A Response to "The Best Conservative Movies"

On February 23rd, 2009, the National Review released their list of The Best Conservative Movies along with explanations for why each pick made the list. While the full article can be found here, there were a few picks and explanations I wanted to respond to:

-The number 2 pick is "The Incredibles". Frederica Mathewes-Greene, a writer for Beliefnet.com, thinks "The Incredibles" is a good conservative movie because it "celebrates marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement". While all of this is true, there is an ideological contradiction in Mathewes-Greene's review. She describes the life of the Incredible family as "an anonymous life in the suburbs, thanks to a society that doesn’t appreciate their unique talents". Isn't a life in the "safe haven" of the suburbs one conservatives strive for? I don't think I need to actually find the numbers; suburbia and rural areas are the hot beds of conservative America. So isn't a problem for conservatives that the Incredible family are unhappy in the 'burbs?

-The number 4 pick is "Forest Gump". Charlotte Hays, co-author of the book "Somebody Is Going to Die If Lilly Beth Doesn't Catch That Bouquet", seems to think "Gump" makes a good conservative film only because Forest doesn't fall victim to the "drug-addled hippie" culture like the love of his life does. Fine, fine. What took my breath away was Hay's language. She describes Forest as "an amiable dunce" having an "IQ [that] may be room temperature". While she does give him credit for serving "as an unexpected font of wisdom", if Forest was her son, would Hays still call him an "amiable dunce"?

-Number 7 pick is "The Pursuit of Happiness". Linda Chavez, chairman (isn't Linda a woman?) of the Center for Equal Opportunity, loves this film for three reasons:"this film provides the perfect antidote to Wall Street and other Hollywood diatribes depicting the world of finance as filled with nothing but greed", the character Chris "Gardner never succumbs to self-pity, even when he and his young son take refuge in a homeless shelter" and "They’re black, but there’s no racial undertone or subtext". While no one is going to disagree that the movie is incredible and Gardner deserves huge snaps for being "an incredibly hard-working, ambitious, and smart man who wants to do better for himself and his son", there are some things Chavez misses about this story-mainly the preface and post-script. While Gardner doesn't talk about race much (at least to the press), systems of oppression based on color certainly built circumstances that led to the story in "Happiness". Gardner was motivated to achieve because he did not want to be a part of the illiteracy, imprisonment, alcoholism, abuse and other common by-products of living in an under-served community. During this youth, Gardner developed a sense of Black Pride brought on by the Black Power Movement-something conservatives most certainly would not like. And since Gardner hit it big, he has put millions of dollars behind shelters, job-placement services and basic clothing for Chicago and San Francisco homeless populations. Don't some conservatives believe those things are unwarranted hand-outs?

-While "Juno", the number 8 pick, isn't completely hailed as a conservative homerun, Kathryn Jean Lopez likes is message on abortion, how "it also exposes a broken culture in which teen sex is dehumanizing, girls struggle with 'choice,' and boys aimlessly try — and sometimes downright fail — to become men. The movie doesn’t glamorize much of anything but leaves audiences with an open-ended chance for redemption." But wait, at the end of the film, a now-single Vanessa adopts Juno's baby boy...that's not a nuclear family. Will the baby turn out ok??? Stay tuned.

-"Bravehart" is number 13 on the list. While I've never seen the film, I don't need to because it’s the review that's begging for me to respond. Arthur Herman, author of "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" believes "Braveheart taught that freedom is not just worth dying for, but also worth killing for, in defense of hearth and homeland. Six years [after its release], amid the ruins of the Twin Towers, Gibson’s message resonated with a generation of American youth who signed up to fight terrorists, instead of inviting them to join a 'constructive dialogue.' Liberals have never forgiven Gibson since." Ok, in order to believe constructive dialogue is repulsive enough to shove in between quotes, one has to be confident they are the strongest force, thus making fighting worthwhile. If we were the strongest force in the world, we would have kept 9/11 from happening. So...how do we know we are the best in the world? And 8 years later, with a failing economy and two unwon conflicts, are we the best?

-The final movie on the list is "Gran Torino". Andrew Breitbart, the proprietor of BigHollywood.Breitbart.com, likes the movie because "Dirty Harry blows away political correctness, takes on the bad guys, and turns a boy into a man in the process. He even encourages the cultural assimilation of immigrants." But two sentences before this quote, Breitbart acknowledges that Eastwood's character "comes to realize that his exotic Hmong neighbors embody traditional social values more than his own disaster of a Caucasian nuclear family." So...how does Eastwood's character encourage cultural assimilation in a family that lives closer to American "ideals" than his own? I'm confused. Breitbart closes his review of "Torino" by saying that the film "feels so good, you knew the Academy would ignore it." Or maybe the Academy was confused too.