Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT's Movie Critics: 'Transformer' Movies Are 'Subliminally Anti-Obama'
NewsBusters ^

Posted on 01/18/2013 8:04:15 AM PST by chessplayer

New York Times movie critics A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis team up for next Sunday's edition (posted early online) to once again pour their peculiar brand of pretentiousness over the latest crop of innocent films: "Movies in the Age of Obama."

In the summer of 2011, Dargis lamented "the symbolic phallus" present in the form of a rifle in a Western. Last July she managed to make a villain out of President Reagan, while Scott chimed in by complaining that movie superheroes were "avatars of reaction" and that the last X-Men movie was insufficiently attentive to the civil rights movement.

Their latest team-up is slightly less obnoxious, as it's in the form of an opinionated article instead of a conversation, but their strained attempts to tease out Obama-related themes from sci-fi and superhero movies remains silly and politicized.

The big studios still shy away from openly taking on class, unless the issue comes swaddled in period rags and a comfortable historical distance, as in “Les Misérables” and even the last “Robin Hood” was more about the rights of the rich than the privations of the poor. When the big studios do notice bad times, it’s often with the cluelessness of people who whine about their money woes while driving a Lexus. That said, glimpses of class conflict emerged amid the shadows of “The Dark Knight Rises,” which riffs on the French Revolution, nods at the Occupy movement and glances back at the gangster movies of the 1930s, in which struggles for power and money were accompanied by the rat-a-tat of Tommy guns.

Of course, “The Dark Knight Rises” is also a WAR movie, and Mr. Obama has been (to cite his predecessor’s self-description) a wartime president. “The Dark Knight Rises” imagines a Hobbesian state of social chaos, a more complicated situation than pictured by its prequel, “The Dark Knight,” which is in some ways the central movie of the Bush years, with its sharply drawn lines of good and evil. Batman’s fight with the Joker was as personal and apocalyptic as Harry Potter’s epochal struggle with Voldemort, which came to an on-screen conclusion in the same year that Osama bin Laden, the prime evildoer of the Bush era, met his violent end.

Movie audiences tend to prefer symbolic, fantastical wars, with intergalactic robots (in the subliminally anti-Obama “Transformer” movies, the third of which lays waste to the president’s adopted hometown, Chicago), alien life forms and futuristic settings.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
In other words, they think the movies are racist.
1 posted on 01/18/2013 8:04:18 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Even Megatron and Optimus Prime agree that Obama sucks.


2 posted on 01/18/2013 8:11:05 AM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Wonder what he thought of Iron Man and the government attempt to steal Tony Stark’s weapon?


3 posted on 01/18/2013 8:11:52 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Any good versus evil movie, with evil losing, can be interpreted as anti-Obama.


4 posted on 01/18/2013 8:12:06 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

An unseemly obsession with negroes has been ruining this country for longer than I’ve been alive.


5 posted on 01/18/2013 8:12:22 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

We can pretty much guarantee which side of that contest he was rooting for.


6 posted on 01/18/2013 8:14:40 AM PST by Pecos (If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I really feel sorry for people like this, the only problem
is that they want all of us to drown in their misery.


7 posted on 01/18/2013 8:14:48 AM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

But if they are pro obama, well that’s ok! /s/


8 posted on 01/18/2013 8:14:48 AM PST by V_TWIN (obama=where there's smoke, there's mirrors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Also, when Conservitives think there are subliminal messages in movies we are paranoid but when libs see it it’s racist.


9 posted on 01/18/2013 8:16:46 AM PST by V_TWIN (obama=where there's smoke, there's mirrors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Reading a NYT movie critic is like listening to a bunch of pretentious college sophomores as they pass a bong around the dorm room.


10 posted on 01/18/2013 8:19:07 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

Obama is a Decepticon?

Sounds reasonable.


11 posted on 01/18/2013 8:22:01 AM PST by UCANSEE2 ( If you think I'm crazy, just wait until you talk to my invisible friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

As far as I am concerned Movie Critics are more useless than a zipper to the Amish.

Movie critics are people who watch bad movies for a living.
Now thats a tough job isn’t it.

Their opiniopn is what they write and what makes their opinion worth a pint of sour owl pee? They like what they like and expect others to spend their money because these people with a suckee job like it.

They should shove their opinions where the sun don’t shine.

By the way they are bought and sold by the movie people.


12 posted on 01/18/2013 8:25:37 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The first one portrayed Bush as a complete hick fool, so it really doesn’t matter.


13 posted on 01/18/2013 8:25:42 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Rising personality cult of Obama. More Lenin/Stalin.


14 posted on 01/18/2013 8:28:03 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises were both right wing movies. The Dark Knight was a counterterrorist allegory, and The Dark Knight Rises was a counter-revolutionary allegory.

And, they’re actually right about Robin Hood this time ... it was never about robbing the rich and giving to the poor. It was always fundamentally about an outlaw fighting against the government. The villains have always been the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John — the tax collector and the government — not “the rich”.

Robin Hood robs the tax-man and gives to the people. He defends the right of self-suffiency, the right to hunt the King’s deer in the King’s forest.

Robin Hood was always a conservative outlaw.

SnakeDoc


15 posted on 01/18/2013 8:33:13 AM PST by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Wow, even critics are affected by scientific fictional movies? I wonder what subliminal message triggered the BS?


16 posted on 01/18/2013 8:33:19 AM PST by existentially_kuffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
"pretentious college sophomores"

You got it. 98% of what comes out of Hollyweird is garbage. Even in the good old days it was 90%. But there used to be some stuff worth watching. These radical-feminist/metrosexual movie reviewers are overly concerned with "subliminal messages" and whether or not women are portrayed correctly i.e. they perform as radical feminists expect them to perform. Whether the movie itself is entertaining or not is completely beside the point to these puffed-up morons.

17 posted on 01/18/2013 8:37:07 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Manohla Dargis

Sounds like a medical condition.

Something that would cause a rash.

18 posted on 01/18/2013 8:38:46 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“Manohla Dargis
Sounds like a medical condition.”

I think the name translates to “yeast infection”.


19 posted on 01/18/2013 8:44:27 AM PST by Stormdog (A rifle transforms one from subject to Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Why are anti-consevative movies ok?

These NYT clowns believe they can bully those opposing Obama’s destruction of America.


20 posted on 01/18/2013 8:50:36 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: chessplayer

...except the Transformers toys, television series and first animated movie date back to the mid-eighties. When the first big movie was released in 2007, the concept was more than 20 years old and Obama was still a Senator of no consequence. The project for the 2007 film and screenwriting began in 2003, well before Obama began running for President.


22 posted on 01/18/2013 9:09:50 AM PST by tentmaker (Galt's Gulch is a state of mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

Obama wasn’t portrayed too well in the last two


23 posted on 01/18/2013 9:16:19 AM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
"These radical-feminist/metrosexual movie reviewers are overly concerned with "subliminal messages" and whether or not women are portrayed correctly i.e. they perform as radical feminists expect them to perform."

Yep. A NYT movie review tells you a lot more about the reviewer than the movie being reviewed.

24 posted on 01/18/2013 9:27:44 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Gosh, how was “Death of a President” reviewed by the NYT? That was an assassination of GWB....

From the Slimes in 2006:

“Since it was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival last month, “The Death of a President,” a formally clever fake-umentary directed by Gabriel Range, has attracted some fairly predictable controversy. Since the president in question is George W. Bush and the death is the result of an assassination, the film has become a lightning rod for the usual forms of self-righteousness that often masquerade as political discussion. On one side, howls of “How dare you?” and on the other, ringing endorsements of free expression and artistic courage.”

http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/movies/27deat.html?_r=0


25 posted on 01/18/2013 9:27:54 AM PST by wac3rd (Somewhere in Hell, Ted Kennedy snickers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Over-indoctrinated, pseudo-intellectual liberal idiot.


26 posted on 01/18/2013 9:28:41 AM PST by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson