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

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Forrest Gump)
(Forrest Gump)
Line 107: Line 107:
 
Gump is mentally retarded. You know that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:38, 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)
 
: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)
  
 
== Home Alone ==
 
== Home Alone ==

Revision as of 20:16, 22 July 2007

I'm just curious how $139m [1] can be considered "low-budget". --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 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.--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[2]. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[3]. Ocean's Twelve had a budget of $110m[4]. The latest Bond movie (Casino Royale) had a budget of $150m[5]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like Sicko (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[6], or Crash (which is easily the best movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[7]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 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. --LiteratiChamp 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? 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 (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.--Eddiec 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Forrest Gump

National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--Aschlafly 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

But it's a great movie. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 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. 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???--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!) --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 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.--Aschlafly 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't like Tom Hanks. 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. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 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.--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." 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. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 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.--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. --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 [8], and the DOD honored Spielberg [9]. I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [10]. 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?--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 --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.--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. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 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?--Aschlafly 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Did you really just bastardize this "conversation" with an ice-cream metaphor? Seriously? --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.--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." [11]

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", "Schindler's List", "Shadowlands", "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier or Branagh) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 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.--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 :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 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. --Ed Poor Talk 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 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 File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 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. DanH 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --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.--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. --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.--Aschlafly 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm staying out of the SPR debate, but for anyone interested I would like to suggest 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. 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, a bad thing. So I wouldn't list it as a conservative movie. 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. 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.--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. Parrothead 19:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Forrest Gump, according to the 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. - 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.--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. - 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. 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. - Borofkin2 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Gump is mentally retarded. You know that. 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. - 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.--Aschlafly 22:16, 22 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. --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. 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. --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.--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. 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. --AlecEmpire 21:35, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

So I lose just because you argue against me? That's brilliant debate tactics right there. 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. --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? DanH 21:42, 22 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. DanH 20:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)