The Gray Lady, in an editorial inexplicably placed in the New York Times‘ Science section, is bemused over the success of the film documentary March of the Penguins, noting in wonder that political conservatives have taken a shine to the film’s affirmation of such traditional values as monogamy and pro-life commitment. After Michael Moore’s anti-America screed Fahrenheit 9/11, March of the Penguins has become the second highest-grossing documentary ever.
"[O]f all the reactions [March of the Penguins] has evoked, perhaps the most surprising is its appeal to conservatives. They are hardly its only audience; the film is the second highest grossing documentary of all time, behind Fahrenheit 9/11" [because, in the World According to the Gray Lady, there are not enough Red Staters to dance on the head of a pin, much less turn a film into a blockbuster].
"But conservative groups have turned its stirring depiction of the mating ordeals of emperor penguins into an unexpected battle anthem in the culture wars" [which liberals didn’t dream of doing with Fahreheit 9/11].
"March of the Penguins, the conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved said in an interview, is ‘the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.’
"Speaking of audiences who feel that movies ignore or belittle such themes, he added: ‘This is the first movie they’ve enjoyed since The Passion of the Christ. This is The "Passion of the Penguins".’ [Weirdly enough, there are sufficient numbers of Red State wackos to turn The Passion of the Christ into a record-breaking megahit — must have been since no one else would dream of contributing to that film’s success, right? — but the Red State wackos don’t have much to with the success of March of the Penguins because it has been too successful to depend on the money of Red State rubes, quoth the Gray Lady.]
"In part, the movie’s appeal to conservatives may lie in its soft-pedaling of topics like evolution and global warming. The filmmakers say they did not consciously avoid those topics — indeed, they say they are strong believers in evolutionary theory — but they add that they wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible." ["They wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible"? Wow, what a great idea for an industry that depends on audience appeal!]
I haven’t yet seen March of the Penguins myself, but it sounds wonderful. I’ll have to send the Gray Lady a thank-you note for piquing my interest in this film by appealing to my Inner Conservative.
I went to see March of the Penguins during its second weekend.
It is enjoyable. However, I do not feel it is worth the price of a movie ticket. It should have been on PBS or the National Geographic Channel or even Animal Planet.
Farenheit 9/11 is not a documentary.
The Old Gray Lady, like the “Old Gray Mare”, ‘ain’t what she used to be; many long years ago’.
I think March of the Penguins wouldn’t have been nearly so effective on a small screen, frankly. You need the screen to be bigger than you to convey just how HUGE the Antarctic is, and how small and determined the penguins.
IMAX would have been even nicer with this one.
I just want to see the march of the Pittsburg Penguins to the Stanley Cup this year.
We haven’t had the pleasure yet, but I have a ten-year-old daughter who’s is itching to see it. I guess we’d better hurry if we want to catch it in the local cinema.
Farenheit 9/11 is not a documentary.
Yes, it is.
I assume you’re saying this because you disagree with Michael Moore. You’re welcome to do so without denying that the movie belongs in the documentary genre.
It is a common mistake among audiences to assume that documentaries are– or are even supposed to be– unbiased, objective portrayals of mere fact. Filmmakers know better, and audiences should too.
Ellen Cheshire, commenting on the form of the documentary film, writes that “[E]ven documentary films cannot document reality, or depict a true account of events — a better term would be a non-fiction film. The majority of fact-related films are not unbiased recordings… The mere fact that a certain subject has been chosen involves an interpretation of what should be shot and the manipulation of time and space in the interest of tension and story-telling. In addition, they are usually carefully scripted, structured, cast and located to express a distinct message and point of view.” (“Leni Riefenstahl: Documentary Film-Maker Or Propagandist?”)
If you are already aware of this and were just making a joke, forgive me. I think it is something people need to know.
What’s the point of the snarky red comments? The comments don’t seem to address anything actually stated. In the first comment, the Times describes the film is very popular, but that it has achieved a greater appeal among conservatives. Michelle seems to take offense at this; I have no idea why. She says the Times implies conservatives alone cannot account for this success. Is Michelle claiming that only conservatives are seeing this movie? From her comments, I would assume so. Why does she think liberals would not see this movie?
Why mention Fahrenheit 9/11? The Times mentioned it only as a financial benchmark. It’s a political documentary, not a nature one. I didn’t know it had any value in the “culture wars” either – was Moore making comments on monogamy, sacrifice, or child rearing? And is Michelle implying equality between the two in that if March of the Penguins in an “unexpected” battle anthem, than Fahrenheit was equally unexpected? I don’t see the similarities and therefore question the need for the comment.
Then her comments attack the Times for implying – well what I don’t know because her comments come after Michael Medved, who is the pro-conservative media critique, talks about why the film appeals to conservatives. Michelle somehow thinks this is about the Times downplaying any conservative role in its popularity. I think I’m missing some connectors here.
I’ve read the article in question before seeing the post here. I did not come away angry, but Michelle obviously did. Her main point seems to be that the Times wonders why March especially appeals to conservatives, and this makes her angry that they want to know why it has a specific political appeal.
I don’t think this is a non-sensical question. One does not expect to find political themes in documentaries about nature, and indeed it does not have any. Medved’s comments are important because it contrasts the inoffensive nature of the documentary to other summer Hollywood films that do have objectionable material.
There is a tendency on this site to sometimes have posts that are so angry, I can feel the anger through my computer screen. I don’t know if this is intended or not, but it has bothered me enough that afterwards I avoid the site for a while. I don’t like doing it because I generally enjoy it very much. I stopped reading Little Green Footballs for the same reason. I liked the information it would provide, but the anger there was simply too much. Michelle’s comments are not angry in general, but in relation to the inoffensive nature of the article, I found it disturbing.
I hope no one takes offense at this.
“I hope no one takes offense at this.”
None taken. The “snarky red comments” were my attempt to fisk the article, which I felt was an editorial misplaced in the Science section of the NYT.
One does not expect to find political themes in documentaries about nature, and indeed it does not have any.
I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know whether this particular nature documentary has any political themes. But it would be very, very easy for a filmmaker to put political themes into a nature documentary if he or she wanted to do so, perhaps especially in a movie that anthropomorphizes animal behavior (as this one has been accused of doing).
After reading Gerard Vanderluen’s review of it, I think that I’ll give this one a wide berth (link: http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/005746.php)
Thanks, Clayton, that’s a pretty hilarious review.
I, however, still want to see the movie.
Heck, it sounds like me and the Missus in the first few months after a new birth, only in s-l-o-w m-o-t-i-o-n.
After our first baby, we didn’t eat a meal together for months.
You’re not a red stater. You’re at best a wannabe.