#Oscarstoopolitical

Did you watch the 93rd annual Academy Awards? Preliminary numbers would suggest you didn't as ratings for the award ceremony dropped 58% compared to last year, resulting in 9.9 million viewers, a new all-time low!

What could explain this decline? Covid-19 some will yell. And why not? It has been blamed for everything else from slow mail delivery to being responsible for our rigged presidential election (I don't believe the election was rigged). Why shouldn't the Academy use it as a crutch for their failure just like everyone else! But how does that explain last year's (then) record low ratings?  In fact, what did Covid -19 have to do with the yearly Oscars ratings decline between 2014 - 2018? Others will try to justify it by reasoning it is because no one saw or heard of the nominated movies. Could be. The audience didn't have an emotional interest and therefore had nothing to root for. But, are we all ignoring the elephant in the room? Could the ratings decline and by extension society's lack of interest have something to do with the perception that the Oscars have become too political? A couple years ago (2018) many articles were being written about this very subject - (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/movies/oscars-more-political.html)

Since I have begun writing this blog, back in 2008, I have written about the politicization of cinema. It slowly began in 2004 with Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) and really kicked into high gear during the last two years of George W. Bush's administration. I have also written about my disappointment with the Academy, as I did in this piece from 2011! Unfortunately, nothing has changed.

The problem with the Academy is it has become too image conscious. It has bent at the knee to political and social demands forsaking any grandiose notion that the purpose of the award ceremony is to recognize "artistic merit" and to celebrate and honor those that are the best of their craft. I started this article pointing to the show's rating. It doesn't matter much to me but it is very important to the Academy. Seeking to capture the largest audience possible, there has always been a pressure to nominate more mainstream titles but many of those movies never had the cachet associated with them to be deemed "Oscar caliber". How many of you remember why the Academy expanded the number of nominees in the best picture category? It was because fan-boys were greatly upset the Christopher Nolan comic book movie, The Dark Knight (2008) wasn't nominated for best picture. Eventually their wet-dream came true when Black Panther (2018) became the first comic book movie to receive a best picture nomination. Succumbing to this pressure was evidence the Academy was not interested in maintaining its illusion that the awards represented artistic merit.

Next there were political and social demands by liberal activists. They believed the Academy was racist because not enough minorities had been nominated or won awards, hence various boycott movements like #Oscarssowhite. The liberal activists seemed to have had their demands met during the 74th annual ceremony when Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won the top acting prizes. Of course things reverted back to their old ways the next year when the Academy had the temerity to nominate male actors like Jack Nicholson, Michael Caine, Paul Newman, Christopher Walken, Ed Harris, John C. Reiley, and Daniel Day-Lewis at the expense of black actors. And if you think I'm engaging in hyperbole, you don't understand how liberals react to these things. Pay attention to the reaction on social media to Anthony Hopkins winning the best actor award this year. Pay attention to the clickbait headlines written and the angles writers took covering the event. Articles like this one imply Chad Boseman, for his performance in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020), was entitled to the award. Even the Chicago Sun-Times (my hometown paper) movie critic, Richard Roeper, a man I thought would know better, took the same approach in his article. It would seem to imply, at least from Roeper's article, if all the acting awards aren't given to black actors, the perception is the Academy is racist.

Liberal activists will jump to conclusions (they always do) and retort that I have a problem with minorities winning awards because I am a racist. They will also point to my comment "jump to conclusions" as evidence that I am a radical, right-wing, conservative culture warrior. Trust me, if you knew me, you would know how ridiculous that statement is. I will clarify though to provide comfort and solace to political activists reading this (whom I am sure aren't!) Activists, right or left, jump to conclusions because they feel they are in a constant position having to defend their political agenda. They have a heightened defense mechanism which causes them to jump to conclusions. It also helps them to immediately define a conversation and their perceived "opponent's" position. But my position does not stem from racism, a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Had I said that I believe black, Hispanic, or Asian actors are incapable of acting because their skin color or ethnic background makes it difficult for them to express the emotional range needed for an actor, that would be racism! 

My disillusionment with the Academy stems from my own naive belief that the Academy actually cared about artistic merit. While I have been writing about my problems with the Academy for years, it is difficult for me to ultimately concede that I was manipulated, even brainwashed, into buying their line. I even stopped watching the show twenty years ago but it remains hard for me to fully accept that the award ceremony is nothing more than a pop culture event, that bedazzled us with glitz and glamour, but was never able to live up to artistic standards. When the most popular question at the Oscars became "who are you wearing"?, it should have immediately opened my eyes.

My problem is I love movies as an art form. My earliest childhood memories involved watching movies with my grandparents but my grandmother in particular. The arts were important in my family. My father is a musician. Culture was all around me growing up. While the idea of going into the arts is a sign of mental derangement in most families, my family viewed it as honorable. As a teenager I made up my mind that I wanted to make movies and restore the sophistication Hollywood was once known for. Can you now understand why I bought into artistic merit and why it bothers me that the Academy Awards and the movie industry, in general, has become so political?

The liberal activists, it would seem, never bought into (or cared about) the concept of artistic merit. Their first priority was the advancement of their political agenda. With that mentality, the Academy Awards were viewed as a cultural event, a symbol of social importance. A symbol recognized worldwide. At one time an Academy Award ceremony could garner somewhere between 30 - 40 million viewers in the U.S. alone! If the liberal activists could infiltrate the Academy and put social pressure on them it would be a major advancement for their causes. That, I believe, is all they saw when they looked at the Academy Awards -  the potential to have their message exposed to millions of people. How many political activists do you think spend their time watching movies? How can you be an activist, sitting at home, in front of a screen?

Because of our fundamentally different viewpoints on what the Academy Awards represents, it creates a contrast and an inability for myself and the activists to understand the other's point of view. Remember, we don't really have conversations with one another in this country. We "hear" one another but we don't "listen". Have you ever spoken to a political activist or someone with a different opinion than yours? You aren't having a conversation, an honest exchange of ideas between people. What you have are two people repeating talking points to one another that they heard or read in mainstream media, social media, or their political organization. The activist will have the aim of trying to persuade you to their side, having no intention of ever conceding a point to you. The objective is, you come to my side. The non-activist wants to make sure their talking points are heard loud and clear. Depending upon the individual's personality, it could also be a matter of "putting you in your place".

The cultural war within the Academy, I concede, have resulted in the liberal activists winning, but it has had an unintended negative effect. Politics has tarnished the reputation of the Academy Awards, as evident by the decline in ratings over the years. The Academy, and Hollywood as a whole, have become too polarized. The outside pressure from the liberal activists hasn't just affected ratings but box-office attendance, perhaps a better indicator of the public's indifference to movies. We can't gather information from 2020 attendance because of Covid, so lets look at 2019 numbers. There was a 4.6% decline compared to 2018. While 2018 saw an increase in attendance, that was only because 2017's numbers were the lowest in 23 years, domestically. We can again come up with a multitude of reasons to explain this: bad movies were made, ticket prices were too high, it rained...etc. We can come up with rationale after rationale but at one point we must admit, politics and movies are too intertwined. If I admit to you that I like the movie Gone with the Wind (1939), I've just made a statement that can be interpreted as political and not just an expression of a movie preference. At least to the liberal activist's mentality.

Although it has been an on-going trend, 2020 was a noteworthy highlight in the ways liberal activists have used political and social issues to further attack art. One of the year's major social and political movements began after the death of George Floyd. This was after previous movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. Note how #MeToo only seemed to attack the entertainment industry and not corporate America. Taking their cue from former Chicago mayor (sadly) Rahm Emanuel, who famously said, "never let a crisis go to waste", it created a perfect storm for liberals to begin their crusade that the films of yesterday do not match the values of today. Now classic movies needed "trigger warnings", a new term I learned last year that I wish I hadn't. Warnings meant to provide a film within its historical context. It created a snowball effect with liberals seemingly attacking all movies and art made before the invention of the smart phone. Turner Classic Movies (TCM) even had to make an attempt to appease the liberal mob and bite the hand that feeds them by creating a show in which they discuss how "problematic" the films of yesterday are for today's viewers.

Within this environment what could the Academy do? How could it not grovel at the behest of the liberal activists? It wasn't just an issue of nominating a more diverse field of actors, the academy also needed to legitimize the liberal's message regarding older films. How could they do this? Look at the movies that were nominated. Many of the nominees were set in the past - Mank, Judas and the Black Messiah, The Trial of the Chicago 7. The messaging being, we must question and correct the past in order to move forward. David Fincher's Mank is an ideal representation of this. Nominated for 10 awards, it is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, the co-writer of Citizen Kane (1941). The movie suggested Mankiewicz was really the writer of the movie, not Orson Welles. It becomes a story of authorship. This can be expanded to suggest, who is the author of our past? This also legitimizes liberal's use of the expression "my truth". There's Orson Welles' "truth" of what happened regarding Citizen Kane and Herman Mankiewicz's "truth". By purposely redefining our definition of words, liberals are also able to redefine the conversation. There is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth". What you mean to say is "experience". Our experiences in the world affect our viewpoint and thus our understanding. But we only live in a world of truth and lies, not multiple truths. We are seeing liberal activists use this tactic again in relation to the word "infrastructure". It is no different than when conservative communication consultant Frank Luntz came up with the term "job creator" to replace usage of the word rich. Who do you want to raise taxes on, the job creators or the rich? We are talking about the same group of people but the word changes our perception. The Academy countered these nominations with movies like Promising Young Woman, a modern day story set in our #MeToo world. Where one set of movies question our past, the other "corrects" our present and provides the new path forward.  

And so we clearly see the Academy making the nominations within themselves political and thus we can't expect anything honorable from the Academy. Do you know why the Academy Awards were created in the first place? Louis B. Mayer (one of the M's in MGM) created the "Academy" as a way to prevent actors and filmmakers from creating a union. That's right. The invention of the Academy Awards was a union busting effort. With a beginning like this, how could something honorable come from it? It takes no time at all for scandal to hit. By the Academy's second year, actress Mary Pickford had starred in her first "talkie", Coquette (1929). Pickford had high expectations for the movie. For younger readers, Pickford was a major star in the silent era. Having begun acting as a teenager, she achieved stardom after appearing in movies like Pollyanna (1920). She would go on to be one of the four founders of United Artist studios (along with D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin and Pickford's husband, Douglas Fairbanks). Fairbanks was the Academy's first president and Pickford wanted a best actress award. Even though Pickford received mixed reviews, some said she was too old for the part (a coquette is generally identified as being a young, flirtatious woman). Pickford ended up winning her Oscar but allegations of bribery and pressure on the Academy's Board of Judges tainted her win. For the record, I am both a fan of Pickford's performance and Coquette. 

This also helps illustrate that when I say the Academy is "political", it doesn't mean I am always talking about race. I think society has been conditioned to associate words like "political" and "social" as synonyms with race (again, control the language, control the debate). By political, I mean behind the scenes campaigning that goes on, which is not unlike the ugliness of a political campaign, as  Academy members are pressured to vote for one film or another or one actor over another. Artistic merit often isn't a deciding factor in their decision. Many times decisions are made based on a movie's popularity, the social relevance of a film, the life story of an actor...etc. Even great white artists have never won a competitive award (not counting honorary awards) - Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, Buster Keaton, Fritz Lang, Luchino Visconti, Charlie Chaplin, Carole Lombard, Gene Wilder, Robert Redford, Kirk Douglas, Greta Garbo, Steve McQueen, Harvey Keitel, Richard Harris, Max von Sydow, Veronica Lake, Peter Sellers, Richard Burton, Robert Mitchum, Gene Kelly, Irene Dunne, Fred Astaire, Tony Curtis, Mikey Rooney, Judy Garland, Bob Hope, Ingmar Bergman and Jack Benny! So much for artistic merit!

Being as image conscious as the Academy is,  they do realize this problem and have tried to "correct" it in one of two ways - either presenting an individual with a lifetime achievement award or with what is known as a "pity Oscar" - an Oscar win for a lesser work meant to be symbolic of the artist's body of work. For years a reason  people would give as a shining example of the Academy not always celebrating its finest talent was the fact that Martin Scorsese never won a best director Oscar and none of his movies were ever named best picture. Some called Scorsese's Oscar win for The Departed (2006) a pity Oscar. Another example was Al Pacino. Pacino never won an Oscar until his performance for Scent of a Woman (1992). Many people thought that year the real winner should have been Denzel Washington for Spike Lee's Malcolm X (1992) but the Academy needing to rectify their misjudgment presented the award to Pacino. Fittingly when Denzel Washington did win the Oscar for Training Day (2002) it was thanks to a similar campaign by Hollywood insiders feeling Washington should have received an Oscar by now. It also helped with the Academy's perceived race issue. A final example I'll give you was Peter O' Toole. Widely regarded as one of his generation's finest actors, whether on stage or film, O'Toole never won an Oscar, despite multiple nominations. In 2006 the Academy wanted to present O'Toole with the lifetime achievement award. Initially O'Toole wanted to decline. He had given a performance in the film Venus (2006) and was nominated for another Oscar. He understood what the lifetime achievement award meant and publicly said he still believed he could win a competitive Oscar. He didn't win that year, losing to Forest Whitaker for his performance in The Last King of Scotland (2006) and he eventually agreed to accept the lifetime achievement award.

Desperation for TV ratings, kowtowing to political and social pressure, lack of artistic merit judgement - it is a shame what the Academy has done to itself. There is no sign of a correction course and quite frankly after 93 years, it's too late. Liberal activists now have too strong of a grip on the ceremony and the demands won't cease, they will only push the Academy further, like this writer does in her article. Notice, no mention of artistic merit. In the writer's judgement wins and loses should be based upon race and the symbolic effect these Oscar wins will have on society. It was the same logic liberals came up with back in 2008 for voting for Barack Obama. A vote for the first black man for president would be good for the country because of what it represents, it would "heal" the country. Note it had nothing to do with policy. 

I question exactly how large of an audience these writers speak for. I would venture to say it is not a majority of the country but they definitely represent the echo chamber of social liberalism. I see I have been defending an out dated position regarding the Academy Awards. I also see how effective these liberal activists are at instituting change. Not change at the governmental level, where it is sorely needed but low hanging fruit change - changing the names of statues, trigger warnings for classic films, turning the Oscars into a political social event, getting businesses to display Black Lives Matter signs, promoting gender ambiguity...etc. It really does impact society and adds up to the illusion of change. It's almost better than the real thing. Great taste, less filling. It really makes me look forward to next year's Participation Awards...er I mean Academy Awards. 

Top Ten Films Of 2020!

The arts. Art can have a high falutin connotation associated with it. What is great art? Who is it for? What is so special about it? What value, if any, should a society place on its artists?

Art is important. It is important if for no other reason it introduces us to other cultures and helps us put in perspective the vastness of the world we live in. My father is a musician. He primarily plays Hungarian folk music and the folk music of neighboring Eastern European countries. It was initially through music I was introduced to different cultures. The arts made me realize there was more to life than listening to my family argue. There was a great big world out there and I wanted to see it.

What about film history? Is it important? Should it be preserved? I ask these questions about film and the arts in general because art was under attack. It saddens me that it was under attack by the political left but I cannot deny or ignore it because of that. I must live in the world with both eyes open and both ears listening.

Movies are a reflection of our society. The arts but especially movies are society's eyes and ears. Great movies do many things and one of those things is hold a mirror up to society and show us our faults and accomplishments. If we can celebrate anything from 2020 lets celebrate cinema and its history. Lets celebrate the power of movies. 

As our world becomes increasingly politically polarizing, political opportunists and bandwagon propagandists set their sights to the arts. The movies of yesterday, they complained, don't reflect today's values. Imagine that! And so Gone with the Wind (1939), Birth of a Nation (1915), Blazing Saddles (1974), Peter Pan (1953), The Muppet Show (1976 - 1981), books by Dr. Seuss, and Woody Allen among many, many other things came under attack. If the political left had their way all of these things would completely disappear. Just ask Queen Latifah or the self-righteous filmmakers of Antebellum (2020). Or those that wanted to make sure Woody Allen's autobiography wasn't published.

Film history, like any history, should not be forgotten. It shows us who we were as a society. It is a marvel that we can see how people lived, dressed, spoke, their fears...etc. Movies are time capsules to be cherished. I also don't like political activists having a say about film history. They don't look at the history of cinema with artistic eyes but rather through a political agenda. What do they care if people aren't allowed to see certain movies anymore? They are helping to contribute to the politicization of movies and weaponizing it. That's what happens when you choose to see everything through a political lens. And 2020 provided the political activists the perfect opportunity to latch on to the arts.

Politics and the movies have shared a long history. Unfortunately, movies have long been politicized. Some may believe it all started with D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation because that's what they have been told. But, political commentary in movies dates back even further than that. Take Wallace McCutcheon and Edwin S. Porter's The 'Teddy' Bears (1907), a political satire on President Theodore Roosevelt, as an example. World governments immediately became aware of the potential power movies could have to push propaganda. The political left and right have always viewed the arts as dangerous. Each side has tried to ban one thing or another over the years. For example, the political left and Feminists in the U.S. tried to have various songs banned in the 1960s which they viewed as sexist. On the right, the most famous example would be book burning in Nazi Germany.

As we look back on the best films of 2020 it is a perfect time to embrace the history of cinema and to fight back against those that want to censor it. My film choices express the frustrations and joys individuals experienced throughout the year - the economy, social media, losing yourself in the movies, human interaction, the importance of family, and dolls coming to life trying to kill us.

Before revealing my list, let us also remember the great artists we lost in 2020, those that have contributed to the richness of cinema. One of the biggest loses for me was legendary comedian and filmmaker, Carl Reiner, a comedy hero of mine. We also lost Kirk Douglas, Olivia de Havilland, Rhonda Fleming, Max von Sydow, the brilliant Czech filmmaker Jiri Menzel, composer Ennio Morricone, Ian Holm, Sean Connery, Diana Rigg, comedian Jerry Stiller, Michel Piccoli, Terry Jones, cinematographer Michael Chapman, director Joel Schumacher, Reni Santoni, actress Daria Nicolodi, Wilford Brimley, Buck Henry, Fred  Willard, and Brian Dennehy.

Here are the best films of 2020!

1. SORRY WE MISSED YOU (Dir. Ken Loach; U.K.) - Ken Loach, the British maverick filmmaker, whose work dates back to the 1960s, has been going through a resurgence. Goody! His one-two punch of social-dramas I, Daniel Blake (2017) and Sorry We Missed You (2020), were two of the most powerful and realistic statements released within the last five years on class conflict. What does it say (if anything) that no American filmmaker could have provided us with two more honest depictions of the class divide in the richest country on Earth? I guess we were too busy trying to erase film history and salivating over the Snyder cut of Justice League on HBO Max.

Loach's I, Daniel Blake, the filmmaker's most successful film at the U.K. box-office, was responsible for a political movement! It even won the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival (Loach's second film to win the top prize). I declared it as the best film of 2017 and the best movie of the last decade. 

Throwing such lavish praise at Daniel Blake I was doubtful Loach would be able to surpass it and deliver another devastatingly truthful film. While I don't believe Sorry We Missed You is better than Daniel Blake it is a worthy companion piece. With Loach focusing his attention on the fraud known as the "gig economy" and the ways the system exploits the worker, it was the most relevant film released in 2020. 

2. CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (Dir. Justin Pemberton; France) - Based on a book of the same name, written by French economist Thomas Piketty, this documentary explores how capital has caused wealth inequality throughout time, leading to our current system. It is a system that has let down people like the characters in Sorry We Missed You.

3. THE SOCIAL DILEMMA (Dir. Jeff Orlowski; U.S.) - This Netflix documentary explores the ways in which social media manipulates our behavior, creating a dependency upon it, and shines a light on the corporate control behind it, as all of your activities are being tracked for the sake of advertisers.

Corporate and government surveillance has long been an important issue for me. An issue I believe hasn't grabbed the public's attention as it should. Social media is the downfall of our society. That's not open for a debate. There aren't two sides. Tech companies have turned social media into nothing more than an advertising tool and a meeting place for bots to engage in political discourse. 

I get a good laugh from people who have been bitching and complaining about their rights being taken away because they have to wear a mask. For one thing, these were the same "people" (Republicans) that supported George W. Bush and the passage of the Patriot Act, which allowed government surveillance. Our lives are being tracked! You think wearing a mask was the beginning of our government taking away your rights! Fucking morons! Millennials can't understand how elderly people don't know more about social media meanwhile I can't understand how millennials could be such sheep and not question the need for these products. Too bad it wasn't made in the 1930s, then we could condemn social media for not reflecting the values of today and try to have it erased.

4. RIFKIN'S FESTIVAL (Dir.  Woody Allen; Spain / U.S.) - Master comedy filmmaker, Woody Allen, has given us a comedic delight that not only is a glowing love letter to the history of cinema but is Allen's interpretation of the famous Socrates quote, "the unexamined life is not worth living". Allen's surreal invention this time around has his lead character transported to famous scenes from his favorite movies, which end up teaching him about himself and life. Is it a comment on our relationship with movies and how through movies we interpret our own lives? 

If any other filmmaker had brought us this movie, it would be celebrated as a charming surreal fantasy. But the political left is taking their cues from the Fascist right and want to ban art. It is shameful U.S. audiences aren't allowed to see this movie! This was the most fun I had watching a Woody Allen movie since Magic in the Moonlight (2014).

5. THE VAST OF NIGHT (Dir. Andrew Patterson; U.S.) - Marking the feature-length directorial debut of Andrew Patterson, The Vast of Night is an affectionate homage to the 1960s TV show The Twilight Zone. Taking place in 1950s New Mexico, where a possible alien landing may occur, this sci-fi movie starring Jake Horowitz and Sierra McCormick, is effectively eerie. The highlight may be an opening sequence film buffs will want to compare to Orson Welles' Touch of Evil (1958). The rest of the cinematography is equally impressive creating a claustrophobic feel. Director Patterson displays a real talent with two strong performances from Horowitz and McCormick.

6. DRIVEWAYS (Dir. Andrew Ahn; U.S.) - One of the last movies to feature Brian Dennehy before his death. This is a small, personal movie about human interaction and friendship. Dennehy stars as a Korean War vet who befriends a young Asian boy and his mom. Initially you might suspect this will turn into an  All in the Family type story of bigotry. It isn't. In only his second feature-length film, director Andrew Ahn, proves to be another young talent movie audiences should keep an eye out for. 

7. CORPUS CHRISTI (Dir. Jan Komasa; Poland) - Nominated for an Oscar at last year's show in the Best International Feature Film category, filmmaker Komasa gives us a story about spiritual awakening. What makes someone a "man of God"? Can God speak through all of us?

8. THE FATHER (Dir. Florian Zeller; U.K.) - Nominated for six Academy Awards The Father may be the most realistic portrait of dementia ever put on film. Directed by Florian Zeller and based on his own play, the movie stars Anthony Hopkins, in a justified Oscar nominated performance. He is a man who is unaware of what is real and what isn't. It culminates to an absolutely heartbreaking ending.

The movie is told from the point of view of the Hopkins character, creating a confusion in our own experience as well. It almost functions as a thriller (think Memento). Olivia Colman co-stars as the understanding daughter, delivering a very effective performance as well.

9. ONWARD (Dir. Dan Scanlon; U.S.) - I know what you're saying, Alex, you picked the wrong Pixar movie to champion. Society has indicated Soul (2020) was the better animated movie. Granted, Onward may not be viewed as emotionally complex as Soul but I simply had a better time watching this heartwarming adventure of an elf that comes to learn the importance of family. 

10. BRAHMS: THE BOY II (Dir. William Brent Bell; U.S.) - Now you're thinking, what is wrong with this guy? How could I defend the universally panned, Brahms: The Boy II!

This sequel to the simply titled The Boy (2016) worked for me as an eerie horror story. Telling the story of a family terrorized by a blood thirsty doll, that has befriended the family's son, director Bell creates a lot of atmosphere. I liked this movie more than the original movie. I guess we can file this one under a guilty pleasure of mine.

Film Review: The Big Scary "S" Word

Screening as part of the 45th annual Cleveland International Film Festival

 "The Big Scary "S" Word"  **** (out of ****)

During our last presidential election Donald Trump and the Republican Party repeated, almost comically, their favorite rallying cry and scare tactic, calling their Democratic opponent a Socialist. It exposed the Republicans as completely incapable of running against Democrats on ideas without name calling. Joe Biden! A Socialist!

Even though the Republicans are out of ideas, their demonization of the word Socialist has been effective. How many times have we heard politicians says Socialism will never come to America? How many hearts were stricken with fear at the thought of Bernie Sanders as the next President? How many people shriek and hide in corners, trembling, just upon hearing the word "Socialist"? Some of you may even be scared simply reading the word (I hope you are sitting down).

Yael Bridge's documentary, The Big Scary "S" Word, is going to frighten Republican audiences. Not only because it is about Socialism (that's the "S" in the title) but also because the documentary dares to say Socialism is rooted in America. One talking head, the always entertaining Dr. Cornel West, says Socialism is as American as apple pie! 

Clearly the objective here is to "normalize" the word Socialism. According to the documentary, and various news reports, fear of Socialism has become a generational divide. Those that lived through the Cold War have a more violent reaction to the concept, while those of us born in the 80s onward ('83 for me) tend not to be as intimidated by the word. Our generation hasn't been sufficiently programmed by society to react with terror. 

The Big Scary "S" Word somewhat approaches the generational divide by following a Virginia politician, Lee Carter, who represents the 50th district in the Virginia House of Delegates. He is an avowed Democratic-Socialist. At age 33, Carter says the word "Socialist" isn't scary to him, conjuring images of the Soviet Union. This "normalization" can also be attributed to other factors such as both of Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential runs, the popularity of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, and the living conditions of Millennials brought on by the de-regulation policies of the Republican Party and George W. Bush, contributing to the economic collapse in 2008 (the same year I graduated college). They haven't experienced any of the benefits of the "American Dream" only the debt it causes.

Looking at The Big Scary "S" Word from this perspective it is quite an effective and provocative documentary lacking the "theatrics" of Michael Moore and the academic quality of something like Inside Job (2010) thus making it more easy to digest for a broad audience. While it won't be able to persuade any Republicans, who are too far gone down the rabbit hole, it might give the non-political something to think about, which may make it a threat to the Establishment. 

The documentary traces Socialism in the U.S. going back to the 1840s in Wisconsin. In 1910 voters in Milwaukee elected Victor Berger to the House, the first Socialist ever elected to the House! Also in Milwaukee voters elected Paul Zeidler, a Socialist who served as the Mayor for three terms, between 1948 - 1960. There is brief discussion of Eugene Debs, who ran for president as a Socialist five times. In the 1912 election he received more than 900,000 votes. We are told the other candidates, Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, also had far left ideas, proving the popularity of Socialism. We are even told Franklin Roosevelt "stole" many ideas from the Socialist Party for his "New Deal" policies. Although not mentioned here, Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture and later Vice-President, Henry Wallace, was a leftist, establishing the Progressive Party and running for president on that party's ticket in 1948. 

To further illustrate Socialism's roots in America, we are even told of famous people, we may not realize, that were Socialist, like Francis Bellamy, who wrote The Pledge of Allegiance. Katharine Lee Bates, writer of America The Beautiful, and Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Of course whatever popularity Socialism or Socialist ideas had in the 1940s, quickly died after World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, these leftist ideas proved to be too much of a threat. One way to squash Socialism was to go after the Labor Movement. The Big Scary "S" Word tells us there has been a historical link between Labor and Socialism. With the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act (AKA The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947) restrictions were placed on Unions prohibiting political strikes and secondary boycotts. It allowed states to pass right-to-work laws and made union leaders sign affidavits stating they were not Communist. 

This is contrasted to the political and social movements of the 1960s and 70s and finds its why to Occupy Wall Street and the Covid-19 pandemic, in relation to the need for a universal healthcare program. The point being, the working class and poor can only be ignored for so long until they begin to demand change. This might explain the rise of acceptance of the word "Socialism".  

In the modern day The Big Scary "S" Word tells us about cooperatives, where workers own the company they work for. One laundry company in Ohio, Evergreen, is showcased and presented as a possible alternative to our current miserable workforce experience. It is suggested when workers have more of a say in the company, not only are they happier and productivity goes up.

This is Yael Bridge's first full-length documentary and she proves to be quite a talent. She was also a producer for the Netflix documentary Saving Capitalism following former Secretary of Labor (under Bill Clinton) Robert Reich. Clearly this is an issue important to her. Featuring Naomi  Klein, Dr. Cornel West, and economist Richard Wolff, The Big Scary "S" Word is one of the year's best.

The Cleveland International Film Festival will be running between April 7th - April 20th. Ticket and streaming information can be found on their website. Please visit it by clicking here.

Film Review: The Columnist

 "The Columnist" 

** (out of ****)

Screening as part of the 45th annual Cleveland International Film Festival

With the 45th annual Cleveland International Film Festival kicking off this weekend (going virtual due to the pandemic), I have managed to "attend" three screenings already. One of the more provocative titles being screened is the Dutch film, The Columnist (2019).

I'm of the opinion social media is only good if you don't socialize with anyone on it. It is comprised largely of strangers making smart-ass, snotty remarks to other strangers. It has proven to be the downfall of our society. If you think I am over-reacting, wait until you watch The Columnist, directed by Ivo van Aart and starring Katja Herbers.

Herbers is Femke Boot, a popular newspaper columnist and the victim of Twitter trolls and their violent, hateful, vulgar comments. Enough is enough for Femke, who during a television appearance wonders, why can't we be nice to people who have a different opinions? The trolls react harshly (don't they always!) leading Femke to swear off Twitter. But, can she really say goodbye to social media? Has it become too much a part of her life? Does she have a twisted fascination with reading her hate Tweets?

Magnetized and enraged by her trolls' comments, Femke decides to take actions into her own hands. One by one she will confront these trolls, resulting in deadly consequences.

While this concept may provide wish fulfillment for audiences, it is not a fresh idea. Watching The Columnist two movies came to mind - Theater of Blood (1973), starring Vincent Price as an actor who gets revenge on the critics and last year's The Hunt (2020), a political satire in which Liberal Elites hunt down and kill loud mouth, conspiracy theorist Conservatives. 

Both movies took different approaches to the material. The Columnist could have been a dramatic "message movie", a stinging damnation of a society gone wrong, or it could be played for laughs. A campy, slightly over-the-top comedy, exaggerating the well known ills of social media, becoming a revenge comedy. It is clear fairly early into the film which route director van Aart will take.

Theater of Blood took the camp route (don't all of Price's movies?) while The Hunt toned it down a bit and functioned more as a action movie. The Columnist should have been a bit more Theater of Blood and less The Hunt. 

Femke has a teenage daughter, Anna (Claire Porro) who writes for her school's paper and is on a crusade to bring awareness to the topic of freedom of speech. Like a good mother Femke supports her daughter even though she is on a killing spree. The viewer immediately notices the dichotomy presented. Much of the film's humor stems from this concept.

The Columnist is a timely movie, especially coming out after our own presidential election and the so-called "national dialogue" regarding censorship on these various social media platforms. What role should Twitter and Facebook play in correcting the negative discourse they have caused? The Columnist isn't interested in answering that question and doesn't really seem to have any answers at all. Are hate tweets protected as freedom of speech? What about conservative's favorite talking point, individual responsibility? Should we hold people accountable for their on-line comments? I almost felt The Columnist was saying there are no answers. We become what we hate on social media. It is a vicious cycle. The best thing may be to get rid of it entirely. I long for the days before MySpace, Twitter,  Instagram, Facebook and all the other platforms I haven't heard of.

I admire some of the ideas behind The Columnist but its ideas are more effective than its execution. I didn't laugh much watching the movie. Katja Herbers (who reminds me of Mary-Louise Parker) doesn't always seem to be in the spirit of things, semi-winking at the audience. The movie struggles finding a proper tone. It doesn't go all in, in its satire.

The Cleveland International Film Festival will run between April 7th - April 20th. For tickets and streaming information please visit their website by clicking here.