Conservative pundit Ben
Shapiro probably overstated the case when he claimed (and I paraphrase) that
most or all of Hollywood had become obsessed with liberal concerns.
Nevertheless, the rise of the so-called Progressives on the political scene has
had an unmistakable impact, one mirrored in not a few fictional narratives.
There’s no knowing whether the proponents of the narratives sincerely believe that their
messages can change the world, or whether they’re chasing the latest trend to
grab the attention of an increasingly fragmented mass audience. But the
purveyors of Progressive fiction have for the most part been marked by a unique
tone of strident righteousness, a determination to lecture rather than to
persuade, much in common with such political types as Cory Booker and Rashida
Tlaib.
Ultraliberal concoctions
like THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI and the BLACK LIGHTNING teleseries are a long
way from the earnest humanist works produced by Classic Liberals like Rod Serling
and William Gaines. The latter worthies never doubted that American culture was
seriously beset by demons like racism and rampant consumerism, and they were
passionate to save America’s metaphorical soul.
But for ultraliberals and Progressives, that soul is not worth saving. In an earlier essay I pointed out how a couple of penny-ante ultraliberals touted their TV show by describing America’s history of slavery with the happy term “foundational.” This is a fancy way of restating an old Catholic formula: the newborn infant is guilty of original sin, and the only way to compel good behavior is to wash out—or maybe beat out—the devils.
But for ultraliberals and Progressives, that soul is not worth saving. In an earlier essay I pointed out how a couple of penny-ante ultraliberals touted their TV show by describing America’s history of slavery with the happy term “foundational.” This is a fancy way of restating an old Catholic formula: the newborn infant is guilty of original sin, and the only way to compel good behavior is to wash out—or maybe beat out—the devils.
However, the downside of
condescending lectures is that few people like to be lectured, and that leads
to counter-reactions. Some reactions are from unalloyed conservatives like
Shapiro, and Hollywood is likely to ignore such protests. However, producers are not nearly as likely
to overlook box-office failures like 2018’s GHOSTBUSTERS and 2016's BIRTH OF A NATION.
In the last few years Youtube has become rife with reviewers who continually
protest the spread of Progressive hectoring, ranging from amateur film
reviewers like the Critical Drinker to professional comics-artists like Ethan
Van Sciver. Whenever a Progressive film or comic book fails to win an audience,
such pundits exult that they have, at very least, discerned a meaningful
counter-reaction against the politicizing of entertainment.
Of course, sometimes
politicizing does make money, and Hollywood never forgets anything that makes
money. Additionally, such raconteurs are also masters of camoflague, and some
of them may seek to propound their beliefs more by implication than by
righteous rants.
Case in point: a new 2020
NBC broadcast series, LINCOLN RHYME: HUNT FOR THE BONE COLLECTOR. The opening
episodes of the series follow the general template of the 1999 Denzel
Washington vehicle THE BONE COLLECTOR, showing the attempts of Rhyme and his
team of profilers in their hunt for the elusive serial killer of the title.
However, given that LINCOLN is a series, Rhyme’s team also has to go after
other psycho-killers as well.
Episode two, broadcast on
1-17-20, hurled the Rhyme team against a serial murderer known as “the Wrath
of God” because he terminates victims, whom he considers morally deficient in
some way, with methods patterned on Greek mythological stories. Judgmental
serial killers are nothing new in the crime and horror genres, of course, and
the program doesn’t spend much time justifying the Wrath’s peculiar myth-happy psychology.
But the script does seem unique in finding an additional scapegoat for the killer’s crimes.
The Rhyme team is unable
to stop the Wrath from committing myth-murders in the show’s first half hour,
but one of the killings supplies a clue, and that clue leads them to a local
college. It seems that a female Classics professor, name of Antoni, is not only
teaching mythology in that college as a guest lecturer, she’s also taught such
classes in all of the cities where the Wrath operated. This association is enough
for two of Rhyme’s detectives to seek Antoni out. The audience doesn’t find out
exactly what Antoni teaches, since the detectives show up as her class ends, so
the audience only hears Antoni describing some of the deaths of sinning mortals
in Greek myths. The detectives, anxious to make a bust, act in a
confrontational manner with Antoni, but since they have no actual evidence, she
ignores their threats and takes her leave. Afterward, one detective says to the
other, “Did you see how angry she was?” The script does not actually show
Antoni being angry, only mildly annoyed, which suggests that the writer wants
to set her character up for a fall.
In the last quarter-hour
the team tracks down the Wrath and captures him while preventing one of his
ritual murders. The Wrath’s reason for crafting his myth-deaths is not expanded
upon, while his identity, an ordinary-looking middle-aged white guy, is also
underplayed. This leads to Antoni’s second and last scene, which I argue is
what the scriptwriter really wanted to portray. The detectives return to the
college and arrest Antoni, claiming that they went through the Wrath’s effects
and found a journal that implicates Antoni in the crimes. Case closed.
The unjustified remark about Antoni's "anger" proves interesting, since in modern times there’s a lot of very justifiable concern about murders arising from anger, particularly from spree-killers like
the white supremacist Dylan Roof. However, it often seems like Progressives don’t care about
murderers when they don’t conform to the model of
“the angry white male.” One sees an example of this attitude in Rashida Tlaib’s attack on the New Jersey supermarket killers, an attack she deleted when she found out that they were not white.
The episode does not
make race an issue. However, the script’s insistence that the mythology
professor MUST be implicated in the serial killer’s crimes strikes me as
peculiar, given that the same script does not really justify this implication,
aside from one detective’s remark. In the real world mythology and mythology
professors usually have nothing to do with serial murder. However, one
prominent celebrity professor, clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, has been
(incorrectly) labeled an alt-Right apologist by many Progressives. Peterson
does not teach or lecture exclusively about mythology or even about the
literature of Classical Greece, though such subjects have appeared in his
online lectures. But purely because Peterson questions the beliefs of the Far
Left, he’s often labeled not only as alt-Right, but as an intellectual who
appeals to “angry white men.”
Whether or not readers
agree with my interpretation of this single episode, I predict that Hollywood
scriptwriters will continue to propound ultraliberal scenarios. But in the near
future, some may be a little less strident, and a little more sneaky, than was
the case earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment