@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Low-budget ==
+[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
-I'm just curious how $139m [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business] can be considered "low-budget". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 15:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
-: $139M in production costs is pocket change these days, Hoji!
-: I think Spider-Man is in the top 5, and maybe the top 2, in profitability.  It's #7 in domestic revenue, having a much lower production cost than other top movies.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
-::Hmm... out of curiosity, I went and looked at the budgets of some recently-made major motion pictures. ''Transformers'' had a budget of $147m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business]. ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'' (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/business]. ''Ocean's Twelve'' had a budget of $110m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/business]. The latest Bond movie (''Casino Royale'') had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/business]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like ''Sicko'' (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business], or ''Crash'' (which is easily the ''best'' movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 01:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-==FarenHYPE==
-This is about the "greatest" conservative movies, not a list of all conservative movies.  I've never heard about that movie before seeing it on this list, and I would hate to think that Michael Moore can cause the production of anything great.  As such, I'm removing the movie from this list.  --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
-If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
-::I agree with LiteratiChamp. The film is a response to Michael Moore's Farenhiet 911. One of the measures of a good film (in my opinion) is staying power. Moore's film was a political piece that may have spoke to some people in the 2004 election year. Twenty years from now, even ten, it will be little more than a curiousity, and so will Farenhype. At best, they may be remembered as the pioneers of a new film genre, the political screed, but I hope not.--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-== Forrest Gump ==
-National Review is clueless.  Forrest Gump, featuring [[liberal]] Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
-:If the National Review is clueless, why is one of their articles currently featured on the Main Page?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
-:But it's a ''great'' movie. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 01:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:I won't pretend for a second that it's conservative, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-: I'm glad you liked it, Hoji, and I admit that I couldn't bear watching it to the end.  It was a huge popular hit.  But what I did see ''was'' very [[liberal]], almost like a liberal fantasy tale.  So much sermonizing about civil rights by ... a white man???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::What do you think about Saving Private Ryan? I was going to add it to the list with the caption "The actions our military will take to save an imperiled comrade". Maybe without the word "comrade", since it's inherently un-conservative sounding.
-::And as for Forrest... he's a retard! (proud of my un-PC statement!) --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 01:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::: I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also.  The quotes and clips I saw from it had the trappings of liberalism:  faithless with a kind of dumbed-down "that's all there is to life" approach.  Woe is me and my brothers will be my salvation.  "At death there's nothing more" is the message, expect (if you're lucky) some spirit of brotherhood.
-::: Tom Hanks is a liberal, big time.  Seeing the world through the atheistic eyes of a "retard", with sermonizing about civil rights, was a liberal distortion and fantasy.  I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump.  For starters, often they have strong religious faith.  As I recall from the first half, Gump's perspective was without any genuine expression of faith.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::::I don't like Tom Hanks. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
-::::: You're right, Andy - most of the dense folk I know (mostly from school) would fit in perfectly with the norm here at CP. I would strongly suggest that you see SPR, though - if you can see past whatever trappings of liberalism there may be (though I may have just not have noticed them), it's a wonderfully epic war novel, brilliantly done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 01:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::: Save me the trouble, Hoji, by telling me how much [[faith]] is highlighted in the movie.  Less than zero?
-:::: Just as [[liberals]] don't understand mentally disabled people, [[liberals]] don't understand soldiers either.  At least [[Kurt Vonnegut]] did, and he observed that there are no atheists in foxholes.  I doubt Tom Hanks (who is about as far from a real soldier as you can find) understands that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::::: The KV bit is a misrepresentation and an example of quote mining. See the talk page of his article for why -- in short you're taking a quote from a ''character'' in a work of fiction, Slaughterhouse Five,  out of context. His last novel "Time Quake," does contain some "Christian friendly" passages where Vonnegut indicates that he does not question the faith of individuals because it would be "impolite."  [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::::: Like ''any'' movie producer, liberal or conservative, can understand soldiers? That sounds like a fairy tale. And I would hate my movie viewing to be so... politicized, as yours is, Andy. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 01:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::::: Hoji, I'm not the one who politicized Hollywood.  Movies convey messages, and those messages often have a political spin.  It's fair to ask how much [[faith]] is highlighted in a movie about war.  Given the [[liberals]] who did Saving Private Ryan, I would guess the answer is zero.  Am I right?  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::::::  I can't recall the characters name, but Barry Pepper plays an American sniper who frequently prays before and during combat.  There are also chaplain's on the beach in the beginning of the movie praying with the wounded and dying.  There might be other aspects, this is just what I recall off the top of my head. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::::::::There are instances of faith in SPR, as noted by Colest above. I would also point out that family is also highlighted. First in the deaths of Pvt. Ryan's brothers and the emphasis on getting him out of harm's way. Hank's character talks about family and trying to remember home, and the GI's want to win the war so they can go home. I find it strange that one would say Hanks (or any other actor) is "as far from a real soldier as you can find." Of course they are. It is after all, called "acting." I really think only people with a military background understand soldiers or Marines. As for Hanks being liberal, so what? He is an actor, he goes by the script he is given. By the way, it seems the army was pleased with Hanks' portrayal of a Ranger [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-29-hanks-ranger_x.htm], and the DOD honored Spielberg [http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/spielberg_update_811.html].  I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/154854.stm]. Not bad for a pair of liberals, eh? Of course, this thread has been very instructive. I learned that persons with "low IQs" tend to be religious. Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::::::::: Eddiec, let me guess, you're a liberal too.  Gee, how could I tell?  Maybe your mockery of the mentally disabled was the clincher.  Liberals like to act smarter than others, with little justification for it.
-:::::::::: Based on the discussion above, it appears that the Saving Private Ryan hero (Hanks) never conveys the --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)faith of the person he portrays.  So my expectation was correct.  [[Faith]] is relegated to a little window-dressing, something to give the movie an appearance of depth, but not fit for the hero himself.
-:::::::::: Did Hanks and Spielberg, two liberals probably lacking in any experience with the military or genuine interest in it, convey the soldiers' true feelings and attitudes?  Not in the clip I saw from the movie.  Instead, they conveyed a mostly purposeless, atheistic view of war, with overemphasis on the casualties.  It's a liberal message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::::::::I never said you politicized Hollywood, Andy. I said I would hate to have ''my'' viewing so politically inspired. I've seen most of the movies on that list, and loved them. Perhaps it's because I didn't actively search for political allegory, but tried to enjoy the message. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 11:02, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::::::::: Hoji, I'm glad you liked the movies.  But there's nothing wrong with examining their message.  I love Haagen-Daz ice cream.  But I didn't object when someone told me that it is twice as fatty as Breyer's ice cream.  We welcome information about the content of the food we eat.  Why the resistance to analyzing the content of the films we view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::::::::: Did you really just bastardize this "conversation" with an ice-cream metaphor? Seriously?  --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::::::::: Purely by coincidence, I just noticed an [[FCC]] decision discussing how "Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences."  20 FCC Rcd 4507.  That isn't why I objected to it, but I'm not surprised given the [[liberals]] who made the movie.  It's a bit like learning that alcohol consumption is harmful to more than just one's liver.  This is hardly a surprise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-I'm quoting someone else here, adding my emphasis, but the words convey my thoughts better and more concisely than if I attempted to write it myself:
-;"What is a conservative film?
-Let’s start with what it isn’t. It’s not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It’s not cartoonish action heroes. It isn’t revenge tales masquerading as heroism.
-Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It '''instructs and inspires.'''
-Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – '''faith, family and freedom.'''" [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20714]
-While its easy enough to decide what a conservative movie ''should'' be, it is far more difficult to find a movie that meets these requirements, particularly in the last 20 years: big budgets = dumbing down to mass market appeal. I would probably add to the list "Cinderella Man", [http://www.filmsite.org/schi.html "Schindler's List"], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979892,00.html "Shadowlands"], "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier ''or'' Branagh) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 05:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-: Interesting, Fox.  Thanks.  But I would question your selection at the end.  "12 Angry Men", for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I would not call it conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::For me, "12 Angry Men" met the criteria of being "instructive" - in the nature of men and their motivations, and it was also "inspirational" in that it showed that through reasoned debate and persistence, the right outcome could be achieved. For the other qualities in the definition I posted, it does portray "honesty" - even when that is only the acceptance of one's own faults and failings: although we never learn of Fonda's faults, the eleven others all have to face, and admit, their failings. "Loyalty" is demonstrated when, having changed their decisions, the majority attempt to dissuade them, quite aggressively, even attempting to turn them against each other, but they rally to Fonda's central flag and support each other. "Courage", particularly for the first couple of dissenters, in the face of the hostility from the rest of the jury, to stand by their convictions. "Patriotism" because of the sense of "duty" and the promotion of the idea that acting as public servants in that way should be considered an honorable and serious business. Just my 2 cents :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 09:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::I've seen both versions of "[[12 Angry men]]". What I liked about them both (especially the [[Henry Fonda]] version was the relentless pursuit of principle by the holdout juror. He exalts the legal principle of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]" and provides a concrete example of what "[[reasonable doubt]]" means.
-:::If you are ever accused falsely of a crime, you'll wish for a jury composed of men like the Henry Fonda character. But the real question is whether protection of "rights" is essentially a conservative value. in the case of suspected terrorists, I would say not. Liberals are far more concerned with a few cases of [[coercive interrogation]] by the CIA or "frat pranks" by poorly trained National Guardswomen. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-I've only seen the 1957 Lumet/Fonda movie, although I'd like to see the '97 Jack Lemmon version, purely for comparison. It looks to have some very good character-actors; although I think that many of the earlier versions of modern remakes are superior simply by virtue of the technological limitations of the day forcing better directing, acting and cinematography. Incidentally, I just noticed that the 1942 book "The Robe" is now on [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400561h.html Project Gutenberg]; I haven't read it, so I shall be doing that this weekend while most everyone else reads the new Harry Potter :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 16:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-Sen. Tom Coburn objected to Schindler's List for content, incidentally, which is on our list. He was attacked vociferously for doing so, and ended up retracting his statement. It is a fairly graphic R rated movie. My question is, how much are we considering that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-: Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:: Your silly sarcasm aside, [[liberals]] do have a love for airing profanity, and in objecting even to its removal from general broadcast.  Spielberg seemed to enjoy inserting dirty words into unexpected places in children's movies, such as E.T.  Saving Private Ryan was filled with one four-letter-word after another.  Maybe you can explain that obsession better than I can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-::: In the case of SPR, I think he was using realistic language that soldiers use.  The same goes for the violence of the movie, he wasn't trying to pull any punches and shield the audience from the grotesque realities of a war zone.  I don't think that constitutes an obsession. I was actually shocked by the decision (I can't recall the network) to air it uncensored, and would hope that responsible parents would not allow their children to have watched it.  --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::: ABC aired the movie uncut, with constant profanity from beginning to end.  While the profanity may be realistic, where is the other realism, such as the hero attending church, packing a Bible, discussing his faith, and praying?  That realism was omitted.  So one can't justify by the movie's slant simply by saying it is realistic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-I'm staying out of the SPR debate, but for anyone interested I would like to suggest [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373283/ Saints and Soldiers] as a WWII movie that is definitely faith-promoting.  It has a similar feel to SPR (small group of soldiers behind enemy lines on a mission), but it's only rated PG-13, which keeps things fairly tame (although it is still a war movie, so I certainly wouldn't watch it with children).  One of the main characters is very religious (rumored to be Mormon, but the movie doesn't say that explicitly or push it in your face), and his faith is obvious throughout the movie.  The movie itself is largely about forgiveness, both of oneself and of others. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:24, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-Excellent comments Fox, which is why I purposely refrained from adding movies like ''Rambo'' and the like to the list.  Conservatism is not about shooting the bad guys, masculine action movies, nor even about political party affiliation.  Instead, conservatism is a set of values: values which uphold and celebrate tradition, instead of attacking it; look to the tried and true from the past as a source of values to be emulated, even if they aren't currently fashionable; and emphasizing the importance and centrality of culture, instead of pretending culture is a "social construct" or something to be attacked.  The opposite of conservatism is cultural nihilism, which these days takes such forms as political correctness, postmodernism, radical feminism, and multiculturalism.  Since the 1970s, economic based attacks on Western society like Marxism-Leninism have all but given way to a nihilistic, postmodernist, culture based attack on traditional values.  A good conservative film is not just a superficial good guys-vs-bad guys movie, but stirs the soul in a way that leads the viewer to want to recover that which has been lost and defend traditional culture, and is refreshing to watch because of the way it upholds these values instead of attacking or poking fun at them.  ''Red Dawn'' and Mel Gibson's ''The Patriot'' are two of the best I have seen in this regard.  As for ''Forrest Gump'' -- I like that movie but am not sure it qualifies as conservative, liberal, or anything else.  I know Pat Buchanan praised it when it came out as a conservative film.  But I don't really see it.  Seems a values-neutral portrayal of the changes that took place during the 60s and 70s and doesn't particularly take a stand one way or the other, not least taking a stand that those changes were, on the whole, <i>a bad thing</i>.  So I wouldn't list it as a conservative movie. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:45, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-''Forrest Gump'' is a vile film: anti-intellectual and jingoistic. Any character who displays the least trace of independent thought, or dares question the American dream, winds up crushed and miserable. Ignorance as virtue, and I've rarely seen such an airbrushed Vietnam. If you're really looking for something that "stirs the soul," I suggest you all watch ''Seven Samurai'' till your eyes bleed. [[User:PBRStreetgang|PBRStreetgang]] 18:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-: Don't know about the jingoism criticism.  But the anti-intellectual criticism is right on target.  It reminds me of all the anti-intellectual user ids on Wikipedia.  Dumbing down should not be funny or entertaining, at least not to people who should know better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-: Comment: Independent thought does not conflict with conservatism at all, especially not in today's era of enforced conformity to political correctness.  Nor, for that matter, does questioning the "American dream", to the extent that the "American dream" is rooted in dumbed-down mass entertainment and globalized consumerism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-Regarding Forrest Gump, according to the [http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Forrest-Gump.html script], Gump made reference to his religious beliefs a number of times. Some quotes: "I couldn't tell where heavens stopped and the earth began. It was so beautiful." | "Her Momma had gone up to heaven when she was five and her daddy was some kind of a farmer." | "I'm going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan." | "So I went to church every Sunday...". The movie even features Lt. Dan's struggle with his own faith, including a scene where he challenges God to destroy the boat that him and Gump are on. Dan eventually recovered from that dark period in his life, and it is suggested that it was faith that guided him (see scene with Dan in church). Gump also made a large donation to a church. The movie features many Christian themes, such as love, faith, and sacrifice. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-: This is tricky, because Gump is an idiot.  I can't tell from the quoted excerpts if the movie is mocking religion or not.  Maybe I need to watch the whole movie.  However, I tried that once and for reasons already explained (including its anti-intellectualism and liberal sermonizing) I found something better do after watching the first half-hour or so.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-::I think it is worth watching again. I don't think they were mocking religion (although some scenes were certainly light-hearted or attempts at humour). Gump had the mind of a child, and he had the trust and faith of a child - he trusted his mother and was guided by her advice throughout his life, he had faith that his mother was in heaven, and he had faith that there was a God who was watching over and guiding him. He made mistakes along the way, but then we all do. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-I more or less agree with Andy here. Forrest does take his faith seriously and it does guide him. However, since the rest of the movies portrays him as being naive and stupid (there is one scene where he gives the cold shoulder to a prostitute, but it's actually because he's too stupid to realize what a prostitute is), so it's not necessarily a positive portray of faith. My final verdict: Interesting movie, not conservative at all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:32, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-:Was he too stupid, or too naive? They aren't the same thing. I think it would be a great thing if none of us had to know what a prostitute is. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-Gump is mentally retarded. You know that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:38, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-:He was retarded, but he was certainly capable of understanding that a prostitute has sex for money. My point was that up until that point, Gump had lived a life that didn't involve meeting prostitutes or talking about prostitutes. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-What I saw of Forrest Gump was very [[liberal]], which is not surprising given that Tom Hanks is very [[liberal]].  The movie has the quality of [[liberal]] elitism, dumbing down the character and the audience to spoon-feed them some propaganda.  Sermonizing about the 1960s, for example.  The religious references described above seem more like mockery than authentic.  The faith of a simpleton is not silly or foolish.  [[Louis Pasteur]], far brighter than we are, said that he hoped to die with the powerful faith of French peasant, for example.
-Beyond that, the Forrest Gump has an Oprah Winfrey-like style of unrealistic idiocy.  Gump fails to given a realistic portrayal of an idiot.  Instead, the movie seems to view its audience as idiots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::Back to SPR. Andy, I'm not a liberal, and while I'm right of center, I'm not as far to the right as you are. Speaking from thirteen years service (USMC), I can tell you most Marines and soliders do curse (a hell of alot more and far more colorfully than was portrayed in the movie), and while you do find the occasional guy who reads his pocket New Testament and goes to services, they are the exception and not the rule. Most men in these units are at best, nominal Christians, and SPR is a realistic depiction of combat and men in combat. BTW, I don't think Hanks was really portraying any particular individual; SPR was historical fiction. As far as SPR or Gump being liberal, I don't think they are slanted to the right or left either way. I don't think most people watch a movie and think "this is liberal" or "this is conservative," with the exception of Micheal Moore films, and a few Susan Sarandon films that promoted a particular agenda.  By the way, my remark about the folks with faith being less intelligent was inspired by your (unintentionally humourus) remarks above. God Bless--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 09:07, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::: Eddiec, you've already mocked Christianity and the mentally disabled so your description of the military, even if you did serve 13 years in the Marines, is of little value.  Christians formed the backbone of our military and I think you're making your comments up, or you're seeing only what you want to.  Note, by the way, that SPR portrays the military during WWII.  Do you claim that you served in that also???  That there were only nominal Christians in that war also, per your experience???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
-::::::::Andy, I did not mock Christianity; I mocked you. WWII was before my time, but I think my serivce has value. I saw other Marines everyday and interacted with them. Do you have military experice Andy? Have you interacted with Marines and soldiers on a daily basis? Perhaps you are making things up or creating a fantasy where military people do not cuss and sit around reading the Bible.THey are far more likely to be reading Playboy. Actually, they are more likely to be reading something far worse (at least by your lights)--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 10:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
-I'm going to defend the possible conservativeness of Gump here.  Very early on, for example, FG and his best friend Jenny pray for God to save her from her abusive father, and He does.  Later in the movie, Forrest the Soldier is the Good Guy, and the peacenik hippies are clearly the Bad Guys.  As mentioned above, too, Lt Dan doesn't find satisfaction in life until he makes peace with God.  Then there's the scenes where FG goes running, and ends up with a whole crowd of doofus followers, demonstrating the danger of false prophets.  And of course, the character of Jenny throughout the film demonstrates the danger of hedonism.  I don't recall feeling that any of this was mocking religion. (And, not incidentally, FG isn't a "retard" or an idiot--his character is that of the proverbial Innocent)--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 14:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-::I agree that Gump is a conservative movie. It emphasizes the importance of family (Gump's interaction with his mother and his child) and there are Christian overtones throughout. Yours in Christ--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 15:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-== Home Alone ==
-DanH, I don't think this movie is conservative at all.  The kid was abandoned by his parents, they were not imprisoned for a cut-and-dry case of child neglect, and the movie taught children that hitting people over the head with shovles is an effective problem-solving mechanism.  This movie has got to be removed.  --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:12, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-Conservatives traditionally believe in the right to defend themselves, as per the Second Amendment. Also, although what the parents did were horrible, they did everything they could to reverse it and the virtue of forgiveness shines through. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:They abandoned their child.  A pre-teen stuck at home while his parents were overseas for an extended period of time, and there was no indication that the state even waged an investigation into the incident.  That's a clear case of neglect by the parents, and a clear instance of ineffective police work.
-:Your self-defense claim falls for a couple reasons.  First, to get technical, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense, it instead provides a cryptic message concerning militias.  Second, it was the old guy that hit the folk with a shovel, and he was in no immediate harm by the victims.  Self-defense does not apply.  --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-:: The above comments by "LiteratiChamp" are not to be taken seriously.  I've blocked this contributor for a week for his other postings for reasons explained in the block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
-Don't remove this without talking on here; as Mr. Schlafly stated, LiteratiChamp isn't to be taken seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-:I'm to be taken seriously, and I raise all the arguments LiteratiChamp has.  There, you lose again.  --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:35, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-So I lose just because you argue against me? That's brilliant debate tactics right there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:37, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-:Don't pretend to be stupid.  You lost the argument before, and if you are serious to demand that we re-raise the issue instead of deal with what has already been laid out, you will lose again.  Your movie supports child-abuse and unnecessary violence.  Quit being a vandal.  --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-Just because it notes the presence of child abuse doesn't mean it supports it. It doesn't condone child abuse! Oh, and I'm not a vandal. I've been contributing on this site for several months, almost from the beginning. And what have you contributed? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-I agree with Literati and Alec on this one.  There were a lot of [[liberal]] undertones throughout the movie.  --[[User:TUgoh|TUgoh]] 16:17, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
-==World Trade Center==
-I don't think we should say it's unbiased. Oliver Stone is not unbiased. In fact, every point of view is biased in one way or another. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
-== V for Vendetta ==
-This movie should definitely be taken out of the list!  The creators of the graphic novel wrote it in part as a slam of Margaret Thatcher's policies.  The movie itself contains many references to 'the downfall of the US starting with the Iraq war' and how the 'US dragged the whole world into war' and the 'oppresion of gays and lesbians', and 'government sponsored camps for minorites and Muslims'.  Not to mention the glorification of terrorism as a justifiable means to an end and the crypto-Christian 'state religion' and how that opposes any other religions.  [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]]
-: Done.  Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
-== Team America: World Police ==
-I honestly can't believe no one has mentioned Team America. It makes fun of the U.N. (and their irrelevance), Michael Moore, liberal Hollywood, the gay agenda in broadway musicals. It shows terrorists and Kim Jong Il for who they are, and has an overall conservative point of view.
-:That was the movie that got in trouble because of the puppet sex, right? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:50, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
-::I watched it last week. It does not have a distinctly conservative point of view. It simply makes fun of everyone. After decades of only having movies make fun of conservatives, this may seem like "fair and equal" treatment, but I was not amused (see [[moral equivalence]]).
-::I will grant you that there were some conservative ''points'' made in the movie: that actors support dictators, is one. But showing the "good side" as sophomoric, bickering perverts is not particularly conservative. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 01:13, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
-This reminds me of the book "South Park Conservatives", for good reasons, and obvious ones at that... it's one of those that can go either way, honestly. I like the movie, but I think it probably shouldn't be on our list, because, well, of the content. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
-== [[Star Wars]] ==
-[[Star Wars]] certainly looked like a fable concerning the triumph of good against evil. But that was before the prequels came out. ''Revenge of the Sith'' said it all.
-The problem: the Galactic Empire is a metaphor for the [[United States]]. It started out being a metaphor for [[Nazi]] [[Germany]]--but clearly [[George Lucas]] is one of those who equates [[George W. Bush]] to [[Adolf Hitler]].
-The particular enemies of the Old Republic looked like a metaphor for Muslims; I couldn't be sure.
-But did anyone notice that Galactic Imperial personnel were all [[Caucasian]] and exclusively male? Furthermore, the officers all spoke either with [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[United States|American]] accents. (The troopers don't matter anymore; we now know that they are all clones of Jango Fett.)
-More to the point: the rebels were the "diverse" lot.
-Hint, hint--diversity is good; a unified culture is evil.
-I therefore respectfully recommend that we scratch [[Star Wars]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:27, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
-:All of that is speculative, unless you have a reference for Lucas deliberately drawing a Vader-Bush parallel or something like that. Didn't the first three films come out during the Carter-Reagan years? Way before Bush.
-:I don't understand the bti about "all male". Armies have always been all-male. At Fort Campbell, I was in an infantry brigade of 1,500 men (and zero women).
-:The Galactic Empire represents Imperialism and/or Fascism, and if you followed the politics of the recent three films, you can see how "the chancellor" seized power in a way similar to the way Hitler seized power. A sort of slow motion coup, carried out by parliamentary maneuvering.
-:I don't see how Bush getting elected by the people has anything to do with Hitler's rise to power. And Bush's (possibly overzealous) attempts to free people in the Middle East from cruel dictatorships seems rather the ''opposite'' of what Hitler was doing. (And didn't Saddam Hussein kill around 300,000 people with "Death Star" tactics and concentration camps? Who's more the Darth Vader type, Bush or Hitler? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 01:09, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
-So is diversity bad? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
-:Diversity ''per se'' is not so bad. What's bad is the implication that Western culture is inherently evil.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
-Episodes IV - VI may have been nice Conservative movies. But the early ones destroyed that image. Look no further, but to the real hero of the first three episodes Obi-wan "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".[[User:Mgroop|Mgroop]] 10:27, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
-I agree with Mgroop's sentiment. The original three movies were nice simple stories of good and evil. The three most recent added elements of moral relativism. And all six are steeped in Hindu teachings.
-==Lord of the Rings==
-I wonder if this is really appropriate as a conservative film.  The film contains a lot of demonic imagery, and many examples of witchcraft.  It's very violent, not something I would show my children.  [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:07, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
-:Well, it's not appropriate for small children, sure, but it's a very effective story of good battling evil, with a lot of Christian themes.  Sauron is pretty much equivalent to the Devil, and I don't think it's going too far to say that Gandalf is in part a Jesus-type figure.  In addition, the Ring is a classic example of temptation, a theme that runs throughout the series.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)
-== High Noon ==
-If High Noon was written by an ex-Communist, I don't see how it would be anti-American.  In fact, I don't recall anything about patriotism either way in the film.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
-:The tripod ref is confusing: [http://drhill.tripod.com/ssi3240/pdf/lecture8.htm] It says Americans have the right to belief as they want, as long as they don't advocate overthrowing the government. But it also complains that SAG vowed not to hire actors and writers who belong to groups which "advocate overthrowing the goverment. Doctor Hill can't have it both ways. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 01:02, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
-== ''A Wonderful Life'' and ''Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' ==
-I question whether these movies should be included here.  They are based on liberal, populist ideas that are hokey and don't reflect reality.  The first has as its hero a man who runs an S&L and as its villain a banker.  The second subscribes to the point of view that big business controls Washington.  I would propose removing them. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 22:31, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
-:Obvious troll. A warning would be appropriate, IMO. --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 23:09, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
-*Traditional Conservative's would see the point, not reject it!  We are not pro big business, for the sake of big business, and the Savings and Loan idea is a conservative one, reflecting local control, and de-centralization of banking, away from Washington, and to the local communities.  Liberalism supports more central control, and an elitist, anti-individual POV...wherein only the elite of D.C. know what is best for the people.   --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 03:06, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
-:Sheesh, the ''bank'' was locally controlled also in the first film.  Even today's multistate banks aren't really controlled from Washington (unless you count the government regulation).  Savings and loans were promoted during the New Deal (when the film is set) by the very "elite of D.C." that you deplore, based on the idea that people were being hoodwinked by their local capitalist bankers.
-:As to the second film, it's not so much that being pro-business is necessarily ''required'' to be conservative, it's more that a particular view of it, as a moustache-twisting villain that the people have to be saved from by government (promoted in that film), that is a typical part of the liberal world view. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 08:28, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
-:: Personally, I see additional reasons to reject It's a Wonderful Life.  It strikes me as conveying a humanist message in a quasi-religious wrapper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:11, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
-== Three Godfathers ==
-By this do you mean ''The Godfather'' and the two sequels (Conservative as a detailed portrayal of the moral corruption of organised crime), or am I missing something and there is a film of this name? (I don't get out much) [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:18, 2 March 2008 (EST)
-: I think that's what is meant.  I never saw the films and, frankly, our list should probably be trimmed and some suggestions, like that one, removed from being called "conservative".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 2 March 2008 (EST)
-:: Thanks - they are certainly not overtly conservative in message, and very violent (though with the underlying message that crime corrupts). [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)
-:::It was probably in reference to one of two westerns titled "Three Godfathers". I haven't seen either of them, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)
-== The Exorcist? ==
-I've never seen it, but my pastor says that it is a Satanic movie. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)
-: Your pastor is right.  The movie displays [[Satan]] and all his hideous attributes: vulgarity, irrationality, hatred for life, delight in harming people, etc.  But the movie highly respects Christianity's attempt to combat evil.  Indeed, the movie suggests that ''only'' Christianity is willing and equipped to fight the evil.  I won't spoil the ending.  I recommend you rent and see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 2 March 2008 (EST)
-== To Kill A Mockingbird ==
-A truly inspiring movie.  Can I add it to the list?  Long-time lurker, first time editing --[[User:Martib|Martib]] 20:51, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
-:  Didn't see it, but I don't think it was particularly [[conservative]].  Why might you think it was?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
-::Seems conservative to me. Teaches that all people are created equal and no one deserves any other rights than anyone else. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 13:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-::: I think there is more to the movie than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-::::Well, like what, if I may ask? --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 13:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-::::: You tell us, if you think the movie deserves inclusion.  The movie certainly entails more than the mundane truism that all people are created equal and no one deserves special rights not enjoyed by others.  Tell us what you think is so special about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-::::::Well, religion is certainly one aspect of it. The movie seems deeply rooted in Christianity, as the people are church goers. In one particular scene, one of the main characters must shoot a dog in order to protect his family, thereby invoking the Second Amendment. It is a movie with good values. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 14:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-::::::: Gee, JMarks, you're not a professional movie reviewer in your spare time, are you???  Your analysis astutely focuses right on the heart of the movie's message!!!  Yeah, right, it's a Second Amendment movie!  Try comedy next, JMarks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-''To Kill a Mockingbird'' does not espouse conservative values?<br>Really? I must wonder Aschlafly if you've seen the movie (or better yet, read the book), because TKaM is a fine example of storytelling.<small>Upon rereading I see that you '''did''' say you hadn't seen it, mea culpa.</small> It conveys the need for a strong character in the midst of unusually difficult circumstances; to strive for the principle of the rule of law to overcome deeply ingrained cultural "norms" that turn normal God-fearing folk into a horde of mindless vigilantes.<br>It also portrays the family as the basic unit of society '''and''' the importance of family in teaching that the values that sometimes permeate society at-large do not necessarily reflect those of a respectful, just and honorable [read conservative] way of life. -[[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:31, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::Excuse me, Mr. Schlafly, but you criticize me for my talents as a "movie reviewer" and disparage my comment on the second amendment, when you created the site that condones criticizing Mark Wahlberg because of something his character did in a movie? Seems you are the one making sweeping generalization about a small point in a movie. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-== Recommendation for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to be added to the list ==
-Here's why: it like Star Wars (and even moreso) is a simple movie of good and evil. The villian of the movie engages in sorcery. The hero prays. The villian is sent to her death by a timely lightening strike from above.
-== Recommendation for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World to be added to the list ==
-Here's why: it tells a story that focuses on duty. As but one example, the ship's doctor voluntarily passes on his personal goals in order to alert the captain of the presence of the enemy ship. Only unpleasant aspect is overly violent final fight.
-== Recommendation that The Patriot be removed from the list ==
-Here's why: it is my opinion that The Patriot is nothing more than a revenge tale packaged in an American history wrapper. It's Death Wish meets Johnny Tremain. One issue that makes the movie unpleasant is that Mel Gibson's character speaks out against an American separation from Britian at the beginning. He only becomes a patriot when his son is killed, giving the message that patriotism relates to a "not in my backyard" mentality.
-==The Day After Tomorrow==
-The movie not only upholds the theory of global warming but has a plot revolving around human activity (ie releasing of CO2 into the atmosphere) causing an ice age which brings worldwide destruction. It is, in effect, the fictional twin to ''An Inconvenient Truth'' (if that didn't already contain enough fiction). Given the entry contained deceit (claiming that the movie portrayed human activity against global warming as bringing about the ice age, which is totally false) then it is clearly a parody added to sully the entry, and the contributor should be blocked. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:39, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
-: Thanks, I've demanded an explanation from Qprime, who inserted that movie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:47, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
-== Forrest Gump ==
-Great catch on removing "Forrest Gump," Norman!  I removed that a long time ago from this entry.
-Forrest Gump is one of the most liberal -- and most idiotic -- movies of all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
-==List Needs an Urgent Review==
-There are some movies which are anything but conservative which have been on the list for months (Little Miss Sunshine, a movie which claims to be about the importance of families but instead features a dysfunctional family which only comes together to support the actions of a heroin snorting paedophilic grandfather). This list needs to be carefully scrutinised to make sure all parodist entries are removed! [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:52, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
-:Minor note about the movie---the grandfather is not a pedophile.  Continue with discussion.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:42, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
-And ''It's a Wonderful Life''??  One of the more liberal movies of all time. The hero, George Bailey , is the quintessential bleeding-heart lib, and the villan is a nasty stereotype of a conservative businessman.  The plot/moral revolves around how if we all give up our material desires and share and share alike, all will be happy and sweet.  The movie's a whitewash of socialism.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:20, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies"

Revision as of 16:42, December 19, 2009

Navigation menu

Search