A newly formed Film Institute for Conservatives!

http://www.afrfilmfestival.com ^

[patriotmovies]

The American Renaissance Film Institute

http://www.afrfilmfestival.com

[Tailback]

WWI was BS, unfortunately that experience clouded his thinking about America's entry into WWII. WWII was necessary to stop Hitler and the Japanese. Unfortunately it should have also extended to Stalin but hindsight is 20/20.

[Tailback]

Hitler would have eventually been a threat to the USA, but WWI Germany defeating France would have been a wash.

[Tailback]

I loved Metropolitan but I doubt that many people would get it. Your take on Das Boot is dead on, the crew was fighting for their boat and each other's survival, not an ideology. The ending scene was so fitting, as the boat dies so does the Captain who was the soul of the crew. Amazing movie.

[Burkeman1]

As to Shakespeare being the Earl of Oxford:

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/

[jla]

OK then, one of these will do:

[Burkeman1]

Metropolitan is very subtle in it's message(s) and might easily pass over some people. Barcelona is a little more upfront with the conservative message. I love the scene with the American naval officer sitting with a bunch of leftist anti American Spainairds! That is priceless.

[Burkeman1]

Well- 80 percent of Americans were against going to war before Pearl Harbor. Once that happened he was all for it. But he was very much against going to war before that. But then again so was nearly everybody.

[L.N. Smithee]

I suppose that a single-mother being hassled by the government for trying to run a small business would qualify.

I didn't see the picture, but the way I understood it, you're oversimplifying the plot in spades. The woman in question (Juliette Binoche) was some sort of antihero who ignored the dark, overbearing religious dude who ran the town and promoted sexual healing and "free thinking" (atheism). It was directed by Lasse Hallstrom, the director who gave us The Cider House Rules, which put a glossy moral sheen on abortion.

[L.N. Smithee]

I think that the priority of this institute should be to get Mara Leveritt's The Boys on The Tracks to the big screen.

[Ciexyz]

I was a kid when these events were going on. I had no clue that those Democratic geniuses LBJ and McNamara had ham-strung our forces that early in the game.

I remember those days, I was in high school when all the protesting began. What made Americans sick was that our men were being used as cannon fodder and thrown into battle when the Vietnamese sat behind and let us do their fighting. (Whatever the cause of that, whether they couldn't do it or our command wouldn't let the Vietnamese do their own fighting--that's what infuriated Americans.)

The Democrats didn't know how to win a war in record time like both Presidents Bush.

[AnnaZ]

Great stuff, Ronnie. Great to "see" you.

[nickcarraway]

Please, let's not confuse literature with history. First of all, Shakespeare was a creating a dramatist, not a historian, and he never claimed to be a historian. He often borrowed source material, but only followed it as far as it suited his artistic vision. If you want to look to Henry V for history, look to it for a reflection of the time it was written, not as a document of history from an earlier century.

Shakespeare used Holinshed's Chronicles and some Latin biographies contemporary to Henry's time for his background. But what really intereted Shakespeare in creating his play (besides entertaining his audience) where questions about what qualities a leader should have and various philosophical/ethical questions.

And, most importantly, the reading you give to Shakespeare intentions to the play are highly suspect. Your contention that Shakespeare was merely cheerleading for Henry is contradicted by many critics. The play present Henry both as a military hero and as a very self-serving/manipulative. Many of the rousing speeches find contradictions in the actions of the play. This is literature, it is mistaken to assume an author agrees with everything each of his characters say. Specifically, you refer to a certain scene where characters discuss the implications in following orders when they may be wrong. Shakespeare is presenting a moral dilemma that was pertinent to his audience. Please don't simplify it to claim that Shakespeare was endorsing Nazi war crimes. Do you believe every movie that portrays WWII makes such an endorsment, merely by showing german soldiers who were following orders?

[Burkeman1]

Yes that is pretty much the movie. My brother and I sat through it on a long flight. He summed the movie up as "Come- eat chocolat- and be free from evil religion- have sex with circus tramps!"

[nickcarraway]

Can't you explain why you believe Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare's play? Look at the web site, it's an amusing parlor came, but there isn't any substantial evidence. Like some people discuss arcane baseball statistics, some people come up with interesting theories about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. It would be just as easy to argue Queen Elizabeth I herself wrote those plays and poems. And at it's heart, it's based on a very unconservative premise.

[Burkeman1]

Thank you. Good post. And my conservative take on Henry the V (the Branaugh version) is more of tone and attitude. Of course one can't take the politics of divine right literally unless you are a reactionary. I am speaking as a 21st century person reared in PC gooblygook. For example- the Salique law scene. IT is amazing in it's portrayal of a lawyer that even 5 centuries later it the pettifogging and nitpicking lawyer stereotype is recognized by audiences. Power- and the reasons and lies behind weilding are honestly represented. The inner turmoil of leadership. The relations of classes of men. Viewed at the time it wouldn't be thought of as "conservative" or perhaps not even a hundred years ago. But in our generation it can be seen that way- and that says much about our times.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

...Thanks for checking out my Vietnam Photos, Anna Z.

...I showed more of my Photos at my turn at the NRA Lecturn in your Area a couple of months ago while they had "WE WERE SOLDIERS" playing up there on the Big Screen TV in the Rear.

...I loved every minute of alternately talking about what folks were seeing in front of their very eyes ..and then behind them. Missed ya.

GOD Bless to you ..and your new addition.

[Burkeman1]

I don't want to get into a flame war over this topic. I have my opinion and it is based on what I have read. A better question is based on the nearly non existent evidence that Shakespeare was the man from Stratford on what do you base your claims? The are truckloads of circumstantial evidence to back up the Oxford claim. Their is barely evidence to prove your Shakespeare lived much less wrote those wonderful works.

[nickcarraway]

Of course one can't take the politics of divine right literally unless you are a reactionary.

Well, I actually think people on the left take the idea of ``divine right'' literally, if in a different way. Maybe even more literally then they did then [cf Richard II]

[Shooter 2.5]

Did anyone mention:

Sergeant York

Yankee Doodle Dandy

It's a Wonderful Life

Witness

[Burkeman1]

How so "Witness"? Don't remember the film that well but I don't remember it being "conservative" as such?