Again. It's not an unusual discussion where movies are concerned. In every case in history, a movie is not going to reflect 100% the reality. At best, a movie will contain some accurate information about one part of something, and not be too far off where dramatic liberties are concerned. Generally, that's a discussion you have whenever a movie 'based on something' is released.
But the fury, the wrath against this movie is quite stunning. Most I saw on the Left initially adopted a 'they might be crazy right winger types, but we're glad the message is getting out' approach. But left of Lenin rags like Rolling Stone have been calling out the fatwas on this, making sure those trouble making liberals who think tackling the issue of child slavery is the important thing learn their lesson.
Again, the 'how accurate is this movie?' is something I've heard my whole life. That's no problem. Have the debate. But this time, you can tell it's different. There is a rage here directed at this movie that goes beyond simply 'there are problems with this film.' This is meant to attack the movie in ways similar to that other big Jim Caviezel movie back in the day.
Remember kids, there is nothing more self-righteously judgmental, intolerant or close minded than the modern Left. That is demonstrated here, as almost immediately major leftwing outlets decided the discussion about child slavery might be one thing, but attacking a movie made by non-leftists is the main thing.
You know you're directly over the target when you're drawing the most fire. that looks to be the case here. And as an aside, the level of hatred against this film may point to where the pedophiles are. Exposing their kink to the light of day is bound to bring the fury.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me think of the Passion. Same backlash then (and one Christians should have taken notice of, when you had actual Rabbis and activists (and some mainline Protestant denominations!) declaring the New Testament and Gospels Nazis racist propaganda. Which is why any movie about Jesus that doesn't attack the Christian Faith should be banned). There are times when something hits a nerve with the Left that suggests there are deeper issues involved than just 'he's not a leftists' or even 'we don't want the subject matter focused upon.'
DeleteWhen the left wants to criticize something, but they know they cannot openly say what it is really against, they like to change the focus to some innocuous side issue. Of course the movie is not 100% accurate, as is the case with literally every single movie "based on a true story" (and from what I've seen, most take far more liberties than this one did.) But they aren't really upset by the liberties, they just want to change the focus.
ReplyDeleteThe right often blunders by taking the bait. Here the natural reaction is to point out the ways that the movie is accurate, and to note that the liberties are well within expectations for movies. But it's a mistake to go for a while about this for three reasons:
1.) The left is disingenuous to begin with, so they will always find ad hoc reasons to object to your true observations. The conversation will never be over.
2.) When you are spending so long on the defensive it creates the impression that you did something wrong. Here you might get across the point "some liberties were taken, but it's mainly accurate." But the left will spin that as "people spend so long defending this movie because they know it's full of lies. They even admit it's not accurate!"
3.) (most importantly) As long as you are discussing this side issue, you aren't discussing what the left is really worried about, i.e. why a lot of elites seem very nervous to have a movie exposing child slavery.
They do this all the time. The reaction to Project Veritas leaks is always similar, and they used this playbook in the Sad Puppies kerfuffle in the sci-fi world. Sometimes they aren't able to go on the offensive but will still shift the topic from something they can't defend to a more minor sin. This happened with the Gosnell case. They of course absolutely could not talk about the horrors of that abortion clinic, so they tried to bury it. But when they couldn't the conversation was all about "should the media have covered the case in more detail?" rather than "what allowed such horrors to happen?" And when interest died down they insisted that they had covered the story, though in fact they only covered their preferred tangent.
This is so true. I recall when that speech of Mitt Romney was leaked about the 47% speech. However illegal the taping of the speech was, the press focus was entirely on the content of his speech. Then in 2016, when a speech by Hillary Clinton to a bunch of big wig investors to the gist of saying 'lie to the hoi polloi, and then behind closed doors do the real work', the focus was entirely on who got the speech, who leaked it, what was their motive, was the legality, and so on. But mendacity is almost mother's milk for modern leftwing discourse. They sure don't have facts, common sense or reality on their side.
DeleteI thought the article was mostly solid. We have to beware of confirmation bias, or the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority", where if an article is printed in a left-wing outlet, it is immediately suspect. If the article is faulty, it will show up in its internal logic. The people interviewed in the article have all devoted themselves to stop child trafficking, and the points they make, namely, that the movie is a sensationalized account of how child-trafficking works, and that the reality is a lot more nuanced. The majority of kids trafficked are 15-to-17, usually coerced by a family member, and sometimes this is the result of extreme poverty and/or being kicked out due to a family rejecting him/her for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteNot to say that children as young as 5 aren't abducted, but even Tim Ballard's own testimony (we're talking in real-life interviews at this point), has plenty of logical inconsistencies that are cause for concern.
To mention these does not downplay the existence of child trafficking. But let's make sure the donations are going to the right place before we write the check.
Understood. I get what you're saying. But it isn't that the article is wrong. If I know Hollywood, it's likely right on every point. The question is, why is it such a big deal now? That a Hollywood movie 'based on facts' might be wrong, or might sensationalize, or even dramatize events isn’t new. So why suddenly this hysteria? Those saying it exploits the topic in order to address the topic are from the same camp that lauded the movie ‘Cuties’ that sexually exploited young girls in order to bring attention to the sexual exploitation of young girls. Yet I notice except for some right-wing politicians, it was generally lauded and celebrated. RogerEbert.com gave the film four stars, and said ‘Cuties is a difficult and challenging film, pushing the idea of 'depiction does not equal endorsement' to its limit.’ Why the massive difference?
DeleteAs for the 'it could cause death and suffering' warning, that's just liberal boilerplate. Every time a conservative or Republican does something, we're notified by the press that 'experts' warn this could lead to endless death and suffering. Think of any issue like transgender this or abortion that and recall that common response.
Then we must contemplate what they are saying about the culpability of art and entertainment where real world consequences are concerned. Are they saying if a brand of entertainment does something and negative consequences occur, then the brand of entertainment is culpable? That this movie doing what it does could actually lead to harm, therefore the movie is culpable of the harm? Would that include the entire Rock genre aiming like a Death Star laser beam at young people with the call for them to take endless drugs and have endless sex?
Again, the problem isn't that the criticisms might be valid. It's why do these criticisms that typically can apply to any movie ever made about anything ever addressed suddenly rise to this level of panic? And why the radical inconsistencies when we compare this reaction to other forms of art and entertainment that typically get a pass, if not outright praise?
We have to beware of confirmation bias, or the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority", where if an article is printed in a left-wing outlet, it is immediately suspect. If the article is faulty, it will show up in its internal logic.
DeleteIt's not being in a "left-wing outlet" that's the problem, it's that it's Rolling Stone - who have disgraced themselves plenty.
The people interviewed in the article have all devoted themselves to stop child trafficking, and the points they make, namely, that the movie is a sensationalized account of how child-trafficking works, and that the reality is a lot more nuanced.
While that can be perfectly true, I wonder why I never hear about this whenever say... racism is played up in a movie. In fact, I literally saw this article:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/163331-is-roots-based-on-a-true-story-no-matter-what-the-narrative-still-resonates
Which has the subheading "Roots Doesn't need to be true to Resonate"
So I'm curious where are all the articles on the nuances of slavery when movies dealing with it come out.
The majority of kids trafficked are 15-to-17, usually coerced by a family member, and sometimes this is the result of extreme poverty and/or being kicked out due to a family rejecting him/her for whatever reason.
Yeah, I keep hearing that stat - to put it another way, how is it a comfort to a victim to go, "well don't worry honey, MOST men aren't raped."
Like... just because they're 30-40% of a way too high number, does that somehow make them less of a victim? Do you EVER respond to literally any other victim in this way about any other crime?
The Rolling Stone and its hangers on are living or reliving, depending on the age, of what they imagine were the great years of the counter culture that they believe ended a war. These people will be forever with us like weeds that sprout every spring.
ReplyDeleteThey certainly aren't going anywhere. When I was in school, an uber-narrative was that the WW2 generation needed to step down and make way for the Boomers, who would set it right. That was c. 1980. In 1992, that symbolically happened when Boomer Clinton became president. That was over 30 years ago, and those Boomers eager for the previous generation to step aside haven't returned the favor yet and show no signs of doing so. Rolling Stone likely reflects that tendency of not letting the Revolution die.
Delete