tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post7234754217855953031..comments2024-03-27T10:27:59.266-04:00Comments on John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: The Films of 1957: A Face in the CrowdJohn Kenneth Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-60765995737323413792017-01-22T21:14:15.989-05:002017-01-22T21:14:15.989-05:00Whoops, John, I forgot to say before hitting "...Whoops, John, I forgot to say before hitting "publish" that I did miss your review of "It Can't Happen Here"--which I've only ever seen the beginning of and never have gone back to view in its entirety. I'll go read your review after checking out the movie first. Thank you for the pointer!<br /><br />And yes, you DID post a lot on Friday that I didn't go back to find!Sherinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-83453314795178067562017-01-22T21:00:10.460-05:002017-01-22T21:00:10.460-05:00Thanks for your reply, John. Two things: I did ski...Thanks for your reply, John. Two things: I did skim and missed the sentence in your "Face" review that you highlighted. Thanks for pointing it out. Second, I wasn't so much looking for duality in your review of one movie, or each movie, so much as just pointing out that that three you chose to highlight as a cluster were fairly obviously meant to reflect a point of view--which is absolutely fine and is your absolute right, no question. I merely wanted to point out there are other points of view, and after reading what you wrote here I even agree that I used the wrong term: I shouldn't have used the word "fairness", as that clearly led you down the path of thinking I was advocating for equivalency. I may not have been clear, but I really wasn't trying to do so. I guess the right word would have been "simultaneity"--that is, whenever a cultural or political or philosophical point of view seems ascendant and/or demogogued at a given moment, its opposite is also present (and often equally demogogued by different voices and mediia) at the same time. Culture and counterculture, movement and countermovement, moving in tandem. I didn't mean to give the impression it was necessary to strike equivalency in the sense you mean, but rather to suggest that the push-pull tensions present in art, culture, politics, etc., are always reacting to one another and neither simply arises in a vacuum without countervailing opinion or weight being present as well.Sherinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-85034220255858092172017-01-22T12:03:20.240-05:002017-01-22T12:03:20.240-05:00I always love reading your comments, and respect y...I always love reading your comments, and respect your opinion, Sheri.<br /><br />I also agree with you 100% about the importance of TV in A Face in the Crowd (1957), which is why I devote so much space to the subject of TV in my review. I wrote (and perhaps you glossed over it):<br /><br />“As that synopsis makes clear, A Face in the Crowd is a terrifying story of what can happen to America once “politics has entered a new stage: the TV stage.” <br /><br />One man’s hateful, ignorant words -- not to mention resentment and anti-intellectualism -- finds purchase in the psyches of millions of like-minded people. Kazan’s camera cuts, at one point to a veritable forest of TV antennae jutting upwards from the rooftops of an urban jungle in order to make his point. These receiving devices look like metal weeds, growing and stretching upwards to the sky. <br /><br />The point, of course, is how the mass media can instantly amplify -- for its own enrichment -- one voice to a volume previously unimaginable in human history. Even Rhodes himself -- in a rare moment of apparent self-awareness – recognizes the danger inherent in this technology and its ability to broadcast an entertaining (albeit dangerous) voice to million.”<br /><br />I think we're on the same page there, and my review reflects what you were seeking.<br /><br />Regarding fairness in my reviews, I am not a big fan of both-sider-ism when it comes to film interpretation. It normalizes bad behavior, and sometimes illegal behavior, by arguing that each side engages in it. <br /><br />I am also against it in a film a review because most films feature a particular point of view, not two points of view.<br /><br />To recap:<br /><br />Seven Days in May: A right wing general tries to take over America. Is foiled by a right-wing patriot.<br /><br />The Manchurian Candidate: A right wing populist is a secret communist agent, opposed by a right wing patriot.<br /><br />A Face in the Crowd: A demagogue populist advises a right wing <br />political campaign and runs a right wing show.<br /><br />There isn’t any “both siderism” in the text of any of these films, so I did not report on any. My job is not to appease or please all political sides in a review, but convey and interpret the arguments of the film in question.<br /><br />But, sadly, I do think you missed my review of It Can’t Happen Here, also posted on Friday, which involves a left wing demagogue whom I explicitly called out as being inspired by Huey Long! I posted a lot on Friday, so maybe you didn't go back to see that one.<br /><br />In terms of "fairness," I am not at all certain that is the highest good. I think the greatest danger here is actually to ignore abnormal, extreme behavior in governance by pretending that both sides are equally guilty of it, all the time. False equivalency...it helps politicians get away with a lot of crap.<br /><br />best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-74974346983795661372017-01-21T21:07:42.805-05:002017-01-21T21:07:42.805-05:00The funny part of this is, John, that your reactio...The funny part of this is, John, that your reaction to this film is mostly about what it suggests about the American political scene in general, "A Face in the Crowd" was meant to be more about the presumed dangers of the influence of television--which was first borne out with the rise of John F. Kennedy on the other side of the political spectrum from the point of view people presume the movie is about! Recall that the majority of people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates on radio thought Nixon got the better of Kennedy, whereas those watching on television thought the reverse. <br /><br />"A Face in the Crowd", like "Citizen Kane" today, is taken to be a story about right vs. left political demagoguery rather than what it actually was: a strike about the medium as well as the messenger, and one messenger in particular. Just as "Kane" was really about William Randolph Hearst's burgeoning influence, "Face" was really about Arthur Godfrey's--and from everything I've read, and heard from some people in the 60's who had worked for Godfrey, Arthur Godfrey was indeed pretty much just like Griffith's portrayal. <br /><br />I understand from your inclusion of this movie, along with "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seven Days in May", that your intent is to warn about the dangers of what you think of as dangerous right-wing demagogues. That's fine, but if one wanted to be fair, one might work in a couple of others about the same dangers from the left side of the spectrum: "All the King's Men", which was really about Huey Long, and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", in which the "bad" old-values hero, John Wayne, acts to enable the ill-equipped "good" new-values hero, Jimmy Stewart, to look good for the community's sake. <br /><br />Ideological demagoguery exists on all sides, every side, and usually simultaneously. It's neither fair nor helpful to the community at large to pretend otherwise.Sherinoreply@blogger.com