Discussion:
Ann Coulter: Kubrick's biggest fan!
(too old to reply)
Your Pal Brian
2003-06-25 05:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Just surfed onto this by chance (I was googling "ann coulter
nekkid", of course) and since I know what fans of hers so many
of you are...

It seems the National Review staff were discussing the 2001 Oscar
nominees, and everyone's favorite vituperative bitch-goddess
decided to ignore the stock contenders and review a good movie
instead. Points for taste, you must admit. Here it is:


If the Academy Awards represented a sincere quest to locate
the best movie of the year, the clear winner would be Dr.
Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bomb. For the 37th straight year. Without having actually seen
any of the movies nominated for an award this year, I can state
categorically that none of them will surpass Stanley Kubrick's
masterpiece.

That's why all these ceaseless Hollywood-awards ceremonies are so
excruciatingly insipid. As Woody Allen proposed, How about:
"Best Fascist Dictator — Adolf Hitler"?

The basic plot of Dr. Strangelove is that an American general,
enraged by the fluoridation of the water, unilaterally launches a
nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, thus setting off the Soviets'
Doomsday Machine, which blows up the world in the last scene.
The Soviets built their Doomsday machine to keep up with the
Americans whom they believed were nervously building their own
Doomsday machine: "We read about it in the New York Times," the
Soviet diplomat explains.

Like Shakespeare and the Bible, Dr. Strangelove is a font of
memorable phrases. Yeah sure, everybody knows the classics — "I
do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence";
"You'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company"; and, "You can't
fight in here. This is the War Room!"

But, really, every line is great. Gradually the less-conspicuous
Strangelove lines seep into your vocabulary and become part of
the lexicon:

"I smell a big fat commie rat."

"The redcoats are coming!"

"The premier man of the people, but he is also a man, if you know
what I mean."

These are paraphrases. Alas, I don't have a copy of the script.
I'd restate more of the plot and dialogue, but writing about a
great movie is like writing about a poem: Didn't the poet say
it better?

One question that has always intrigued me is whether Dr.
Strangelove's cult status is strictly a conservative phenomenon.
I include movie references in only one out of every dozen columns
or so. But it's always the same movie. Do liberals obsessively
recite lines from Dr. Strangelove, too? Could this be, finally,
a common bond that we share with our liberal friends?

Admittedly, they might not like Peter Sellers's parody of Adlai
Stevenson as the hapless, milquetoast, Carteresque president. Or
the (off-screen) Soviet premier being portrayed as a drunken
Russian who must always be asked by the president to turn the
music down. But Dr. Strangelove is, after all, a movie about a
Bircher setting off a nuclear war. Liberals ought to like that.

Alas no. When it comes to nuclear war, liberals sound like the
punch line to a feminist joke. ("That's not funny!") Remember,
Dr. Strangelove is a comedy. Peter Sellers plays three different
parts (only because he fell off the bomb during filming, injured
himself, and was unable to play four). Here are some real-life
quotes from movie reviews of Dr. Strangelove in the past few
years:

"… a forceful reminder that somewhere in the human spirit lurks
the mad impulse and the means to blow up the world."

"… a cautionary tale of an ideological war from which there is no
return, a message still relevant today."

"… the image of nuclear holocaust just a button and a madman away
still haunts us."

"… scary … "

Please. If we can't laugh about nuclear annihilation, what can
we laugh about?

These are the people who wanted to stock cyanide pills at
college-health centers in case of nuclear attack. When President
Ronald Reagan warmed up a radio mike once by saying, "In five
minutes, we begin bombing," liberals solemnly manufactured
posters showcasing the quote superimposed over a sinister-looking
Reagan … at five minutes to noon! I don't know if any liberals
bought the posters, but conservatives couldn't stock them fast
enough.

Dr. Strangelove is most likely the funniest movie ever made.
Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/oscar/oscar-symposium032401.shtml

Brian
Werz Mungle
2003-06-25 05:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Pal Brian
Just surfed onto this by chance (I was googling "ann coulter
nekkid", of course) and since I know what fans of hers so many
of you are...
It seems the National Review staff were discussing the 2001 Oscar
nominees, and everyone's favorite vituperative bitch-goddess
decided to ignore the stock contenders and review a good movie
Ms. Coulter must be too young to remember DS was considered scandalously
anti-military, anti-American, anti-conservative at the time of its release
for things like not placing the blame for the arms race squarely on the
Soviets, for daring to mock the American military, have an American start
WWIII, etc. And now DS is the favorite movie of a Conservative mouthpiece?
"O the times they are a' changin."
Wordsmith
2003-06-25 17:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werz Mungle
Post by Your Pal Brian
Just surfed onto this by chance (I was googling "ann coulter
nekkid", of course) and since I know what fans of hers so many
of you are...
It seems the National Review staff were discussing the 2001 Oscar
nominees, and everyone's favorite vituperative bitch-goddess
decided to ignore the stock contenders and review a good movie
Ms. Coulter must be too young to remember DS was considered scandalously
anti-military, anti-American, anti-conservative at the time of its release
for things like not placing the blame for the arms race squarely on the
Soviets, for daring to mock the American military, have an American start
WWIII, etc. And now DS is the favorite movie of a Conservative mouthpiece?
"O the times they are a' changin."
Some critic said the film was the best ad Moscow could ever hope to have.
(Paraphrase.)

Wordsmith :)
Boaz
2003-06-26 05:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werz Mungle
Post by Your Pal Brian
Just surfed onto this by chance (I was googling "ann coulter
nekkid", of course) and since I know what fans of hers so many
of you are...
It seems the National Review staff were discussing the 2001 Oscar
nominees, and everyone's favorite vituperative bitch-goddess
decided to ignore the stock contenders and review a good movie
Ms. Coulter must be too young to remember DS was considered scandalously
anti-military, anti-American, anti-conservative at the time of its release
for things like not placing the blame for the arms race squarely on the
Soviets, for daring to mock the American military, have an American start
WWIII, etc. And now DS is the favorite movie of a Conservative mouthpiece?
"O the times they are a' changin."
Ann Coulter is living proof that one can be a graduate of Cornell and
the University of Michigan law school and still be an educated idiot.
She seems to lack the ability to grasp the historical context in which
DS was made. Perhaps because it was "only a movie" that she didn't do
her homework and learn more about the reaction from critics and
conservatives when the film was first released, as well as the
political sensibilities of those who made it. Yes, there was some
negative reaction from liberals, but that may have been because the
film didn't offer any relief for their particular sensibilites, unlike
such films as "Fail Safe" or "On the Beach," the latter of the two
wearing its politics a bit more on its sleeve than the former. But
then I've known a few conservatives who embraced an anti-corporate,
anti-fascist film like "Robocop," or praise the "individuality" and
"strength" of Tarzan, who is also anti-gun, pro-environment,
anti-capitalist (he hates hunters killing animals for profit), who
lives in a treehouse with a woman out of wedlock, which goes against
any sense of "family values" as their group preaches about it. So I
suppose it should come as no surprise that someone like Coulter will
see in the film what she wants to see in it to help validate her
liking of it.

Boaz
col_kurtz
2003-06-30 00:16:23 UTC
Permalink
This argument is absurd. You are all trying to mold what Kubrick
might have liked and felt intoyour own politics, and at the same
time spewing hatred and rejectionof the other side's point of
view. The few conservatives that have spoken out have been
much more peaceful than your so calledliberal "open mindedness".
The truth is you cannot polarize SK's work to the left or right.
That'swhat's so great about it. And yet this board seems to be
predominantly bush hating anti-defenselibs who are so arrogant as
to think they know what the true SK interpretation is, and of course it
is in line with the left. How could SK possibly have had anything in
common with conservatives whomyou love hating so much,...for doing what
again? Being filled with hatred and warmongering?

This partisan bickering is a joke. While you all argue some people are
actually writing and makingfilms, not reaching the pinnacle of their
notoriety in a newsgroup. I hope and truly believe that
there are real filmmakers on this board that realize the absurdity of
politicizing SK's work so heavily. Of couse politics matter, but to
let it consume the value of art is unnecessary.
Post by Werz Mungle
Post by Your Pal Brian
It seems the National Review staff were discussing the 2001 Oscar
nominees, and everyone's favorite vituperative bitch-goddess
decided to ignore the stock contenders and review a good movie
Ms. Coulter must be too young to remember DS was considered scandalously
anti-military, anti-American, anti-conservative at the time of its release
for things like not placing the blame for the arms race squarely on the
Soviets, for daring to mock the American military, have an American start
WWIII, etc. And now DS is the favorite movie of a Conservative mouthpiece?
"O the times they are a' changin."
Too young, definitely. But, also, too blindfolded, too birdbrained,
too whiney, too right wing(s)....and with (two) right wings, the loopy
flights of a squawking, blinkered hawk, are pathetic, indeed.
Oh, and she missed the target, too, despite her seeming genuine
affection for DS. Did she actually SEE it? Forgot. Vision bounces
off of blinders.
Thornhill
Padraig L Henry
2003-07-01 20:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by col_kurtz
This argument is absurd. You are all trying to mold what Kubrick
might have liked and felt intoyour own politics, and at the same
time spewing hatred and rejectionof the other side's point of
view. The few conservatives that have spoken out have been
much more peaceful than your so calledliberal "open mindedness".
The truth is you cannot polarize SK's work to the left or right.
That'swhat's so great about it. And yet this board seems to be
predominantly bush hating anti-defenselibs who are so arrogant as
to think they know what the true SK interpretation is, and of course it
is in line with the left. How could SK possibly have had anything in
common with conservatives whomyou love hating so much,...for doing what
again? Being filled with hatred and warmongering?
This partisan bickering is a joke. While you all argue some people are
actually writing and makingfilms, not reaching the pinnacle of their
notoriety in a newsgroup. I hope and truly believe that
there are real filmmakers on this board that realize the absurdity of
politicizing SK's work so heavily. Of couse politics matter, but to
let it consume the value of art is unnecessary.
... as Leni Riefenstahl still likes to argue -----
Magic7Ball
2003-07-02 09:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by col_kurtz
This argument is absurd. You are all trying to mold what Kubrick
might have liked and felt intoyour own politics, and at the same
time spewing hatred and rejectionof the other side's point of
view.
This has been the big joke of A.M.K. as of late. Posters (who seek world
peace) have turned this forum into a warzone of words, complete with an
ousting of Katharina Kubrick. How are we going to achieve global harmony if
we can't even acheive it in a friggin' newsgroup?
Post by col_kurtz
This partisan bickering is a joke. While you all argue some people are
actually writing and makingfilms, not reaching the pinnacle of their
notoriety in a newsgroup. I hope and truly believe that
there are real filmmakers on this board that realize the absurdity of
politicizing SK's work so heavily.
There are.
Post by col_kurtz
Of couse politics matter, but to
let it consume the value of art is unnecessary.
Since I don't contribute much to the group, I can't complain. However, I can
attest meaningful dialogue pertaining to Kubrick cinema has greatly
diminished since this newsgroup became a daily collection of Anti-American
articles.
Werz Mungle
2003-07-02 16:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by col_kurtz
This argument is absurd. You are all trying to mold what Kubrick
might have liked and felt intoyour own politics, and at the same
time spewing hatred and rejectionof the other side's point of
view.
The main point I was making is that Coulter seems blissfully unaware that DS
was considered pinko at the time of its release, and while conservative she
may enjoy it, her idea that liberals would be hard pressed to like the film
is total fantasy. She must have seen all the military hardware and assumed
it was a gung-ho ride.I imagine when she sees Major Kong or General
Turgidson launch into one of their absurd righty speeches, she's sitting at
home like a ditto head saying "Yeah, you tell it like it is! Yeah!" In
summation, it is Ann Coulter who is doing what you describe.
M4RV1N
2003-06-26 04:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Pal Brian
Brian
Just surfed onto this by chance (I was googling "ann coulter
nekkid", of course) and since I know what fans of hers so many
of you are...
It seems the National Review staff were discussing the 2001 Oscar
nominees, and everyone's favorite vituperative bitch-goddess
decided to ignore the stock contenders and review a good movie
If the Academy Awards represented a sincere quest to locate
the best movie of the year, the clear winner would be Dr.
Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bomb. For the 37th straight year. Without having actually seen
any of the movies nominated for an award this year, I can state
categorically that none of them will surpass Stanley Kubrick's
masterpiece.
<snipped the rest>

This is one of the strangest things I've ever come across in regards to SK film
reactions. "Dr. S" was vilified by conservatives and even "moderates" in the
sixties. I think there are two things at work here: Coulter's unequaled myopia
causing a misapprehension and failure of understanding, and what I've always
called "conservative drift."

To take the latter first, there are always certain positions the pig-ignorant
and reactionary types take that must, eventually be abandoned by every member
of that group (slavery, child labor, women's vote, civil rights, etc. have all
be conceded over time as result of this drift). In this sense the right wing's
hatred of "Dr. S" had to fade by the year 2003.

But that's not enough to explain this glowing review, and that brings me to the
first point, which is the phenomenon of Coulter. Once in turning past CSPAN I
caught part of one of her lectures in which she stated, >completely seriously<,
(let me repeat that) >entirely, completely seriously<, that the Native
Americans were blessed to have caucasions "take over" because it brought them
Christianity, better clothes, and medicine. That is insight into the knowledge
and thinking ability of this individual.

So I think Coulter, in seeing the film through her raging paranoid ideology,
saw a film >making fun of the notion of worrying about nuclear war<. Kubrick
made a remark once about people seeing what they like in films, but this kind
of takes the concept into a new dimension.

I think a Kubrick quote is pertinent here. Speaking of a trivial attitude
towards the possibility of nuclear annihilation, he said:

"This is extremely pernicious, of course, because it aborts the kind of fury
and indignation that should galvanize the world into defusing a situation where
a few political leaders are seriously prepared to incinerate millions out of
some misguided sense of national interest."

Mark Ervin
OtiGoji
2003-06-26 14:51:49 UTC
Permalink
the best movie of the year, the clear winner would be Dr.>Strangelove or: How
I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bomb. For the 37th straight year.
none of them will surpass Stanley Kubrick's
masterpiece.
every line is great.
Dr.
Strangelove's cult status is strictly a conservative phenomenon.
Do liberals obsessively
recite lines from Dr. Strangelove, too?
Old-time liberals sure didn't.

Let me ignore the current Coulter question and testify regarding my opinions of
the old time "liberal" distancing from Dr. Strangelove (the greatest movie ever
made).

I think it was just too much irreverent fun for '60s doctrinaire Ban-The-Bomb
peaceniks.
I once heard a woman yelling "This isn't funny" and come unglued, loudly
berating the characters on the screen. I would say Strangelove is the least
politically correct movie ever made.
I also think by portraying the Sovs as eager participants in the "arms race,
the space race and the peace race" Dr. Strangelove is off the '60s peacenik
reservation.

Am I making too sweeping a generalization by suggesting the Strangelove was
just too much hip, intelligent fun for the pipe-smoking,
turtleneck-and-goatee-wearing college professors of that era?
Was that question too rhetorical?

I like to believe that the old time Ban The Bomb crowd resented a movie that
was more intelligent than they were. Film critics in 1964 certainly hated a
movie that was vastly more intelligent than they were.
Of course Goldwater people probably hated a movie that crucified them, but I
like to think they could giggle while their ox was being gored.

That's it, the Old Left was humorless. Case closed.





Otius Gojius
"I have found that if one wants to create the impression of great skill, it is
advantageous actually to possess great skill." - Darwin Ortiz
Your Pal Brian
2003-06-26 19:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by OtiGoji
Post by Your Pal Brian
Do liberals obsessively
recite lines from Dr. Strangelove, too?
Old-time liberals sure didn't.
This is absurdist revisionist history. Liberals of the 1960s largely
embraced the film. In fact, what is now known as the "satire boom" of
the early 1960s, popular on college campuses of the era, was socially
conscious and leftist in tone. (For example the LPs of Tom Lehrer and
the popularity of Beyond the Fringe.)
Yes and no. Or maybe perhaps. I've been reading A Great Silly Grin, Humphrey
Carpenter's quite good history of this very same "satire boom" in England.

The typical angry young man of the time (Alan Bennett, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore,
the Goons, the Pythons, etc.) was usually a young over-achiever who found himself
denied any hope of opportunity in the stiflingly bland "Third Way" consensus of
Harold "Never had it so good" Macmillan. That, I think, is the system they were
rebelling against more than anything: a vaguely socialistic coalition of the dull,
the ordinary, and the mediocre.

Politically they were a mish-mash. The book, for instance, quotes a rant by
Dennis Potter about what's wrong with Britain Today; he lists materialism right
next to "disrespect for authority".

Or the Oxford humor mag that one week advertised a boardgame called Arms Race
(pieces shaped like Ike, Kruschev, etc, with a Strangelovian mushroom cloud at the
finish line), and the next week advertised a course on How To Be A Beat ("Naive?
Gullible? Stable? Frustrated? Untalented? Send NOW for 6-week correspondence
course...")

The usual word that gets applied to this crowd in contemporary reviews is
"disaffiliated". Whatever-it-is-I'm-against-it" sort of thing.

Brian
Alan Andres
2003-06-26 22:09:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:39:51 GMT, Your Pal Brian
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by OtiGoji
Post by Your Pal Brian
Do liberals obsessively
recite lines from Dr. Strangelove, too?
Old-time liberals sure didn't.
This is absurdist revisionist history. Liberals of the 1960s largely
embraced the film. In fact, what is now known as the "satire boom" of
the early 1960s, popular on college campuses of the era, was socially
conscious and leftist in tone. (For example the LPs of Tom Lehrer and
the popularity of Beyond the Fringe.)
Yes and no. Or maybe perhaps. I've been reading A Great Silly Grin, Humphrey
Carpenter's quite good history of this very same "satire boom" in England.
Agreed. Carpenter's book is quite good on British satire during this
period.
Post by Your Pal Brian
The typical angry young man of the time (Alan Bennett, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore,
the Goons, the Pythons, etc.) was usually a young over-achiever who found himself
denied any hope of opportunity in the stiflingly bland "Third Way" consensus of
Harold "Never had it so good" Macmillan. That, I think, is the system they were
rebelling against more than anything: a vaguely socialistic coalition of the dull,
the ordinary, and the mediocre.
True, however their audience was largely among the young Labour
supporters.
Post by Your Pal Brian
Politically they were a mish-mash. The book, for instance, quotes a rant by
Dennis Potter about what's wrong with Britain Today; he lists materialism right
next to "disrespect for authority".
Worth noting that Potter was a writer on THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS
and was a Labour candidate in the early 1960s. (I assume you've also
read Carpenter's Potter bio also.)

In the US, Tom Lehrer's LPs were popular on college campuses. (He
later worked briefly on the American version of TWTWTW.)

I guess I'm showing my age...
M4RV1N
2003-06-27 04:12:53 UTC
Permalink
OtiGoji
Am I making too sweeping a generalization
I think your problem is a bit more basic; you do not have the slightest idea
what you are talking about with regard to any of this. Mr. Andres already
parked your head five-hundred feet over the center field bleachers, but here's
a quote from the Boxen article at TKS:
~~~
There was, of course, resistance to the film from conservative elements.
Kubrick's vision ruffled a lot of patriotic feathers, as is evident from two
letters written to the New York Times at the time of the film's release. "Dr.
Strangelove is straight propaganda, and dangerous propaganda at that," wrote
Jeanne McQuade. "It is an anti-American tract unmatched in invective by even
our declared enemies." Michael Getler added that the film "indulges in the most
insidious and highly dangerous form of public opinion tampering concerning a
vital sector of our national life, a sector which needs public funds, public
understanding and public support to do its job." Some of the actual reviews
expressed sentiments similar to these two letters. Bosley Crowther, writing for
the New York Times, voiced his own frustration with the film in two separate
reviews. In the first he protested, "When virtually everybody turns up stupid
or insane -- or, what is worse, psychopathic -- I want to know what this
picture proves" (31 Jan. 1964, 16:1 ). In the second review he added that the
film was "a bit too contemptuous of our defense establishment for my comfort
and taste" (in Suid 231-22). Other attacks on the film accused it of
inaccurately portraying those in charge of the bomb as complete fools and of
misrepresenting accidental nuclear war safe guard procedures. "A professional
foreign policy expert" wrote that "had [Kubrick] so cared he could have easily
ascertained the publicly available facts under the command and control of our
nuclear forces" (Wainright 15; qtd in Wainright 15). The satire of Dr.
Strangelove appeared to have been taken quite seriously by patriots and
military experts.
~~~

Mark Ervin
OtiGoji
2003-06-27 18:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by M4RV1N
you do not have the slightest idea
what you are talking about with regard to any of this.
You could be right, but I am a pretty well-informed fool.

The rest of your post is fine but does not refute anything I said. In fact your
points back up my contention that Dr. Strangelove did not receive widespread
rave reviews on release.

I never said The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy embraced Dr. Strangelove in 1964
(and I don't know nothin' about no Ann Coulter, neither.). As I recall Mr.
Goldwater's prized oxen were being gored.

I also remember the Old Left antiwar elders seem to shy away from the movie.
Antiwar academics and community leaders were not always in solidarity with
pot-smoking revolutionaries.
I am sure Dr. Strangelove was always a college campus favorite, though. During
the '60s and '70s I think it was viewed as sci fi or something less than its
current masterpiece status. I don't remember the adjective "Strangelovian"
entering the pundits' lexicon until the Reagan years.

Even though cinema specialists now embrace Dr. Strangelove, I don't think the
masses (you know, the millions crowding the cineplexes to see this summer's big
hits) really know much about Strangelove except that guy rides the bomb.



Otius Gojius
"I have found that if one wants to create the impression of great skill, it is
advantageous actually to possess great skill." - Darwin Ortiz
Padraig L Henry
2003-07-06 23:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by M4RV1N
OtiGoji
Am I making too sweeping a generalization
I think your problem is a bit more basic; you do not have the slightest idea
what you are talking about with regard to any of this. Mr. Andres already
parked your head five-hundred feet over the center field bleachers, but here's
~~~
There was, of course, resistance to the film from conservative elements.
Kubrick's vision ruffled a lot of patriotic feathers, as is evident from two
letters written to the New York Times at the time of the film's release. "Dr.
Jeanne McQuade. "It is an anti-American tract unmatched in invective by even
our declared enemies." Michael Getler added that the film "indulges in the most
insidious and highly dangerous form of public opinion tampering concerning a
vital sector of our national life, a sector which needs public funds, public
understanding and public support to do its job." Some of the actual reviews
expressed sentiments similar to these two letters. Bosley Crowther, writing for
the New York Times, voiced his own frustration with the film in two separate
reviews. In the first he protested, "When virtually everybody turns up stupid
or insane -- or, what is worse, psychopathic -- I want to know what this
picture proves" (31 Jan. 1964, 16:1 ). In the second review he added that the
film was "a bit too contemptuous of our defense establishment for my comfort
and taste" (in Suid 231-22). Other attacks on the film accused it of
inaccurately portraying those in charge of the bomb as complete fools and of
misrepresenting accidental nuclear war safe guard procedures. "A professional
foreign policy expert" wrote that "had [Kubrick] so cared he could have easily
ascertained the publicly available facts under the command and control of our
nuclear forces" (Wainright 15; qtd in Wainright 15). The satire of Dr.
Strangelove appeared to have been taken quite seriously by patriots and
military experts.
Indeed, a mirror image of the kind of nuclear crisis portrayed in Dr
Strangelove was unearthed just last October (a crisis that occured at
the very time Kubrick was filming Dr S, though the threat was related
to Soviet nuclear submarines rather than American B-52s, and the
actual crisis was averted - as opposed to caused - by a lone officer).
It was discovered, to the shock and horror of those who paid
attention, that, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the world
was literally one word away from probably terminal nuclear war.
Russian submarines with nuclear weapons were under attack by US
destroyers. Several commanders thought a nuclear war was on, and gave
the order to shoot nuclear missiles. It was all at the final moment
countermanded by one officer. That's why we're still around to talk.
And there have been plenty of such cases since.

Well yes; Coulter reminds me of the Bob Roberts character in Tim
Robbin's film, gleefully (mis)appropriating Bob Dylan rebel songs for
arch-conservative electioneering and anti-social ideological
rhetorical purposes, all in a thoroughly confused swamp of
post-modernist, reactionary revisionism. But without any of the irony
or humour.

Clearly, Coulter and her ilk (eg. see that offensive multi-newsgroup
thread criticising the satirical play The Madness of George Dubya
hereabouts) invoke a bastardised, parasitical re-interpretation of Dr
S for purposes of legitimising and "normalising" in the comatose minds
of an increasingly paranoid population (compliments of the
fear-mongering, Bush-sponsoring corporate media) the possible future
use, as "conventional weaponry", of nuclear weapons. For it is now
official policy (see The Nuclear Posture Review. the military planning
document Congress mandated in 2000 and the Bush administration
delivered as official policy in 2002), Noam Chomsky's prognosis:
"There's a new doctrine that was announced last September in the
National Security Strategy. It declares the right to attack any
potential challenge to the global dominance of the United States. The
potential is in the eye of the observer, so that, in effect, gives the
authorisation to attack essentially anyone. Could that lead to a
nuclear war? Very definitely."

The Natural Resources Defense Council has published an analysis of the
NPR called "Faking Nuclear Restraint."
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/restraint.asp

Additionally, the Bush administration has lobbied for the repeal of a
10-year ban on research and development of "low-yield" nuclear
weapons. Opponents have argued these smaller nukes would blur the
distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weaponry, making nuclear
warfare more palatable, a notion that obviously appeals to the likes
of Coulter.

In a late May vote, Senators Edward Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein were
unable to preserve the ban. On the Senate floor, Kennedy asked: "Is
half a Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter Hiroshima OK? Is a little mushroom
cloud OK? That's absurd. The issue is too important. If we build it,
we'll use it."

http://www.moveon.org/r?445

Senator Feinstein on low-yield nuclear weapons:
"The political effects of U.S. pursuit of new nuclear weapons could
well be to legitimize nuclear weapons, and U.S. nuclear planning could
serve as a pretext for other countries and, worse, terrorist groups
such as al-Qaeda, to build or acquire their own bombs."

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-arms.htm

See also Slate magazine on the Pentagon's Dr. Strangelove, Keith
Payne, whose nuclear infatuation is now making policy. Of nuclear war,
Payne once wrote: "an intelligent United States offensive [nuclear]
strategy, wedded to homeland defenses, should reduce U.S. casualties
to approximately 20 million ... a level compatible with national
survival and recovery."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082846

TansalQ
2003-06-27 04:58:08 UTC
Permalink
You know, I have never understood why people always feel that you have to be a
liberal to enjoy a Kubrick movie. I am fairly conservative and Kubrick is my
favorite director. Does this mean that I am trying to get something out of a
Kubrick movie that isn't there? NO!!!! It means that when I watch a movie,
if
I enjoy it I think it is good, and if I don't I think it is bad. I do not
think a movie is good or bad just because it brings up a point of view that I
don't agree with. I am not a defender of Ann Coulter, but if she thinks Dr.
Strangelove is a masterpiece, don't just assume that she doesn't "get" the
movie. Maybe she just really likes it and she doesn't care what conservatives
reactions to it at the time were. Just my two cents.
Matt
Agreed. I suppose I could be labeled a liberal, but I loathed The
Contender, and I get the feeling that this was targeted towards liberals.

Tansal
AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs
2003-07-01 15:48:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:58:08 GMT, in article
Post by TansalQ
Agreed. I suppose I could be labeled a liberal, but I loathed The
Contender, and I get the feeling that this was targeted towards liberals.
Tansal
Really? I suppose I could be labeled a conserative, and I loved "The
Contender," even as I was very aware of a very apparent overt "liberal bias" and
the painfully awkward stereotypes and cliches in which it trafficked.

I still found it compelling as movie making, for some reason. I loved "Thirteen
Days," even though it depicts the military as gonzo idiots and glorifies a
Democrat administration.

I love "The Hudsucker Proxy," and I don't avoid it simply because Tim Robbins
has made an ass of himself lately. Ditto for "The Player."

Yes, I have contempt for those who engage in facile and easy putdowns and
insults of political and business leaders who, unlike so many netizens, must
grapple with real responsibilities, real decisions and real consequences, but
that doesn't prevent me from counting, say, "Hearts and Minds" as among my
favorite films. But just because I like that sublime film doesn't mean that I
must automatically approve of complete and utter hackwork like "Bowling for
Columbine" because someone might view them as sharing a "left wing" point of
view.

On the other hand, I hated "Dark Blue" (which lays the blame for all that is
wrong with Los Angeles on corruption within the LAPD). That film isn't bad
because it contains left-wing speechfying; it's just a bad film, period, made a
tad more unpleasant by being so unpleasantly didactic.

Quite simply, there are good and bad films, and their goodness and badness has a
rich existence outside of the nonaesthtic, political realm.

And, of course, I love Kubrick's work. His work cuts across all political
viewpoints and is accessible to everyone. No one political point of view can
claim his imprimatur, despite the frequent and strenuous insistence to the
contrary one often sees here. Kubrick's work and words show a man who, despite
a prodigious intellect, was never too certain that he had all the answers.
Those who emulate him would be wise to appreciate that intellectual modesty.
Werz Mungle
2003-06-27 10:12:09 UTC
Permalink
You know, I have never understood why people always feel that you have to
be a
liberal to enjoy a Kubrick movie. I am fairly conservative and Kubrick is
my
favorite director. Does this mean that I am trying to get something out
of a
Kubrick movie that isn't there? NO!!!! It means that when I watch a
movie, if
I enjoy it I think it is good, and if I don't I think it is bad. I do not
think a movie is good or bad just because it brings up a point of view
that I
don't agree with. I am not a defender of Ann Coulter, but if she thinks
Dr.
Strangelove is a masterpiece, don't just assume that she doesn't "get" the
movie. Maybe she just really likes it and she doesn't care what
conservatives
reactions to it at the time were. Just my two cents.
Matt
It's not as if Coulter saw it as a liberal movie and liked it anyway. She
is perplexed that liberals could find anything to like in the film and sees
it as a conservative favorite. Given this reaction I'd have to maintain she
doesn't quite "get" the film, especially in the context of the times in
which it was made. The Right just didn't have a sense of humor about things
that might be considered that time's political correctness, or today's
patriotic correctness. While today's young conservative may be able to
dismiss its criticisms because it is an old movie, I think if an equivalent
movie came out today it would draw the wrath of someone like Coulter. About
the closest one I can think of is "Three Kings," except the soldiers in that
one turned out to be competent and heroic in the end. It didn't so much mock
the military as the administration that sent them. That weird
support-the-troops-even-if-you- don't-support-the-war mental two-step. It
might be mildly interesting to know what she thought of "Three Kings."

Here are a few quotes from Coulter's Strangelove review.

"One question that has always intrigued me is whether Dr.
Strangelove's cult status is strictly a conservative phenomenon."

"Admittedly, they might not like Peter Sellers's parody of Adlai
Stevenson as the hapless, milquetoast, Carteresque president.

He happens to be only one of two voices of reason in the film (the other
being Mandrake), but Coulter interprets him as weak.

"Or the (off-screen) Soviet premier being portrayed as a drunken
Russian who must always be asked by the president to turn the
music down. But Dr. Strangelove is, after all, a movie about a
Bircher setting off a nuclear war. Liberals ought to like that."

At least she got the drunken premier, one of the few jabs in the film that
might be considered conservative in a Right vs. Left "Crossfire" kind of
way). The other's are:

The American officer offering a Jamaican cigar to the Russian Ambassador
after he requests a Cuban one:
"Thank you no. I do not support the work of Imperialist stooges."
"Oh, only Commie stooges, eh?"

The Russian Premier portrayed not only as a drunk but a womanizer. And
probably an adulterer, though his marital status is not mentioned.

The Ambassador actually turning out to be a spy with a hidden camera as
suspected by General Turgidson.

For what it's worth my very conservative, John Wayne loving father thought
it was a terrible film. He also loathed Chinatown because the bad guy won.
And The Godfather for glamorizing criminals. (I think he had a point there.)

Btw, is it just me or does Mr. First Strike George Bush Jr. look an awful
lot like Mr. First Strike General Jack D. Ripper? Especially when
photographed from below eye level.
Brian Siano
2003-06-27 13:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werz Mungle
Here are a few quotes from Coulter's Strangelove review.
"One question that has always intrigued me is whether Dr.
Strangelove's cult status is strictly a conservative phenomenon."
"Admittedly, they might not like Peter Sellers's parody of Adlai
Stevenson as the hapless, milquetoast, Carteresque president.
He happens to be only one of two voices of reason in the film (the other
being Mandrake), but Coulter interprets him as weak.
"Or the (off-screen) Soviet premier being portrayed as a drunken
Russian who must always be asked by the president to turn the
music down. But Dr. Strangelove is, after all, a movie about a
Bircher setting off a nuclear war. Liberals ought to like that."
To me, this is more a reflection on Coulter's ignorance than anything
else. _Dr. Strangelove_ has been universally hailed as a classic for
nearly forty years now. It's no more a "cult" movie than _Citizen Kane_;
and the only way it can be regarded as a "cult" movie is because most
people just don't know about a lot of old, great classic films.

I also don't see its appeal as having to cleave along political lines.
Yes, liberals love the goofiness of Scott's and Hayden's characters...
but they fail to notice that President Muffley is a parody of an
ineffectual, Stevensonian Democrat. Conservatives, on the other hand,
can appreciate the lunacy of the film's plot just as much as anyone else.

Look at it this way. The creators of _South Park_ are Republicans, but
their humor cuts in all directions, and this year they're working with
noted liberal Norman Lear.

And I think it's worth noting that the division between "liberals" and
"conservatives" is a little simplistic. For one thing, Terry Southern
was a man of the Left throughout his life, and there has always been a
distinction between the Left and liberals.
S.J.Carras
2003-06-27 22:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Ann Coulter: Kubrick's biggest fan!
Date: 6/27/2003 6:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
Post by Werz Mungle
Here are a few quotes from Coulter's Strangelove review.
"One question that has always intrigued me is whether Dr.
Strangelove's cult status is strictly a conservative phenomenon."
"Admittedly, they might not like Peter Sellers's parody of Adlai
Stevenson as the hapless, milquetoast, Carteresque president.
He happens to be only one of two voices of reason in the film (the other
being Mandrake), but Coulter interprets him as weak.
"Or the (off-screen) Soviet premier being portrayed as a drunken
Russian who must always be asked by the president to turn the
music down. But Dr. Strangelove is, after all, a movie about a
Bircher setting off a nuclear war. Liberals ought to like that."
To me, this is more a reflection on Coulter's ignorance than anything
else. _Dr. Strangelove_ has been universally hailed as a classic for
nearly forty years now. It's no more a "cult" movie than _Citizen Kane_;
and the only way it can be regarded as a "cult" movie is because most
people just don't know about a lot of old, great classic films.
I also don't see its appeal as having to cleave along political lines.
Yes, liberals love the goofiness of Scott's and Hayden's characters...
but they fail to notice that President Muffley is a parody of an
ineffectual, Stevensonian Democrat. Conservatives, on the other hand,
can appreciate the lunacy of the film's plot just as much as anyone else.
Look at it this way. The creators of _South Park_ are Republicans
ZOUNDS!! (As Jim Backus's Thurston Howell on GILLIGAN might say) I didn't know
that. - given the outrage at their stuff., Then again Frank Sinatra was a
:"Republican: and he was hated by reactionaries forever and a day.:-)

_______
"So what do you think-you're Elvis or something?"-Shania Twain
M4RV1N
2003-06-28 04:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Brian Siano
To me, this is more a reflection on Coulter's ignorance than anything
else. _Dr. Strangelove_ has been universally hailed as a classic for
nearly forty years now. It's no more a "cult" movie than _Citizen Kane_;
and the only way it can be regarded as a "cult" movie is because most
people just don't know about a lot of old, great classic films.
To further augment this point, "Dr. S" is not only a widely acknowledged
classic, it was also a huge boxoffice hit upon release (unlike "Kane"), meaning
it never fit any standard definition of a cult film.
I also don't see its appeal as having to cleave along political lines.
This is really essential to its premise, which is that human fallibility plus a
nuclear arms race equals problems that are beyond >any< political solution.
Yes, liberals love the goofiness of Scott's and Hayden's characters...
but they fail to notice that President Muffley is a parody of an
ineffectual, Stevensonian Democrat. Conservatives, on the other hand,
can appreciate the lunacy of the film's plot just as much as anyone else.
I think this is more the case today, as I said, because of conservative drift.
I don't think one could be at, say, a Republican gathering in 1964 and say you
love the film "Dr. Strangelove" and hope to meet with much approval. Certainly
conservatives would have found it funny and perhaps enjoyed it (except for the
absolute true believers) even if they couldn't admit as much.
Look at it this way. The creators of _South Park_ are Republicans, but
their humor cuts in all directions, and this year they're working with
noted liberal Norman Lear.
And I think it's worth noting that the division between "liberals" and
"conservatives" is a little simplistic. For one thing, Terry Southern
was a man of the Left throughout his life, and there has always been a
distinction between the Left and liberals.
That's a point that can't be made often enough. There's really nothing more
disheartening than lockstep Democrats ("liberals" in name) who for example
wouldn't criticize the Clinton Administration for refusing to provide a mere
$100,000 for a peace keeping mission to the Republic of the Congo that would
have prevented the massacres there.

The other point is that much of the "dialogue" between supposedly opposing
political factions today is between moderates and the right, not the left and
the right. Corporate interests have effectively shut out progressive
viewpoints from access to most forms of media except the internet.

Mark Ervin
Wordsmith
2003-06-27 16:09:08 UTC
Permalink
You know, I have never understood why people always feel that you have to be a
liberal to enjoy a Kubrick movie. I am fairly conservative and Kubrick is my
favorite director. Does this mean that I am trying to get something out of a
Kubrick movie that isn't there? NO!!!! It means that when I watch a movie, if
I enjoy it I think it is good, and if I don't I think it is bad. I do not
think a movie is good or bad just because it brings up a point of view that I
don't agree with. I am not a defender of Ann Coulter, but if she thinks Dr.
Strangelove is a masterpiece, don't just assume that she doesn't "get" the
movie. Maybe she just really likes it and she doesn't care what conservatives
reactions to it at the time were. Just my two cents.
Matt
Why must art be interpreted through a political lens all the time?
Is "art for art's sake" dead? For the agenda-mongers on this ng, such
is the case.

Wordsmith :(
Alan Andres
2003-06-26 22:09:27 UTC
Permalink
I still have my copy with the flowers and rainbows on the cover
(Beacon Press, 1967)...
absurdist revisionist history.
That's about the size of it. My opinion was drwn from a very small sampling
and, let's face it I am an abusrdist revisionist historian! I could be wrong
and absurd.
OK. It's a tough market right now as there are so many of them writing
op eds and appearing on the air. I would suggest following Ann
Coulter's path is not a wise career move.
ON MOVIES by Dwight MacDonald,
Funny butt, I always enjoyed Mr. MacDonald's writing, but I didn't really think
of him as socialist or pacifist.
During the 1960s he was well known for his politics. There was a
famous incident at the White House in 1965 when he was soliciting
opposition against the Vietnam War among artists, actors and writers
who were invited to a celebration of the arts. He got into a bit of a
tiff with Charlton Heston and argued with Saul Bellow. As late as 1942
he was still speaking out against American intervention in World War
II.
the old time Ban The Bomb crowd resented a movie that was more intelligent
than they were.
Can you please cite some sources?
my friends' paraents?
Interesting. They actually admitted that they resented the film
because it was more intelligent than they were? For some reason, I
suspect this is your reflection to their reaction.
Film critics in 1964
To which critics are you alluding?
Bosley Crothers?
In 1964 Bosley Crowther (not Crothers) was generally considered a
mediocre over-the-hill film reviewer, not a critic. While he was
powerful in the movie business and read by the average Joe, even as a
ten-year-old in 1964 I knew he was a joke. When Renata Adler came on
as a temporary film reviewer at the Times in 1967 it was like a breath
of fresh air. Her arrival became such a topic of conversation that
Henry Morgan appeared on the Merv Griffin Show and said, "I'm in love"
and then proceeded to read her scathing review of John Wayne's The
Green Berets on camera for four or five minutes. That was the flavor
of the time. (Adler also had many blind spots -- Sergio Leone and
Kubrick for example.)

Already in 1963 critics like John Simon and Stanley Kauffmann were
widely seen on American talk shows. Among people interested in film,
Crowther was mostly dismissed as a newspaper reviewer, a Consumers
Report buying guide for the clueless.
OtiGoji
2003-06-27 03:16:03 UTC
Permalink
1965 when he [Dwight MacDonald] was soliciting
opposition against the Vietnam War
So, like I'm all: A Big Fat Commie RAT!
As late as 1942
he was still speaking out against American intervention in World War
II.
So he didn't want to save Premier Stalin's bacon? Bravo! MacDonald is
pre-rehabilitated!
They actually admitted that they resented the film
because it was more intelligent than they were?
Hmmm, maybe I extrapolated their dismissal of Dr. Strangelove as jealousy of
the Kubrick/Southern intellect.
Henry Morgan appeared on the Merv Griffin Show and said, "I'm in love"
and then proceeded to read her scathing review of John Wayne's The
Green Berets on camera for four or five minutes.
That's rich! I am in love with Henry Morgan, my favorite "I Have Got A Secret"
panelist.
John Simon
Ack. You just broke the Contempt-o-meter.

Regardless of all your great points, I still think the Old Left didn't swing
with Strangelove till the 'Nuclear Freeze" movement of the early '80s was
orchestrated by dat rascally ole' KGB.

I remember spending a lot of time with the Periodical Reader's Guide To
Literature and finding many so-so, luke-warm contemporary reviews.



Otius Gojius
"I have found that if one wants to create the impression of great skill, it is
advantageous actually to possess great skill." - Darwin Ortiz
PT Caffey
2003-06-27 05:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Pal Brian
Just surfed onto this by chance (I was googling "ann coulter
nekkid", of course) and since I know what fans of hers so many
of you are...
It seems the National Review staff were discussing the 2001 Oscar
nominees, and everyone's favorite vituperative bitch-goddess
decided to ignore the stock contenders and review a good movie
<snip>

This reminded me of an anecdote related by John Milius:

Excerpt from: The New York Times - 4 July 1999

Title: What They Say About Stanley Kubrick

John Milius (director, screenwriter, producer; phone relationship with
Kubrick from early-80's)

When he did "Dr. Strangelove," the Air Force contacted him afterward
and all the big shots of Strategic Air Command, and General Le May,
wanted to talk to him. And he was afraid of going to see them. He was
afraid they'd be angry with him -- that they would do something to
him. I said: "Stanley, how can you have been that paranoid? They
wanted to honor you. They loved 'Dr. Strangelove.' "He said: "I know
it's crazy. I wish I'd gone to Washington and seen them."

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/memories/jm.htm


A strange love indeed.

PT Caffey
S.J.Carras
2003-06-27 22:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Ann Coulter: Kubrick's biggest fan!
Date: 6/26/2003 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
You know, I have never understood why people always feel that you have to be
a
liberal to enjoy a Kubrick movie. I am fairly conservative and Kubrick is my
favorite director
I agree. I was watching my Eyes Wide SHut DVD last night (BTW I didn't get a
liberal message out of the fact that Tom Cruise winds up somewhat paranoid
after the orgy, after he's warned "if you say a single work to ANYONE"....and
then gets back with Nicole Kidman, even though she DOES say a raunchy word at
the end.

In short EWS at least was one Kubrick film that seemed to actually show
conseqeunces..

BTW I'm a conservative and had it not been for Kubrick I wouldn't have known, I
think I wouldnt' have known, such scintillating musical pieces that I enjoy
like Richard Strauss's 1896 "Also Sprach Zarathustra" from 2001 (1968) or
Gyorgy Legeti'
s 1951 "Musica Ricerta II" from EWS (1999)..So I think that my listneting
pleasure and musical knowledge would be so not complete had Kubrick not
existed.
_______
"So what do you think-you're Elvis or something?"-Shania Twain
S.J.Carras
2003-06-27 22:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Ann Coulter: Kubrick's biggest fan!
Date: 6/27/2003 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Post by Brian Siano
I also don't see its appeal as having to cleave along political lines.
Yes, liberals love the goofiness of Scott's and Hayden's characters...
but they fail to notice that President Muffley is a parody of an
ineffectual, Stevensonian Democrat. Conservatives, on the other hand,
can appreciate the lunacy of the film's plot just as much as anyone else.
That may be true today, in a post USSR world, but when DS was made the USA
were the good guys and the USSR were the bad guys. No gray area allowed. I
don't think conservatives appreciated the story as wacky "It's a Mad Mad Mad
Mad World" type fun.
Which brings up, of course, the "does anyone get Stanley Kubrick and Stanley
Kramer confused?" topic.
_______
"So what do you think-you're Elvis or something?"-Shania Twain
Loading...