Full Stop
I ran into Reihan at the screening of Stop Loss a few nights ago. I hope he writes something about it*, as I’m sure he’s got an interesting take. In the meantime, here’s what I thought.
*I would also be amenable to a YouTube reenactment.
Leave a Reply
Commenting is closed for this article.
Be careful what you ask for!
— Reihan · Mar 28, 08:31 PM · #
You know, I’ve never had any problem with even overtly politicize reviews, personally. I just don’t like people who complain about it inconsistently. If someone wrote a review as, say, ideologically recognizable as this one, only from a liberal perspective, Ross Douthat’s head would explode. But somehow I doubt he’ll have a problem with this one.
— Freddie · Mar 28, 09:28 PM · #
The only people who will see this movie will be anti-war types. The preceding series has labeled them all as political. I watched “Into the Wild” the other night. Penn made the protagonist a Christ-like figure and added quite a bit of fluff to what was an excellent book. I’ve been within 5 miles of where that kid died and he was no hero. In a way, Penn’s treatment made him even less likable and he seemed cruel in his disregard of his parents and sister. These people who make movies seem very distant from the characters they try to portray. It didn’t use to be that way.
— Mike K · Mar 29, 04:47 PM · #
Freddie,
I don’t really want to speak for him, but I think most of Ross’s complaints involved Stevens inserting her politics where they probably didn’t belong (Harry Potter reviews and such) rather than into films that clearly have something to do with politics.
I also think it’s curious that I’ve been criticized for being both too liberal and too conservative in my approach for the film. The typical journo retort is, “Well, that means I must be doing something right!” That may be true, or it may just be that I was unclear.
My intent wasn’t to criticize the film for it’s politics. It’s anti-war, mostly by way of being anti-stop loss; that has nothing to do with it being good or bad (and my personal politics on issues like these might not be as obvious as they seem). But I find it problematic that the film positions itself as a critique of the stop loss policy without actually examining it. That’s not a complaint about the film’s politics (or isn’t meant to be); it’s a complaint about the way the film was structured.
For the film to work as a human story, without regard to politics, one has to go along with its assumption that stop lossing is absolutely immoral. But the film only assumes this; it does so in a way that it’s easy to get swept up in its assumptions, which are passionate. But that it’s clever in the way it elides the issue doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t have addressed it.
— Peter Suderman · Mar 29, 08:30 PM · #
I know what you mean, and I don’t intend to be unfair. I personally just think that you have to react to a movie in whatever organic fashion you happen to, and that includes a politicized reading. My complaint with Stevens isn’t when she reacts to movies politically, but when she expresses that reaction inartfully or condescendingly. My beef with Douthat is just that it seems that he reads inappropriate politicization in any of his political opponent’s views, but not his own. But that could be unfair, on my part.
— Freddie · Mar 29, 09:04 PM · #
That review seems like it would’ve been a bit stronger if it had actually contained an argument in favor of the stop-loss policy instead of just claiming the movie should have explored it more. In point of fact, stop-loss has proven controversial enough that even the Bush Administration has almost completely phased out the practice. It seems a bit too close to the ‘creationist’s gambit’ to, at this stage, claim that there’s real argument that needs to be addressed here.
— Bo · Mar 30, 06:01 PM · #
The Bush administration hasn’t stopped “stop-loss” because it’s controversial, they’ve stopped it because there’s no point, you don’t have enough combat-ready troops anyway.
— Sanjay · Mar 30, 06:20 PM · #