphatically so.)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I actually enjoyed 24 to a certain extend - it is a very adrenaline high series - but apart from the big One Man Must Get His Hands Dirty etc, there were many more hidden parts that are truly galling, from emotionality always being negative (i.e., if you care about your family, you'll commit treason), to queer people being weak and/or evil, to black career women always being evil, to Amnesty International protecting terrorists, and at some point the headbashing just couldn't be justified by the "entertainment." I wonder if it will get more balanced now that Surnow has left, but I doubt it (nor do I care, actually). I can't quite get my head around why the show was received as being less of a fantasy than Alias, but I'm presuming it's because the lead is male.

Hero: the blatant ideology annoyed me more than anything, but in general, I didn't find the film very engaging. At that time I felt it would make a glorious photo book. I was left wondering when and how Zhang Yimou had broken down and given in to the government, seeing that his previous work was usually quite critical.

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

I definitely see the distinction you're making about the age of the work and the context it was originally written in. I think we sometimes expect authors from a very different era to have entirely modern viewpoints, rather than realizing that would be anachronistic. I took the orc count as a very British kind of black humor, humor from the trenches. And so I read that completely differently than say, 300.

The Patriot was fairly inexcusable, as not only was it a set up but it was also bad history. The Patriot was based on the real Francis Marion, and that part of the war is very well documented. There weren't Braveheart style British atrocities in that part of the South, and certainly not on a wide scale. Lord Cornwallis, while a considerable ass, was not a slimy sadist. Arguably Banistre Tarleton's cavalry was out of hand at certain times during the campaign and did do things that violated the rules of war, like killing an unarmed teenage bugler boy in the maneuvers to the Dan in early 1781, but that was one person, and stands out because it was unusual.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

LotR versus 300: maybe you also reacted differently because you know Orcs don't exist but Persians did and do?

Yes, I heard The Patriot is bad history. But you know, so are Shakespeare's histories, Schiller's Mary Stuart and a lot of modern films, and I still find it easy to either enjoy them or at least see that they're well written and acted. In this case, The Patriot is just plain bad.

It didn't help that later, I was able to watch a truly interesting play set during the American Revolution in London, The General from America (http://www.timelinetheatre.com/general_from_america/index.htm), full of shades of grey and good writing. Have you ever seen it?

[myfavouriteplum.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Chen's version either, due to exactly the same reason as yours (when Hero came out I was pretty young thus scarred for life). I did hear that Chen's version was a weird one, which made me extra worried. When I saw Hero, I had this feeling Zhang was rotten to the core; I doubt Chen is considerably better these days. But then, The Emperor and the Assassin was made in the earlier days of his career, and I am a big fan of his Farewell, My Concubine (1992) anyway. So if you're interested, I'll go watch this version (or at least ask a few friends) and tell you later if it's worth seeing.

The original text of the story is written by the 2nd Century B.C. historian Sima Qian, as the highlight of his "Various lives of the famous assassins" in Shiji (called "The Records of the Grand Historian" in English). He's a powerful, passionate writer, particularly good with this dignity and tragedy of a failed hero thing. Actually, it can be argued that Sima didn't do much justice to the Emperor - Sima hated his own emperor guts, generally had problems with authority and saw the assassins as kindred souls. But in the context of Zhang Yimou's script, I can't stomach the Emperor character at all.

PS: I mainly read Unforgiven as a critique of the Jack Bauer way too, though I sometimes hope the ending could be more subtle. The Eastwood film that I really, really dislike is an early one, High Plains Drifter, with its rape storyline. And no, I don't think the town in that film deserves such harsh punishments as the hero's. To distribute such punishments reads more as arrogance (perhaps even a typical American arrogance) than poetic justice to me. But I think Eastwood is clever enough not to make the same mistake twice...