Speaking Clearly
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Full Disclosure: Leon Wolf is the E-Campaign Coordinator for the Sam Brownback for President Campaign.
Cross-posted at: The Daily Brownbacker.
Over the past several months that I've been working for the Brownback campaign, I've run into several conservatives who don't "get" Senator Brownback's emphasis on protecting and strengthening families as one of his top priorities. "Surely," they ask, "Isn't such a notion a little quaint?" I can only assume from the question that many conservatives have become desensitized to how serious the assault on the family has become. Then an article like this comes along, when a liberal speaks clearly about what they think and believe, and it becomes clear that Senator Brownback isn't engaging in hyperbole at all - the family really is under direct attack.
The article in question is an editorial about the movie "Knocked Up," which I haven't seen. Babysitters are hard to come by and expensive, so it's rare that the wife and I get to go see a movie all on our own, and this one didn't register enough interest for us to go through the headache. However, I understand two things about the movie: 1. It's about an odd couple consisting of a highly motivated career woman and a slacker guy who have a one night stand, from which a pregnancy ensues, and 2. Liberals hate this movie. Hate it. In addition to the above mentioned article, I offer this, this, and this for evidence of this fact.
Now, here is something to truly ponder. A movie whose entire premise is based around premarital sex is actually hated by the left. Why? Apparently because the movie isn't also centered around abortion. I kid you not. Observe, if you will, the following graf from the Washington Post piece:
Clearly, both women have their reasons for choosing to continue their pregnancies, and both "Knocked Up" and "Waitress" end on optimistic notes, with their formerly ambivalent moms basking in the glow of maternal devotion (also known as hormones). But in neither movie is the choice portrayed as just that, an explicit choice. Rather, Russell's and Heigl's characters approach impending motherhood with the sort of grim resignation that suggests they have no other options. It's a setup that has some viewers, especially women who came of age in a post- Roe v. Wade America, wondering just what world these movies are living in.
"I think it's shocking that the subject of abortion as a choice has been so eliminated from the discussion," says New York Press film writer Jennifer Merin, who is also president of the Alliance of Women Film Journalists. "It's not even on the table." The omission, she adds, "undermines anyone's claim that Hollywood has a liberal agenda."
Having never seen either of the movies in question, I cannot say what they do or do not ultimately undermine, but I can confidently say that the very existence of these two movies does not establish that Hollywood does not have a liberal agenda, QED. Only in a world which has completely lost its way could a movie *called* "Knocked Up" be criticized for not being liberal enough. Notice the article's commentary on the movie's moral qualities:
Indeed, it's passing strange that both films go to extreme lengths to avoid offending viewers who find abortion repugnant, but apparently think those same viewers won't be put off by Russell's character having an affair with a married man or, in "Knocked Up," protagonists who have sex outside marriage, regularly get high and use nearly every swear word in the book, from the garden-variety kind beginning with "f" to a noxious epithet for a woman's genitalia -- not to mention its male corollary, uttered by an 8-year-old.
Stunningly, the article claims that the fact that the female characters don't get abortions amounts to "moral hypocrisy" - as though anyone who has committed one moral error becomes a moral hypocrite by not summarily committing every other moral error that might be conceived of.
What we can confidently say is that the commentary about these movies - Knocked Up in particular - establishes that since Dan Quayle got shouted down for suggesting that two-parent families are the preferred way to go, that Hollywood and the people who write about Hollywood have now moved along to the point where they feel confident attempting to shout down anyone who doesn't think that abortion is the way to go.
It all leaves me moderately confused... I thought Dan Quayle was an idiot when he said that single parenthood was an undesirable situation? Apparently, liberals have come around to that belief after all this time - except that their solution, of course, is to just eliminate "parenthood" rather than eliminate "single."
Quite frankly, I have no idea how any conservative can miss the fact that the family is under direct, frontal assault these days; thankfully, every once in a while, those who are involved in the attack speak clearly, and remind us all of what they are all about.
Stunningly, the article claims that the fact that the female characters don't get abortions amounts to "moral hypocrisy" - as though anyone who has committed one moral error becomes a moral hypocrite by not summarily committing every other moral error that might be conceived of.
This is an excellent point, and one I have been thinking about a lot lately.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
that "the article claims that the fact that the female characters don't get abortions amounts to 'moral hypocrisy'".
Hornaday is complaining that the abortion issue is sidestepped. She doesn't make any sort of judgement in the article about the morality of abortion.
It doesn't amount to much of a "direct assault".
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
Her contention is that the makers of the films were observing moral scruples - or at least, respecting the moral scruples of others - by not having the characters get abortions, but that they disregarded these same moral scruples by showing drug use, premarital sex, repeated cursing, etc. etc. What she's saying is that this amounted to moral hypocrisy on the part of the *filmmakers*, not the characters in the movie. Sorry that wasn't clear.
And, I'd say her position on the morality of abortion is pretty darn clear. You don't criticize a film for not allowing its characters to seriously discuss an option that you consider to be immoral.
------------
Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
-Russell Kirk
She doesn't say anything at all in the article about the characters getting abortions. She quotes someone as saying:
"They think that if they talk about abortion, these women will not be liked by the people they perceive as being the majority."
"They" being the filmmakers. She's either saying that the filmmakers avoid having the characters talk about having abortions or that the filmmakers avoid "talking" about abortions in the film for fear of offending viewers. She's not saying anything about the characters *getting* abortions.
"You don't criticize a film for not allowing its characters to seriously discuss an option that you consider to be immoral."
Why not? Films are a great way to examine the morality of the choices we make in life. We don't expect that the characters in our movies will only talk about things that we consider to be moral, or even that they'll always make moral decisions. If I were a filmmaker who wanted to show abortion as an immoral choice, I could do so powerfully by portraying a woman who goes through with having one. We expect that films will delve into the complex moral issues we face.
I haven't seen either of the films, so I don't know how valid her criticism is. But she certainly isn't saying that the filmmakers are hypocrites for not having the characters get abortions.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
We expect that films will delve into the complex moral issues we face.
A small subset of films maybe, but I don't expect this from, say, an Adam Sandler or Chevy Chase movie. There's nothing wrong with not bringing up abortion in every movie. At least one of the two was a comedy (I've never heard of the other). Bringing up abortion isn't exactly a recipe for laughs.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Her criticism may be completely dumb, depending on the film. In fact, it was probably dumb regardless of the film. I strayed from my "factual inaccuracy" argument.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
Read the two paragraphs in question again:
Indeed, it's passing strange that both films go to extreme lengths to avoid offending viewers who find abortion repugnant, but apparently think those same viewers won't be put off by Russell's character having an affair with a married man or, in "Knocked Up," protagonists who have sex outside marriage, regularly get high and use nearly every swear word in the book, from the garden-variety kind beginning with "f" to a noxious epithet for a woman's genitalia -- not to mention its male corollary, uttered by an 8-year-old.
If moral hypocrisy in Hollywood isn't necessarily breaking news, it's instructive to cast one's memory back about 20 years. As Dana Stevens recently observed in the online journal Slate, in at least two classic 1980s movies, "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Dirty Dancing," the filmmakers featured abortion as a serious plot point "without fainting in horror at the notion."
Hornaday is rather obviously miffed that the movies made the moral choice not to have the characters have a "serious plot point" with respect to abortion - otherwise, there could be no such thing as "moral hypocrisy." In case you're unclear on the point, she reminds you of the good old days in which single women had abortions in movies (deliberately choosing two movies in which there were actual abortions). The message here is clear: it's hypocritical to not have the characters get abortions if you're going to allow drug use and F-bombs.
Why not? Films are a great way to examine the morality of the choices we make in life. We don't expect that the characters in our movies will only talk about things that we consider to be moral, or even that they'll always make moral decisions. If I were a filmmaker who wanted to show abortion as an immoral choice, I could do so powerfully by portraying a woman who goes through with having one. We expect that films will delve into the complex moral issues we face.
The problem is that if Hornaday really considered abortion to be a value-neutral choice, this editorial/review/whatever-it-is never sees print, for rather obvious reasons.
------------
Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
-Russell Kirk
I presented my argument as clearly as I could. Pursuing it further would just clutter the thread.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
I saw Knocked Up (with my wife, we both laughed. A lot). Where Hornaday goes wrong in her "analysis" is that maybe, just maybe they skip over the abortion debate precisely because they choose life in the movies. Imagine if they would have had a serious discussion on abortion (a good faith argument on both sides), then had the pro-life argument win, and thus the pregnancy continues and not the "abortion is good and right, but I'm going to have this baby" discussion? Then it'd be just like every other movie out there, why bother with it (the discussion)?
Ok, So I don't really believe that.
How about they just glaze over it because abortion has nothing to do with the movie itself. It wasn't central to the movie and everyone would have known in advance that she was keeping the baby anyways. It wasn't called "The Choice" it was called "Knocked Up." Sometimes libs need a sense of humor, imagine a comedy that doesn't want to get into a political discussion. Too many libs think that everything is a political statement.
The one thing I am quite confident in, however, is that Ann Hornaday is a humorless moron.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Leon, you're closer to the heart of the matter than you can know, not having seen the movie. For "Knocked Up" is actually a very strong argument for and portrayal of family values, far beyond the rather minimal standard of not slaughtering one's children. Of course, the family under consideration here was not started under conditions that Dan Quayle (or anyone else) would think ideal, but once this premise is established, the main characters behave quite admirably according to social conservative standards.
(Unsurprising spoilers follow.) After he finds out about the situation, Ben (the male lead, played by Seth Rogen) proposes to Alison (the female lead, Katherine Heigl)—but not immediately, such as might lead one to believe that this act is just an instinctive, gentlemanly reflex from another age. Rather, he proposes after decent getting-to-know-you period and, if I remember correctly (it's been a while since I saw it), after they have been dating for a while. He clearly means it, and hence he is clearly of the opinion that for them to be married is the best option both for their child and for the two of them. And just as clearly does Alison mean it when she refuses, since he is something of a loser and would need to get his act together to be a fit father or husband. The dramatic movement of the movie, then, is Ben getting his act together, remaking himself wholly for his (prospective) family's sake. And at the same time, Alison overcomes her own character flaws, which were preventing her from accepting Ben and which would impinge on her ability to be a good wife and mother. The flaws of each, in the end, improve the other, and the movie ends with the couple remade and reconciled, driving to their new home together with their newborn child—not yet married, but a family nonetheless.
The movie, at heart, is about the sacrifices one must make in order to make a family and to live a good life. One has moral duties even to one's companion in a one night stand, and one must make the conscious, intentional decision to live up to them. This message, I think, is very resonant with much of what social conservatives are talking about, though one certainly need not be a social conservative to espouse it. Contrast this, however, with Hornaday's dismissal of maternal devotion as "hormones." Anyone this cynical about motherhood is quite right to be troubled by this movie, even leaving the abortion issue aside.
I highly recommend this movie, both as a piece of entertainment and as a hopeful reminder that there is some degree of moral seriousness to be found even in Hollywood.
But since Sen. Brownback doesn't get the war, I don't care what else he says.
Not a Brownback supporter mind you but...
His willingness on and outspoken views on life issues IMO make him an asset to the party despite his being "wrong" on the war. While the life issue can be a "distraction" (Fred Thompson - cheap shot) at times, his outspoken views are valuable not only to help keep it a central issue but to help nudge other candidates that way.
Big tent and all that...
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
He's valuable in the very same way Ron Paul is. How's that for a backhanded compliment? With their positions on Iraq, I think they are both bigger negatives than positives and I'm eagerly awaiting the day both of them drop out of sight. We got no need for more defeatism on the war. We get enough from the other side and the MSM.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That you are trying to equate SSB's position on Iraq with Ron Paul's. Surely you didn't intend that.
------------
Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
-Russell Kirk
But they are similar enough as I'd consider them both to be anti-war positions. Each deserves about as much consideration as the other and they both have about the same chance of resulting in success (0%).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But in terms of what they contribute to the party you have:
Strong, eloquent life ethic and go-to guy on the Sudan genocide
vs.
Offbeat isolationism and Gold Standard reminiscing.
I don't think it balances.
But you should know better than to threadjack.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Indeed, it's passing strange that both films go to extreme lengths to avoid offending viewers who find abortion repugnant, but apparently think those same viewers won't be put off by Russell's character having an affair with a married man or, in "Knocked Up," protagonists who have sex outside marriage, regularly get high and use nearly every swear word in the book, from the garden-variety kind beginning with "f" to a noxious epithet for a woman's genitalia -- not to mention its male corollary, uttered by an 8-year-old.
They must think all people who find abortion repugnant live in little sheltered Christian societies. Pot use, cursing, and yes, even sex outside marriage have nothing on abortion in terms of seriousness. NOTHING. The gap is only wider speaking in a secular sense.
An aside--pot use better not be a damning offense, or my family is not in good shape.
I thought it was odd that they mentioned abortion at all. This is something that I distinctly remember thinking as I was watching the movie. As has already been noted:
1) The movie is a comedy. The morality of abortion is irrelevant. I think that everyone can agree that it most certainly isn't funny.
2) It was a movie about a dorky guy and a hot chick having a baby together. Obviously, they are going to, you know, have a baby.
THis is consistent with Apatow's prevoius film, "40 year old Virgin", in which the hero is the character who hasn't had premarital sex, and is essentially rewarded at the end of the film with fufilling, marital sex.
I was only 14 when Vice President Quayle left office, but even I remember the Dan Quayle v. Murphy Brown kerfuffle clearly.
Then, he said it was wrong to glorify single parenthood. They said he was wrong to try to make serious points from a fictional television program.
Now, they are the ones who are saying it's wrong to omit abortion from discussions. We're just left here wondering what took them so long to admit that fiction can contain serious points!
I guess we can thank the Era of PC for this, since I think that was when the left got militant about this sort of thing. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a debate to have. They could have just kept on mocking us for debating themes on television and in movies, but now they can't.
Run like Reagan!