 |
| Ben at work on his latest piece: "How Liberals Crushed My Nose" |
Over the weekend I encountered Mr. Shapiro on Front Page Magazine, the neocon hate rag whose raison d'être is assuring readers that a) all Muslims everywhere are out to get us, b) universities are hotbeds of Communism, c) David Horowitz regrets blowing his parents' money on pot in college. In other words, the perfect place for an aspiring crank like Ben.
(Oops, I just violated my political gag order. Offended readers need not read further.)
Ben's latest piece, The Left's Lincoln, is a model of vacuity. Ostensibly previewing Steven Spielberg's upcoming Lincoln, he displays a remarkable ignorance of history, movies and politics in an article he likely hammered out in 20 minutes. Even if you're expecting an article on liberal misuse of Lincoln iconography, you'll be disappointed.
Ben starts off expressing disgust at "radical gay leftist Tony Kushner" writing the screenplay. It's hard to know what disgusts our Michael Medved wannabe more: Kushner's politics or his sexual orientation. Nice of Ben to set the tone immediately.
For an article with that title, you might expect a historical analysis of Lincoln as conservative. Right wingers love to crow about the GOP's laudable early history as an abolitionist "free soil" party and protector of freedmen. (Or most do: a certain strand of libertarian/paleoconservative thought views Lincoln as a repressive tyrant.) Easy subject for an article, right?
Ben does write politics in his spare time, so he's (theoretically) qualified to opine. What does his political/historical analysis amount to? Responding to a Spielberg quote about the GOP and Democrats changing sides on racial issues, Mr. Shapiro writes:
"Well, actually, it’s not a whole other story. Because it’s not even close to a true story. The Republican and Democratic Parties never “traded political places.” Racism is still the preserve of the Democratic Party, which utilizes skin color as a political tool; color-blindness is still the preserve of the Republican Party. There is a reason that Senator Robert Byrd (WV), a one-time member of the KKK was considered the Democratic conscience of the Senate until his death in 2010. There’s a reason segregationists like George Wallace were Democrats. The Democratic Party never flip-flopped with the Republican Party. It just hid its racism beneath a veneer of reverse racism."
There's so much gaping illogic here I don't know where to start. The Democratic Party had a long and shameful history of endorsing slavery and segregation. This however was put paid by Democratic Presidents ushering through the Civil Rights Act and related legislation in the '60s. When millions of conservative Democrats fled the party, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon eagerly snatched them up by campaigning on identical "States Rights" arguments. It shouldn't need said which party currently invokes states rights in arguments over gay marriage, abortion and government bailouts. The idea that the GOP and Democratic Party hold identical positions to what they did 50 years ago, let alone 150, is simply ludicrous.
Further, Byrd and Wallace both repudiated racism late in life. This stands in contrast to, say, Strom Thurmond, who switched parties over Civil Rights and never offered more than a token recantation. The comment about "racism beneath a veneer of reverse racism" is a masterpiece of doubletalk. And a member of a party who's spent the last four years caricaturing the President as a Kenyan Muslim Communist cannot claim "color-blindness" without seeming idiotic.
The rest of the article drops even this modest line of historical inquiry. Ben doesn't argue whether Lincoln was a liberal or conservative. Instead, he bashes Spielberg's filmography, saying for instance:
"A film like Saving Private Ryan puts an antiwar gloss on the most pro-human rights war in the history of humanity. When the character Sgt. Horvath explains, “Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess,” that’s a pathetic statement given that this conflict was about defeating the worst threat to humanity and humane values ever unleashed."
Shapiro, have you even seen the movie? Saving Private Ryan is possibly the purest embodiment of Greatest Generation cultural iconography. One line taken out of context, arguing that war is a nasty experience, is used to argue a movie is "anti-war." Go play with your plastic army men, Ben.
"A films [sic] like Amistad, which revolves around a slave revolt aboard a Spanish ship and the subsequent trial in the United States — portray white abolitionists as selfish folks out for themselves."
Or it's recognition that not everything is (geddit?) black and white. After all, wouldn't you expect evil progressive Spielberg to show abolitionists as faultless heroes?
Jeez, look at that. I don't even like Amistad and Ben's got me defending it. Nice job.
"In The Color Purple, Spielberg portrays Africa as a grand sort of multicultural place, while the United States is steeped in darkness."
I'll admit I haven't seen The Color Purple. I do remember Amistad showing Cinque and his tribe kidnapped by black slave traders.
"In Munich, the real bad guys are terrorist hunters rather than terrorists – and Israel is so scarred by terrorist hunting that Israelis must move to the United States and abandon their country for absolution."
It does no such thing. Munich shows its heroes dehumanized by a multi-year campaign of assassinating Palestinian terrorists. That is not portraying them as "the real bad guys" unless you inhabit the Manichean mind of a FPM scribbler.
In the Spielberg world, America is the target; only “progressive” forces, reflecting the pacifist, multicultural tendencies of the filmmaker, can cure America of its ills.
What exactly is this Ben? Movies should portray slavery and Jim Crow in a positive light? All war movies should reflect Gunga Din's childhood game mentality? Did you miss the literal flag waving at the open and close of Saving Private Ryan? And didn't you just note that Amistad portrays its "progressive forces" in a dubious light?
To repeat: Ben wouldn't know consistency if it crawled up his rectum and died.
Spielberg, ironically enough, ignores the gory, ugly, beautiful tapestry of the history of the United States page by page – a true story that would bring to light unique and fascinating elements of human nature.
QED. Above, Ben apparently doesn't think negative aspects of American history should be portrayed on film. So what "ugly" and "gory" aspects does he now want included?
We'll never know. Rather than elaborate on the above paragraph, Ben segues into...
"Spielberg's history... is the story of “progress” toward today’s Democratic Party. John Quincy Adams from Amistad would be a Clinton voter; Lincoln would be a fan of Obama;"
I agree that it's morally dicey, at best, to use historical figures as avatars for contemporary causes. On the other hand, Lincoln and Amistad are works of fiction. I doubt Ben has a problem with Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly using dead presidents in ostensibly non-fiction books to parrot modern conservatism.
"by the end of Munich the protagonist would want to sign up for a tour with the Gaza Flotilla."
It wouldn't be a FPM article without insulting Muslims.
To recap: Badly written? Check. Politically and historically ignorant? Check. Vague and unsubstantiated analysis? Check. Comments on movies that give no indication he actually saw them? Definitely. Wildly inconsistent? That's a bingo! It must be a Ben Shapiro.
Groggy tries not to be overtly political save for extreme circumstances. But this articles intertwines three issues I feel passionate about: movies, history and decent writing. So I feel justified in spouting off, just a little. Ben, please join Armond White in the piranha pool.
 |
| "Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, Kurosawa buff or Chris Nolan fan, the one thing we can all agree on: Ben Shapiro is a BIG HONKING DOOFUS!" - Dan Rydell |
New movie review tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment