Reihan: My Favorite Critic

Creating a kerfuffle is a commerical imperative. So I'm of course very skeptical when I'm told David Edelstein (long one of my favorite movie critics) is courting controversy by endorsing Brian De Palma's latest. Who exactly is going to attack Edelstein? I assue a doughty band of conservatives will go through the motions of blasting De Palma's film (which I haven't seen), and I assume Edelstein will treat them with withering contempt. As for Edelstein's friends and fans, who are many, they will cheer him on.

Now of course, Edelstein is raging against the powerful, specifically the "warmongers" in the White House, etc. And of course these "warmongers" will do absolutely nothing to disturb the bubble of (relative) domestic comfort most Americans enjoy (relative to military families, and of course relative to Iraqis fleeing their homes and losing their lives, part of the "collateral damage" De Palma evokes). This is part of the reason performing rage can be so gratifyng: it suggests a more expansive moral sense, and it is an implicit rebuke to Bush's manifest failure to call for shared sacrifice.

Let's accept that the invasion of Iraq was an inexcusable blunder, and let's accept that the burdens are overwhelmingly borne by a small minority of Americans. When De Palma talks about "urgency," I have to assume he means that we urgently need to withdraw US forces from Iraq. That, of course, is a much trickier argument, and it's not clear that incendiary images clarify rather than cloud our thinking. Consider the incendiary images and bloody shirts that have started so many wars, including, arguably, the war in Iraq.

Edelstein references the "noise machine" that will surely crank up to attack Brian De Palma. But again, who really believes that (a) a mostly marginalized group of conservative (or rather "right-wing") critics will be able to destroy or even mildly dent Brian De Palma's reputation as an auteur? I'm not even sure a string of astonishingly bad movies could do that at this point. And (b) who believes that a movie like Redacted would get a wide and enthusiastic audience in the absence of this "noise machine"? Yes, it will pack the art-houses. Or it won't. A ferocious "noise machine" can only help in that regard. As for the "other America," the 95 percent who would never consider seeing such a film (it's tough to find babysitters, and why spend an evening watching something like Redacted?), the "noise machine" isn't exactly making much of a difference.

This is one of the inescapable dilemmas of cultural commentary. We need to believe that our work is vitally important. The right-wing and left-wing professional agitators need to keep the cultural temperature at or near the boiling point, to curry favor, to build audiences, to raise donations. And ... and again, the most important issue is: are Iraqi children better off or worse off under a continuing American military occupation? I don't think the answer is obvious. I'm inclined to think we're doing some good, and that the sectarian violence could get far worse, but this is a near-run thing.

What I do know is that no, Redacted really isn't vitally important and standing up to the "noise machine" is a surefire route to bestselling success.

In Edelstein's post, he references Ross.

In his Atlantic blog, right-winger Ross Douthat makes fun of my review of Paul Haggis’s In the Valley of Elah, which also touches on the moral devastation of Americans in Iraq. I said in my column that although it’s a clunky piece of storytelling and a third-rate mystery, it’s also a powerful and important film. Douthat sees this as representative of a liberal tying himself up in knots to praise a movie he dislikes but agrees with politically. If he thinks those are knots, he should read me on Michael Moore!

To Edelstein's credit, he seems to be acknowledging, with grace and good humor, that Ross's assessment was sound. Most critics would prefer taking a potshot, and he didn't. (My suspicion is that Edelstein sees "right-winger" as insult enough.)

Comments

Speaking as a right-winger, I had a good experience arguing with David Edelstein about Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma". I don't read him regularly, but I'll vouch for him playing well with others.

Posted by Joe Marier | September 28, 2007 5:46 PM

I'll tell you what, Reihan; let's not stipulate to any of it. Let's argue instead that the Iraq
operation, is a difficult but noble effort, opposed aggresively by the old line oligarchies
that are threatened by any democratic changes
(Egypt, Saudi Arabia) and simultaneously by jihadist forces from many countries. The seemingly easy answers suggested by critics, keep the brutal Iraqi Baathist police and military
infrastructure, give Saddam a golden parachute
:latest meme being floated, were unrealistic,
to say the least. We didn't have anywhere near the mythic 300,000 to 400,000 troops that Gen. Shinseki requested and he knew it. Had we been able to put in that number of troops, the occupation footprint would have been unmistakable
and we'd be talking of 12,000 casualties now and
not the nearly 4,000. If you think the strain on the army is strong now, imagine what it would have been then. He was sacked because he was a very conventional general for an increasingly unconventional war; which was why Schoomaker of
Delta Forces and Special Ops Command was his
replacement. Were mistakes committed at Abu Ghraib by a small number of overstressed officials yes. Should we highlight the drawbacks of every malcontent like Pfc Stephen Green, and
apply that to the entire Army, ignoring the nihilistic nearly genocidal ambitions of the enemy. No. How about a little attention to Menchaca & Tucker, who were butchered in that same area of Yusifiya, by orders of a now dead jihadi chieftain(Abu Tunissi) Should the
regretable and tragic murder of Lannie Davis mud be the template for all returning vets (Elah) no. Should the Haditha allegations, conveyed by a sympathetic press like Taliban friendly McGirk and political partisans like Murtha be given outsize attention case. Sadly, much like the real fate of Daniel Pearl in a Mighty Heart is ignored, thse images of American bravery seem superfluous. That's the real point

Posted by narciso | September 28, 2007 8:45 PM

This is a good post on Edelstein and criticism, but I am profoundly confused as to what in the name of good geezus you're talking about with regard to Iraq.

Where is the evidence that the US will make things better? If bad things are going to happen when the US leaves, that's not an argument against withdrawal unless you can argue that the US will soon make things better, such that withdrawal later will not cause bad things to happen. The US has been in Iraq for years now, and every year has been worse than the previous.

It's just a structural consequence of occupation and colonialism. The US forces are above Iraqi law, the Iraqi forces are fighting each other for US favor or for the favor of the Iraqi people - which are just about always opposed - there is no space for the US to make things better in Iraq.

The conservative case here is to recognize the profound un-conservatism of colonialism, the profound delusion that you can take a country of millions of people, make foreigners with guns the highest law and power in the land, and somehow you'll train these people to be the people and the country that you want them to be. It doesn't work, it just produces more violence and more suffering.

Posted by DivGuy | September 29, 2007 8:34 AM

Speaking generally, I just feel that Ross is particularly inconsistent when it comes to the application of political readings to movies. First, he often derides Dana Stevens and others for reading political motives or messages into movies that aren't there. But as anyone who has taken a sophomore lit survey can tell you, there's no "really there" to any particular reading. The intentions or desires of the author is immaterial; the only question is whether the reading can be supported from the text (or here, the movie.)

Second, as the result of trying to prune political readings from movies, I think he tends to become blind to themes that seem overtly or obviously political to most people.

Most grating, I think-- and a lot of conservatives do this-- is his tendency to not apply that same criticism to right-wing readings of movies. He seems to object to the politicization of popular movies when they disagree his ideological agenda, but is more than happy to do just those kinds of readings when they suit his political needs.

With The Valley of Elah piece particularly, I think he is being obtuse about Edelstein's point. We all have reactions to movies where, despite the obvious deficiencies or problems or things that annoy, they move us on some level. And it is perfectly clear to me that Edelstein was not saying "I didn't think this was a great movie, but my political baggage means I have to endorse it." It seemed to me to be much more a case of "Many aspects of this movie bother me, but the fundamental realities of the story, and the extreme emotions involved in our perception of the Iraq War, gives it resonance." But Ross is so dedicated to att

Finally, on this point--

Edelstein references the "noise machine" that will surely crank up to attack Brian De Palma. But again, who really believes that (a) a mostly marginalized group of conservative (or rather "right-wing") critics will be able to destroy or even mildly dent Brian De Palma's reputation as an auteur?

I think this is a part of a larger conservative meme that is deeply confused. Yes, on the level of popular culture and movie making, the pro-war aspect is marginalized. But look, we're really in Iraq. The pro-war side may not be empowered in Hollywood, but so what? They actually are running the show in the real world. There's a failure to see the forest for the trees in this sort of complaint. The people who are really privileged are the ones who actually control the tangible realities on the ground.

Posted by Freddie | September 29, 2007 9:09 AM

As one of the many critics who owe their jobs to Pauline Kael, Edelstein is obligated to defend the work of Brian De Palma, Kael's most famous/notorious critical cause. It means nothing that he likes "Redacted" -- he loved "Mission to Mars"! Politics -- at least of the non-careerist kind -- has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Carl | September 29, 2007 9:17 AM

"Let's accept that the invasion of Iraq was an inexcusable blunder, and let's accept that the burdens are overwhelmingly borne by a small minority of Americans."

Let's not just give up the farm D. These are pretty wide sweeping statements and, if meant as they are plainly stated, then I'd like to know your source of data, especially for the second part.

I agree that Redacted or Valley of Elah (an attempted knock off on the Da Vinci Codes, with half-baked mystery and all) isn't something the majority of Americans will see. I surely won't. Neither will any of my friends or family I've talked to them about.

While I was not pro=invasion, the results had to be close to the same (Saddam's removal, preferred body bag and not a villa in Monaco), the means and methods really are bad juju. The only other President in recent time who could have fumbled this whole situation any worse would have been Jimmy Carter.

Posted by beneficial | September 29, 2007 9:21 AM

I agree that Redacted or Valley of Elah (an attempted knock off on the Da Vinci Codes, with half-baked mystery and all) isn't something the majority of Americans will see. I surely won't. Neither will any of my friends or family I've talked to them about.

So what? I don't understand the supposed primacy of the box office to determining a movie's cultural importance. What is the mechanism that you guys think is supposed to happen? A lot of people watch a movie, and in doing so they are inspired to take arms against the Iraq War, despite their previous support for it? Precisely no one is predicting or advocating that. A movie succeeds or fails on it's own grounds, and however explicitly political it may be, the degree to which it is seen has precious little to tell us about it's value. It seems people say this sort of thing (and I'm not suggesting beneficial is doing this) because they simply don't like the politics of the movie, and deriding the box office, or their prediction of the box office, is a way to "cut it down a peg." What's interesting is that precisely the same people who denied the importance of the commercial success of Fahrenheit 9/11 will turn around and argue for the irrelevence of a movie like Valley of Elah because it fails to do well commercially.

Posted by Freddie | September 29, 2007 9:29 AM

Reihan - And ... and again, the most important issue is: are Iraqi children better off or worse off under a continuing American military occupation?

Permit me to disagree.

The success or failure of the final condition after a war is not whether the children! the children! are better off in Iraq, or any other postwar in history. Not of the 32% of children in Nazi Germany that became fatherless, the 36% displaced - and thus worse off after WWII. Or the children of Carthage fared under the Romans, or in Confederate States, or China's imperialist aggression in Tibet....or if the children! the children! of Korea were better off under Kim Il-Sung after the Japanese occupier was defeated.

It is if the strategic objectives of the victor are accomplished.

Not high on the list in any occupation in history is the criteria of whether or not the enemy children are better or worse off than before the vanquished enemy became enmeshed in war.

By framing Iraq as all about bringing betterment to the "noble purple-fingered freedom lovers" of Iraq, Bush badly fouled that up, as he or his appointees did in most aspects of the postwar.
But most of the damage to "the children! the children!" has been by various nasty Arab factions in Iraq that foul their own nests and ruin their own futures, not-our-fault!

When you see a country rich in resources that has fouled it's own future up quite well with no Occupier - chances are no Occupier will be able to accomplish a turnaround - and no Occupier should be blamed for the dysfunctional people of such a land continuing to squander their future.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 29, 2007 12:11 PM

Folks with an interest in politics and criticism might find the debate sparked by this review of 'The Kingdom' on film site The House Next Door of interest:

http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/09/they-do-it-with-love-kingdom.html

Posted by Tobias | October 1, 2007 12:36 AM

I thought Edelstein's response was basically fair.

Assuming he's reviewing a lame movie with an agreeableable political message, it's certainly far better for Edelstein to write: "It was a cr@ppy movie as film, but I liked the political message, because George Bush sucks" than to write "It was a breathtaking, visionary, tour-de-force, because George Bush sucks."

Posted by J Mann | October 1, 2007 9:30 AM

Thank you all (and Reihan) for the kind, fair, and/or intelligent criticism of the review/blog post in question. I can't let the comment of "Carl" pass however:

"As one of the many critics who owe their jobs to Pauline Kael, Edelstein is obligated to defend the work of Brian De Palma, Kael's most famous/notorious critical cause. It means nothing that he likes "Redacted" -- he loved "Mission to Mars"! Politics -- at least of the non-careerist kind -- has nothing to do with it"

1) Pauline Kael, while a beloved friend, never got me any sort of job. Not at the Village Voice (a bastion of Kael haters), nor the New York Post, nor Slate, nor New York. (If I'd been more careerist, I'd have distanced myself from her--as many others did--to keep from being called a "Paulette.")

2) As it happens, I panned Mission to Mars, along with many other De Palma movies, most recently The Black Dahlia. I will, however, go to the mat for Carrie, Casualties of War, and Carlito's Way.

Posted by David Edelstein | October 2, 2007 11:46 PM