This line of argument is a lie. Hollywood would never make a movie about, say, Martin Luther King, Jr., that wasn't absolutely reverential. Even for lesser stars of PC they would at least clean them up the best they could if they felt they couldn't get away with a hagiographic treatment. There would be no talk of a "new honesty" or the freeing aspects of exposing their flaws. Flaw exposure is reserved for the enemies of the left: political enemies, religious enemies, and, more often than not, racial enemies. Movies like this are a specific attack on a specific culture. The author shifts the argument to the theoretical and general in order to avoid the truth and the ugly confrontations it might produce.
For instance, there's nothing redeeming about General Santa Anna. He was a vicious, bloodthirsty tyrant, nothing more
See what I mean?