Here is a strange thing. Secretariat, a quietly faith-laced Disney movie from Christian director Randall Wallace (We Were Soldiers) and Christian screenwriter Mike Rich (The Rookie), has bizarrely been catching politically tinged flak even more violent than last year’s inspirational sports film, The Blind Side. It also has an ironic if not improbable defender: Roger Ebert.
Take Jeffrey Wells’s comment at Hollywood Elsewhere: “I didn’t hate it—the racing footage is wonderful—but I loathe the white-a** Republican atmosphere. As I wrote last Sunday, ‘You never forget you’re watching a Randall Wallace family-values movie for the schmoes.’”
Notice that he doesn’t say there is a political white Republican agenda. It’s just the atmosphere, the cultural milieu, that he loathes. This isn’t politics per se, it’s mere cultural tribalism: Wells is aware that this is a movie made by people who are different from him in ways he disdains, and he’s going to disdain them for being different even if no substantial reasons for disdain present themselves.
However, Wells approvingly quotes Salon.com critic Andrew O’Hehir, who perceives the hidden agenda in Secretariat—and holy smokes, is it ugly. I’ve appreciated O’Hehir’s work for years, but this review really pulled me up short. He writes:
I enjoyed [Secretariat] immensely, flat-footed dialogue and implausible situations and all. Which doesn’t stop me from believing that in its totality “Secretariat” is a work of creepy, half-hilarious master-race propaganda almost worthy of Leni Riefenstahl, and all the more effective because it presents as a family-friendly yarn about a nice lady and her horse.
Did he say master race propaganda? He did—and there’s more:
Although the troubling racial subtext is more deeply buried here than in “The Blind Side” (where it’s more like text, period), “Secretariat” actually goes much further, presenting a honey-dipped fantasy vision of the American past as the Tea Party would like to imagine it, loaded with uplift and glory and scrubbed clean of multiculturalism and social discord. In the world of this movie, strong-willed and independent-minded women like Chenery are ladies first (she’s like a classed-up version of Sarah Palin feminism), left-wing activism is an endearing cute phase your kids go through (until they learn the hard truth about inheritance taxes), and all right-thinking Americans are united in their adoration of a Nietzschean Überhorse, a hero so superhuman he isn’t human at all.
Well, of course Secretariat “isn’t human at all”—he’s a horse. (Of course, of course.) And yes, he was a superhorse, and yes, all Americans—right-thinking and otherwise—were united in their adoration back in 1973. There is something twisted about leaping from that to “master race propaganda.” Behind this I suspect what could be called Godwin’s fallacy: the dangerous habit of critically comparing the other side to Nazis.
I think the most telling bit is O’Hehir’s reference to Diane Lane’s character, Penny Chenery, as “a classed-up version of Sarah Palin feminism.” For one thing, is there something wrong with “Sarah Palin feminism”? Is it Palin’s feminism O’Hehir objects to—the can-do, independent, have-it-all, public style that Camille Paglia has praised—or her political views?
And for another, O’Hehir’s tone brims with the obssessive fury of a political junkie who is just so beside himself with rage at Glenn Beck and Fox News, and is so livid at the thought of the November elections, that not only can he not put the subject aside long enough to enjoy an inspirational movie about a nice lady with a fast horse, he is outraged at the thought that anyone else might, either.
On the other hand, one great thing about O’Hehir’s rant was that it prompted an inspired tirade from Roger Ebert (who loved the film). Some highlights:
Andrew O’Hehir of Salon is a critic I admire, but he has nevertheless written a review of “Secretariat” so bizarre I cannot allow it to pass unnoticed … we do not find proof that Obama is a Muslim Communist born in Kenya. No, the news is worse than that. It involves Secretariat, a horse who up until now we innocently thought of as merely very fast. We learn the horse is a carrier not merely of Ron Turcotte’s 130 pounds, but of Nazism, racism, Tea Party ideology and the dark side of Christianity.
Oh, and I forgot the Ku Klux Klan: “The movie itself is ablaze with its own crazy sense of purpose,” O’Hehir writes, “…as if someone just off-screen were burning a cross on the lawn.” …
I question if a single American, right-thinking or left-thinking, thought even once of Secretariat as a Nietzschean Überhorse. Nor did many consider the Triple Crown victories as a demonstration of white superiority, because race horses (which seem to enjoy winning for reasons of their own) are happily unaware of race. …
Wait. There is yet another sinister subtext to be exposed in the film. O’Hehir mentions that Randall Wallace, who directed the film, “is one of mainstream Hollywood’s few prominent Christians, and has spoken openly about his faith and his desire to make movies that appeal to ‘people with middle-American values’.” To which I respond: I am a person with middle-American values, and the film appealed to me. …
When O’Hehir says Wallace is “one of mainstream Hollywood’s few prominent Christians,” what exactly does he mean by that? That one is too many? Surely the Hollywood mainstream has room for several prominent Christians? Surely it is permitted for Wallace to speak openly about his faith? …
Many of the comments in Ebert’s blog are almost equally entertaining. Eventually O’Hehir himself commented—and Ebert responded to his comment. Does their exchange illuminate or obscure the issues? What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Depends what “these issues” are? The movie itself? Hardly. (Or if so, only by negative refraction.) But if it includes “film criticism is dominated by clueless liberals who so can’t even notice their own groupthink that comparisons of Nazism and an insufficiently “progressive” America are mainstream opinion—then it is EXTREMELY illuminating.
O’Heir seems to think that social problems were invented in the sixties, I’m pretty sure social ills existed before then. Does every story told from that time have to be filled with anger, violence and blame? I grew up in that time (early 70’s) and I remember a very Ozzie and Harriet vibe going on. I’m sure it wasn’t perfect but it’s a good memory. One clarification for those who would accuse me of being insulated in white suburbia, I grew up in a diverse urban area, imagine that!
The left is always accusing those on the other side of being “haters” - but the truth is obvious. It is they who are filled with hate and rage for anything that smacks of family values - hard work, honor, honesty, and general love of life. They hate Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, and they hate me and my 6 carbon-footprint children too.
Its pretty obvious once again. Those who accuse others of hate are the ones who hate the most. And how could they not? With God absent from their lives, who do you think takes up residence? Their dirty tricks have become painfully evident to good people over the last couple of years.
Wow! That is some serious dementia right there. The film fulfils the function of a Rhorshach blot and o’Hehir just vomit out all that lies within. Out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks indeed! Reminds me of that moment when Queeg is asked a simple question and then launches into his tirade about the strawberries… followed by an embarrassed silence throughout the court.
Welcome, Steve, to the “real” world of the left - in this case, the movie left. These people give new meaning to the word “nutty”. I thank you for mixing with them because I sure couldn’t stomach it.
There is an interesting phenomenon I noticed in the second paragraph of O’Hehir’s response; something I’ve noticed a lot lately whenever an outrageous statement draws criticism instead of support. When that happens, we are told “It was a joke! I meant to provoke a response.”
Essentially O’Hehir says that he deliberately wrote an outrageous, even offensive, review of the movie in order to help all us see the truth behind the lie. Basically he illuminates and clarifies by misdirecting and offending because; it was all tongue in cheek.
“Of course,” he says, “it’s offensive to compare a contemporary filmmaker to Riefenstahl,” but it’s apparently ok because a film that presents an Ozzie and Harriet view of the world is quite obviously offensive to everyone not white and rich. He’s performing a public service.
Wow.
The really funny thing about this movie in this context is that when Secretariat was retired to stud, he was found to be a “shy breeder,” i.e. homosexual.
Well that’s just great…
Now this movie is going to be a test of your political leanings and we’re going to see Laura Ingram and Rush Limbaugh talking about how great it is one day and John Stewart and Keith Olbermann making fun of it the next. Ugh.
Shy breeders don’t always have to be homosexual. Maybe they just don’t feel comfortable breeding with all those people standing around watching. Or doing it on queue at the whim of others. Maybe he thought he’d be able to take it slow, get to know the mare, build up the relationship over the course of several months, and then decide how far he wanted to take it.
More to the point, on a related topic, I was appalled at how Spike Jonez’ (one of Hollywood’s few prominent former spouses of Sofia Coppola) “Where The Wild Things Are” clearly was meant to cast approvingly Stalin’s genocide against the people of Ukraine by means of starvation. And you might think that’s an exaggeration, but while I was watching it I felt like making a Great Purge of my own… of my lunch… if you get my meaning.
It seems more and more common that people—no matter their politics or religion—seem to see something bad in innocent things, as if they are projecting their own darkness or their own worst fears outward, and then attacking whatever innocent that projection landed on.
It’s a little scary, quite frankly.
Sometimes a story about a racehorse is just a story about a racehorse.
For me Jeffry Wells exposed his own prejudice and ideology early on with
the phrase describing this as a “Randall Wallace family-value movies for the shmoes”!
Not exactly the kind of thing a movie critic would say if he truly checked his personal politics at the door when he walked into the theater to review this movie. The movie clearly is a time period piece displayed against the culture of the 50’s. Mr Wells seems far more interested in conveying his personal political ideology and taking out Mr Wallace for his conservative values than reviewing the movie objectively. As far as
I am concerned ( I would be a shmoe) this movie is refreshing in its ability to tell a wonderful story about a legendary horse from the racing world. It is a story that if told right inspires..and families can take
their children to w/o the usual violence, nudity, crassness of the cheap stuff from Hollywood. The political innuendos Mr Wells assigns here seem
to be way-over-the-top and exaggerated in the extreme. I would tell this
movie critic to lighten up…buy some popcorn and soda..and sit back and
enjoy a great story with a happy ending…and leave his knives and hatchet at home! He is missing the real point of this movie…shmoes like us need
a little decent fare once in awhile so that we too can go with our families for a night out at the movies! We are not seeing all the bogeymen
Mr Wells is convinced this film depicts. Nor do we want to…Lighten up, sir! The story of Secretariat will still be around long after Mr Wells has departed this world.. just because it is a great story that gives us all
a feeling of triumph and hope. I hope Mr Wallace continues to look for scripts that all us shmoes love and support..and some critics learn that shmoes are a part of the legitimate movie going population..or would like to be given the right stuff!
Oops Meant the culture of the 70’s…not the 50’s. As for Mr O’Herir I have only one thought…was that medicinal or regular pot he was smoking while viewing this movie? Not sure that would make any difference but it
might be as good as any explantion to explain the utter weirdness and ludicrousness( is that a word?)of his review!
Monica’s take on this situation opens up a whole new meaning for the term “culture of death.” We live in a culture that celebrates negative values, especially death and violence, but also cynicism, selfishness and pettiness. “Where the Wild Things Are” is a truly appalling movie which distorts the values of the book it’s based on, not just moral or ethical values but things like affection, loyalty, beauty…anything positive. Ugly is the 21st century beautiful, and it’s a mistake to try to be profound; eg Maureen Dowd identifying the moral of “Das Rhiengold” as “Don’t fight with your contractor.” Critics feel an obligation to trivialize any attempt to celebrate life-affirming values. The really sad thing is, the entertainment that celebrates negativity and destruction is the entertainment that makes millions. Are we all numb? Or are we really all nasty?
Unfortunately, as wholesome as the story may seem, the grim reality of professional horse racing encompasses a century of literal “drug deals” in the form of doping of these animals in order to have a competitive edge. Simply put, it is a game of cheating where anything goes, and the animal suffers a much shortened life. This is the dirt of the underlying morality of its participants, no matter how much someone tries to give it a clean and wholesome appearance.
Granted, there’s probably no way that the public will ever know for sure if Secretariat was or was not “The Steroid Wonder”, despite years of such rumors (and denials, of course). We do know that medically, an enlarged heart is a known side effect of anabolic steroid abuse, and we know that Secretariat’s post-mortem heart was found to be nearly 3x average. Similarly, we also knwo that steroids in horse racing **is still not banned** in all 50 States, which we also know gives horse doping the nod-nod-wink-wink to allow it to continue…and until it is banned with rules with teeth, it will invariably continue, since a Stable who doesn’t play will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Thus, the real ‘family value’ that underlies this film’s facade includes hard work…but it’s at cheating. And that general love is f the ‘good life’ for themselves which they’re willing to pursue by knowingly shortening the lives of innocent (the horses) with what they’ve doped them up with.
Whoaaaaaaaa!Nellie folks!! This is NOT THAT STORY!!!! about the bad side
of horse racing, steroid use, etec etc. or about political ideology! We
are so used to OVER analyzing that we can’t just enjoy a good story? We
have to weave our own narrative around it and make a beautiful story about positive things into something ugly? Do we no longer recognize a simple
and beautiful story and accept it for what it is? A story? Monica has
spoken common sense…this is a story about a horse ..an extraordinary
horse…an extraordinary story!!!! Get a grip you nay-sayers and relax!
Quit seeing the bogeyman everywhere you look! ENJOY the rare good and
wholesome movie that occasionally comes on the scene.
Nobody here in the Kentucky Bluegrass thinks this movie is about politics. It portrays a lifestyle and a regional heritage. People are reading too much into a movie about a truly great thoroughbred.
Steven your comments on secretariat have helped me connect some dots. The anger viewing Secretariat elicited from some reviewers is similar to the rage Jane Austin’s writing inspire in some. A similar rage of anti Americanism is experienced by many in France according to Claire Berlinski. (http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/berlinski.php)
The dots began to fall into place as I recalled a chart on the capital sins. It’s headings were: Capital sin, Object of Worship, Opposing Virtue, Energizing Element. I was struck by the details on sloth. The object of worship was fear of public opinion and being exploited. The opposing virtue was fortitude. The Energizing element was independence that refuses to be manipulated by others.
However the icing on the cake was a talk on acedia given by Dr. Tim Gray in September 12, 2008. He identified acedia as a tiredness or boredom or even a type of fatigue that comes from losing our focus on the nobility of doing the right thing. He claimed it is the primary malaise of our culture. According to Gray those who slip into acedia develop a growing disdain for people who try to do their very best. There seems to be a threefold progression. At first a person lacks the energy to ennoble their activities, then they depreciate or slightly belittle the efforts of those who are trying to do well. As a person yields more to the temptations of acedia this negative attitude toward those trying to maintain a high standard becomes more intense. Perhaps the anger being expressed in very unkind words by Andrew O’Hehir have their root in a slothful fear of being manipulated or challenged to be more kind. Dr. Tim Gray speculates that even worse behaviors can have their source in acedia.
What can we expect next from O’Hehir? A deconstruction of “Old Yeller”?
If horse racing is a really corrupt sport, then a “nice story” about a “nice thoroughbred” is just sugarcoating something ugly. Flannery O’Connor considered such sugarcoating the great artistic sin of “Christian” writing in America—redemption without the acknowledgment of sin.
I believe Peter Kreeft originated the “acedia as the sin of America” claim. Not that Tim Gray can’t make the point ... but credit where credit is due.
The enlarged heart can be genetic in origin. Search at:
http://www.circledhorses.com/The X-Factor.htm
for:
Eclipse
FWIW, I don’t think Mike Rich wrote ‘The Blind Side.’ His last sports films, if I’m correct, were Radio and The Rookie.
Charles E. Flynn: Right. I wrote about that in my review. Secretariat and his rival Sham both had the large heart gene. FWIW, while I’m not a Secretariat expert or anything, none of the half dozen or so Secretariat books I perused (according to Amazon.com’s Search Inside feature) raises the question of Secretariat being juiced (though the topic of horse juicing in general does come up).
Mark M: Yikes, how did I make THAT mistake? Thanks for the catch. Now I remember, The Rookie and The Blind Side had the same DIRECTOR (John Lee Hancock), not the same screenwriter. But there were other connections ... I think I remember reading something about Rich lamenting that The Blind Side hadn’t been a Disney picture, as if it had been his picture. And then I read O’Hehir’s comparison and others in that light ... sheesh.
I was all set to discuss (a) whether the negative review was an example of the hatred of excellence seen at the epilogue to the Screwtape Letters, (b) that the real idea behind it (as O’Heir admits in his comments on Ebert’s blog) is just to get attention, and (c) whether a and b contradict one another or merely reflect a self-esteem culture in which people want to be celbrated for not really doing anything.
...
But now I’m more inclined to ask (and this is coming from someone who proudly lists “overanalyzing things” as a hobby) why on earth do we even care? The more I think about it, the more I feel I should respond as I would to any other blog-rant: Look at it, go “what the heck…?” and get on with my life. Who’s with me?
The most effective kind of propaganda depicts normal life, or rather an idealized vision of normal life, one that (as one of my readers put it) “makes a particular worldview seem natural, right and appealing.”
Somehow I don’t think he means movies about happy gay people getting married.
@Daniel J LaBelle: Do you (or anyone else) have a reference to the Captial sins chart you mentioned? I would be interested in getting a copy of it, for I am finding more and more the greatness (e.g, clarity of thought) that lies in understanding the world “through the lens” of the virtues.
From oscida@hotmail.com
E-mail if you want the chart.
Adapted from: TO THE PRIESTS Our Lady’s Beloved Sons pg. 643
Capital Sins Object of Worship Opposing Virtue Energizing Element
Pride self-sufficiency intellect, haughtiness, awareness Faith, kindness
trust in God being right/in control
imposing an agenda
Lust procreative instinct urgency Hope
patience sexual domination
control of person(s)
Avarice money Charity possession
control of things
Anger energizing rage Prudence to be feared
Sloth fear of public opinion and being exploited Fortitude independence
it refuses to be manipulated by others
Envy chaos, violence Justice sneering hatred
Gluttony sensual comfort hedonism, pleasure, materialism, Temperance taste/satiety
To worship is to focus
to concentrate
to observe with every sensor, physical and mental
to be energized by.
Our surprising emotional responses aided by the Holy Spirit make us aware of the deep causes of our sin.
After all salvation in Jesus comes from our humble contrite heart, which is a gift.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.