I’m a right leaning libertarian and I enjoy offering movie reviews for all 12 of you who read this drivel with regularity. As much as I enjoy writing it, I prefer reading it, especially comments from folks like Jonathan Last, Dean Barnett, Sonny Bunch, James Lileks and Dirty Harry. I may not always agree with them, but the insight they infuse into their commentary is often beyond the simple comments that many movie reviewers employ. Further, they like me, are right leaning, so commentary from folks who are more in line with my political inclinations carry a certain weight. In other words, they engage me both as a fellow traveler on the right and as a movie buff.
Recently, I read a comment on Hancock penned by Ed Morrissey of Hot Air. Captain Ed is a wonderful political commentator but his review of Hancock stunningly missed the point of the movie. It reminded me of the comments posted by Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online regarding Jason Bateman’s character in Juno. Ms. Lopez is an also excellent communicator of ideas of a political stripe, but her understanding of that film was woefully inadequate.
My point, belabored though it may be, is that when conservatives, or right leaning libertarians, engage popular culture, we should endeavor to do a good job of understanding popular culture, how it is received and how to effectively communicate our ideas within that engagement. Mr. Morrissey’s comment on the use of language by young characters indicates a detachment from the culture at large that limits his commentary to a narrow core of readers.
In this conservatives lose out on an opportunity to engage the culture. While we should never gloss over or ignore gripes we have with films, when we sound like prudish cranks, we give people unfamiliar with our message a really good reason to maintain that ignorance. Maybe we want to preach to the choir for the duration of time, but that sounds like an unappealing strategy for influencing the broader culture and helping others to understand our perspectives. Movie reviews are an easily accessible point of entry for many people who ordinarily would never read a political blog. When we send folks away quickly, we miss an opportunity.
Pundits declare this political season is one that right leaning folks will despair. When we ignore chances to spread the message that we believe, we only hasten our own defeat, not only at the ballot box but within the culture in general.
As for Hancock, see it. The shaky cam gets jostled a time too many, but it’s comparable with the style that Paul Greengrass used in the latter pair of Bourne films, and that director Peter Berg employed in last fall’s The Kingdom. Berg’s emphasis on the eagle motif surrounding Hancock indicates an allegorical element of the superpower, errr hero, everyone loves to hate. The comedic bits hit fairly well. The introspection in the second half of the picture exposes it not just as summer popcorn fare but as a character study that takes itself seriously enough to hit the key parts, but not without becoming inaccessible to audiences. Smith carries the picture morphing from a angry man all alone in the world to one that understands his purpose. The transition from anti-hero to true hero is the whole point of the film.
It’s far from perfect. But July Fourth blockbusters rarely are perfect acts of filmmaking. The detractions include the aforementioned overly shaky cam, but that is made up for with the remarkable camera work in the film’s climatic third act. The story is tight, but could have used a little more exposition at points. Further, the eagle motif could have been applied to another character, whose behavior is much more credible and understandable the second time watching the film. Also, the rapport between Bateman and Theron seems mildly unbelievable in the epilogue. A little more effort, which would have slowed down the fast paced picture would solve those issues, but at what price. Berg’s choices are reasonable, even though they leave us asking a few questions at the end of the film.
Quietly, Peter Berg has made two films that examine America’s imperfections, while emphasizing America’s inherent merit and value, without delving too deeply into the darkness that animates his source material. Are conservative movie goers so expecting the anti-American line from Hollywood, that they turn a blind eye to a picture that is more measured and fair? It seems quite likely to me that is the case.
