Conservatives warm to story of cold love (‘The Passion’ of the Penguins)

The New York Times via SMH ^ | September 14, 2005 | By Jonathan Miller

[ArrogantBustard]

Conservatives are hardly its only audience; the film is the second-highest grossing documentary of all time, behind Fahrenheit 9/11.

Hmph! That would make it the highest grossing documentary of all time. F911 wasn't a documentary, it was a propaganda piece.

[billorites]

A pretty good documentary, all in all.

Winged Migration was much more of an "oh wow" film, IMHO.

[benjaminjjones]

global warming

I only got as far as reading that liberal code phrase.

I might see the movie eventually, I think penguins are cool looking, might be fun. But if it's a liberal "statement" movie, I'm gonna skip it.

I consider myself a scientist and a Darwinist, but if there's any connection to liberal moonbats like Cindy Sheehan, I'll pass.

[gridlock]

Not all conservatives find the movie a rebuke to Darwin's theory. "If an intelligent designer designed nature," the columnist George Will asked recently, "why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins?"

I would ask Mr. Will if the purpose of life is ease.

[gridlock]

I have seen the movie, and I do not recall any message about global warming at all. In fact, there was no discussion of mankind or civilization at all. You only saw humans during the end credits (which kind or spoiled the movie a bit, IMHO).

[Tax-chick]

I would ask Mr. Will to keep his mouth shut about "tedious breeding," unless he's been pregnant ten times!

(/mom gripe)

[siunevada]

"If an intelligent designer designed nature," the columnist George Will asked recently, "why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins?"

So, if a designer doesn't make things clear to Mr. Will, there must be no designer? I know he can come up with a better argument than that.

Of course, he is a Cubs fan. That's a unique perspective on the universe. What's the evolutionary advantage for unbounded optimism regarding a sports team based on no evidence?

[tumblindice]

Documentary: a film true to "an intention to remain factual and non-fictional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film

Good catch. Moore's movie is propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

You really have to stay alert with people who would describe a new tax as a "payroll premium". (Who else? Bill Clinton)

Back to the issue, what's the big deal with watching penguins getting hot?

[KarlInOhio]

the columnist George Will asked recently, "why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins?"

This begs a question about tedious breeding for Mrs. Will. For example, does George take off his bowtie at night?

[Aetius]

It is a good, heart-warming documentary, but it once again shows that any conservative message found in mainstream films will be largely open to interpretation, and if it is fairly obvious, then you can be sure that its an accident, and was never intended by the filmmakers.

When you think of some of the blockbuster movies that have been embraced by conservatives for what they see as pro-conservative messages and themes -- like Forrest Gump or Lord of the Rings -- then again, its a safe bet that such themes were not intended. I'm sure the filmmakers would be horrified to think that such messages were in their films.

But anyway, its interesting how the NYTimes plays this up, as if conservatives only embrace movies they feel embraces and endorses their values, when in fact its a pretty safe bet that conservatives, generally speaking, attend movies pretty much like any other group.

[Graymatter]

The snow is snowing and the wind is blowing
But I can weather the storm!

What do I care how much it may storm?
For I've got my love to keep me warm

I can't remember a worse December
Just watch those icicles form!

Oh, what do I care if icicles form?
Oh, I've got my love to keep me warm!

---Irving Berlin

[Tax-chick]

:-).

[Hank Rearden]

I agree with you; Winged Migration (leftie scenes and all) was more interesting and more beautiful, but Penguins is a fine nature film, well worth seeing.

I bought WM on DVD; remains to be seen about Penguins.

[Mylo]

The only allusion to evolution in March of the Penguins is a line in Morgan Freeman's narration: "For millions of years they have made their home on the darkest, driest, windiest and coldest continent on earth. And they've done so pretty much alone."


How the hell is this an allusion to evolution? It only says that the penguins have been there for millions of years, not that they evolved; it is an allusion to the actual age of the earth and the actual age of the penguins; it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If you don't think penguins or the earth are a million years old take it up with Astronomers, Geologists, Paleontologists and Chemists.

[aimhigh]

If you don't think penguins or the earth are a million years old take it up with Astronomers, Geologists, Paleontologists and Chemists.

It wouldn't be the first time they were wrong.

[gswilder]

I saw it and it is a good movie. A little drawn out and slow at times. Some of the scenes were too long to prove their point. Cinematograhy could have been better. However, I love to listen to Morgan Freeman talk or narrate anything.

Good family movie too. Heartwarming, sad, exciting, yet realistic. A great story about the dedication, hardships, and discipline these animals go through. I doubt many of us humans would stand around in the cold for 6-9 months, just to "reproduce"!

[Mylo]

They were never "wrong". They were just using models that needed refinement in order to explain new data or to better observe and predict the universe. A geocentric Astronomer has a good model for observing and predicting celestial events; but retrograde motion tied them in knots until Copernicus's elegant solution of not assuming that the observer was motionless. A flat earth Geologist has a good model, it is only off by 8 inches per mile; but as a Scientific model it is open to refinement to the "round earth" model. Even the "round earth" model isn't exact, so we have the "misshapenly round earth" model. This model too awaits better measurement to better detail and refine the model.

All that aside, the "millions of years" line has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with the age of the earth and the age of penguins. The age of the earth is a LOT more than a million years, and the age of the universe is even greater (otherwise how could one see light from an object from 50 million light years away?).

[aimhigh]

All that aside, the "millions of years" line has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with the age of the earth

When Mount St. Helens blew it's top, the local geologist said we had just seen 10,000 years of geologic action occur in minutes. Telling.

[Mylo]

Oh come on now!

Guess where Mt. St. Helen's is right now? It's right where it was. Guess where the ash is? It has all washed away into the soil.

Go ahead and take one quote out of context by one geologist. How old does HE or SHE think the earth is? Oh, a few BILLION years old.

Guess how old an Astronomer thinks the universe is? Well based on the fact that we can see light from an object 50 million light years away; it is at least 50 million light years old.

So if your working on a time frame of thousands of years (even less than your aforementioned 10,000) for the creation of "heaven and earth" your ignoring the evidence of your own eyes.