So, there is a movie coming up
called The Hunt. The basic plot synopsis is liberal elites hunting
people they hate that they see as "deplorables." And in the wake of recent mass shootings, ads
for the movie are being pulled sporadically, and the Hollywood
Reporter is saying that behind the scenes they are talking about rethinking how they are going to
market it and so on. This is probably the
first news that the movie existed for many people, so I am seeing a lot of
conservative anger directed at it. For
instance, Twitchy has an article
typical of this where conservatives are quoted as saying how terrible this
movie is as an idea. You can read for
yourself, but the basic gist is “oh my God, they’re making a movie that revels
in murdering conservatives.”
And I am here to persuade you
that maybe that interpretation is wrong.
Now, first, you always have to approach a movie with an
open mind. I mean, feel free to be picky
about how much you pay to see a movie, but until you see it, you don’t know if
it is bad, good or somewhere in between or what its exact message is. I have refused to pay a dime for a movie only
to be really pleasantly surprised when I got to see it for free, and vice-versa.
And the more I learn about the thing,
the more I wondered: are we sure this is an anti-conservative movie? (Or maybe anti-Trump or anti-Trump supporters
or something like that?) I mean here’s
some of the description of the movie from the Hollywood Reporter:
“Did anyone see what
our ratf**ker-in-chief just did?” one character asks early in the screenplay
for The Hunt, a Universal Pictures
thriller set to open Sept. 27. Another responds: “At least The Hunt’s coming
up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen
deplorables.”
…
The Hunt stars Betty
Gilpin from GLOW and Hilary Swank, representing opposite sides of the political
divide. It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the
elites pick off their prey. The script from Damon Lindelof and Nick Cuse
reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter revolves around third-rail political themes.
(Original title: Red State Vs. Blue State.)
…
The script for The
Hunt features the red-state characters wearing trucker hats and cowboy shirts,
with one bragging about owning seven guns because it’s his constitutional
right. The blue-state characters — some equally adept with firearms — explain
that they picked their targets because they expressed anti-choice positions or
used the N-word on Twitter. “War is war,” says one character after shoving a stiletto
heel through the eye of a denim-clad hillbilly.
Now, assuming that the President
in The Hunt’s universe is Donald J.
Trump, it seems like the liberal characters are going to kill “deplorables” as a way of letting off steam because they hate Trump. But does the movie sympathize with the killers
or the person being killed? I mean, killing
in self-defense is one thing, but cold-blooded murder is not typically seen as
a sympathetic act. Its not impossible
for a movie or TV show to make people sympathize with a killer or other monster,
but “cold blooded murder is a good thing” is not the most obvious take.
And then you watch the trailer
for this movie:
Judging by that one trailer, who looks like the good
guys? The hunters or the hunted? Every moment in that trailer makes you think
that these people caught up in the hunt are the ones we should relate to, root
for and so on. Hell, at one point the
main female character is seen going through some kind of military camp and
diving on top of a veil-wearing Muslim woman in an action that sure as hell
looks like she is protecting the
woman. I mean, what could be a better
sign that she is a “good guy” by the logic of Hollywood than risking her life
to protect an apparent Muslim?
Now, I’m not saying that the
movie is definitely pro-conservative or pro-Trump or pro-Trump supporter or
something like that. I am just saying
maybe we hold our “fire” until we get a better sense of it.
And I will say something else. Saying it is pro- or anti-conservative or
something like that might be grossly oversimplifying things. I could see this as being against the most extreme,
most hateful elements of the left. You
know the kinds of people we are talking about.
The kinds of liberals who think that it is appropriate to physically assault
a person because they think they are a Nazi (and think everyone is a Nazi).
The kind of liberal who cheers every time a prominent conservative gets
hurt, sick or dies. The kind of liberals
who wish death on Dana Loesch’s kids because she supports a right
to bear arms. The kinds of liberals who
hate with a fire so bright that they stop seeing their opponents as human or as
having any rights they are bound to respect (classically evil reference here). It could be a message of nothing more than “yes,
their views are terrible, but for God’s sake, these are human beings and you
need to calm down.” And indeed, the
authors might feel that there are equally dehumanizing elements on the right
(and there are, though I don’t think it is quite as big a problem).
And if that is the real
message, then this is not a bad movie for these times: this is a great movie to
make in those times. Most of the people we
disagree with aren’t bad and responses that start with the assumption that they
are reasoning people capable of being persuaded is usually the best way to win
the political battles, anyway. If this
movie successfully pleas to the left to take a deep breath, that’s a good
thing.
(Or here is another possibility. Maybe it is intended to send one message but
accidentally sends a different message by its story, like I imagined with another movie, here.)
In any case, all I am pleading
for is to keep an open mind. I’m not
saying it is definitely a movie that conservatives can get behind but we
shouldn’t assume it is not. I mean God
forbid that Hollywood make a movie that has a message agreeable to conservatives
and we destroy it with “friendly fire.” I
think we conservatives are making a mistake assuming we know what the message
of this movie is. Now, conservatives
have every reason to expect the worst from Hollywood—the bias has been getting
pretty insufferable as of late. But if
you want to change that bias, one way to do that is by making it profitable to
either be neutral or (gasp) favorable to us.
And that means keeping an open mind in a situation like this.
I mean, I remember Charles Krauthammer
joking (paraphrase) that Fox News had its success because they discovered a niche
market that had been previously untapped: half of the country. Sooner or later, the liberal bubble in Hollywood
will start to break. Sooner or later, if
only for the desire of money, they will make movies that openly appeal to
conservatives. We should be ready for when
that happens.
---------------------------------------
P.S.: But then you might wonder “why are they pulling ads now?” Well, one answer might be devious and the
other might be stupid. The stupid answer
is they are just panicked at the thought of violence or they might think the
public would freak out. The devious
answer is that it might be harder to convince us to give up our guns, if there
is a movie calling out the violent hatred many on the left feel for those on
the right.
I tend to think it is the stupid answer
because so many on the left seem to have such a hard time comprehending how
conservatives think. Take the example of
the liberals who wish death on Dana Loesch’s children because she supports
gun rights. Now, if any liberal happens
upon this post, let me ask you this. If
someone is wishing death on your children are you more likely to 1) give
up your guns, or 2) hold on to them even tighter, because you are afraid some nutball will actually come and try to kill your children? Yes, I suppose a weaker person than Dana
might give think “if I give in to these loons, maybe my children will be safer,”
but most people would harden their position as a result. The "momma bear" syndrome is real and fierce. Wholly apart from the merits of the debate (I’m
pretty hardcore on the Second Amendment, myself), “disarm because I hope your children die” is just bad as a persuasive technique.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I lost our jobs due
to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist)
Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a
crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you
read starting here,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for
snark and site updates.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through
the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all,
leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That this is a key element in making out a harassment
claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that
any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment