The headline is "You might not enjoy ‘Am I Racist?’ You should watch it anyway. In the mockumentary, Matt Walsh is concerned that he is racist. Awkward moments follow" (WaPo)(free access link).
Ok, first, I don't agree that it's a mockumentary. I think the word "mockumentary" refers to a scripted (or improv) fictional movie that takes the form of a documentary, like "Spinal Tap" or "Best in Show." It's a great comedy category. I love it. But "Am I Racist?" films real people who are being themselves within a situation that the filmmaker sets up. It's in the category of pranking. The classic example is "Borat." The central character is pretending to be something he isn't, perhaps for sheer comedy, perhaps with a political agenda, and the idea is to extract something revealing from people who are not in on the joke.
McArdle writes:
The movie’s conceit is that Walsh is concerned he is racist and trying to “do the work.”... In a deadpan parody of a self-flagellating White progressive... he interviews diversity experts, attends antiracist events and eventually sets up his own diversity workshop. Unsurprisingly, many of his targets are painted as grifters, demagogues or well-meaning morons. Interspersed are more sympathetic figures, White and Black, trying to convince this caricature that race doesn’t actually matter very much.
That's an accurate description.
If you don’t like the people he’s lampooning, it’s easy to convince yourself that he’s revealing something deep and important... But... it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor. [And]... the human instinct for avoiding confrontation is exploitable if you’re sufficiently willing to violate the social contract....
That sums up what bothered me about the movie. The filmmaker had an agenda, so I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking. And of course, tricking them itself is unfair. The fact that he lured them by paying the fees they demanded — including $50,000 for one women — might make some people think they deserved what they got.
A number of the people attending his workshop walk out as the strangeness escalates, and earlier in the film, he gets kicked out of a workshop that someone else runs. But that happens only after he leaves the room, giving participants time to figure out who he is and reach consensus on expelling him. Mostly people sit through his provocations because, well, it would be rude to leave or point out how bizarre his suggestions are....
Do you enjoy watching unsuspecting human subjects endure this social experiment? Why not redo the Milgram experiment with hidden cameras and edit it into a feature film?
Posts
105 comments:
From what I gather, it makes crazy white leftist ladies look like fools.
Good god, if the WaPo commentators are actually real people, this country is much worse off than I thought
Megan used to be a brilliant writer, willing to go against conventional wisdom to actually report facts. That you had to start by pointing out she improperly used the term "mockumentary" reinforces my belief that her writing is less brilliant than I recall. Does Trump hatred make people stupid or does it simply reveal the stupid hiding inside all of us?
Bottom line: Walsh turns the Left's bag of tricks back on them, so now it's totally unfair!
Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry), Equivocation, Indoctrination (IED) is a progressive condition in liberal culture that invites critical documentary mocking.
"That you had to start by pointing out she improperly used the term "mockumentary" reinforces my belief that her writing is less brilliant than I recall."
The word only appears in the headline, which there's an excellent chance she didn't write.
I think what she has here is excellent.
Yeah, well Michael Moore also "pretended to be someone he wasn't" and so did Sacha Baron Cohen. Was Roger and Me a mockumentary? Maybe McCardle could have made her own portmanteau to coin a new term for documentaries that mock their subject matter, like ironimentary perhaps. But you can't just repurpose words commonly understood like some kind of Marxist.
I see I fell into the headline trap. Dammit.
It's the wrong question in the first place. It's what kind of racist are you. There's malevolent and benevolent.
Suppose you think that the average US black IQ is 86 and that that accounts for the black average doing "less well" than the white average, if you add up all the people. That would mean that black resentment of the difference is itself costing blacks opportunity. The best way to get rid of the chip on the shoulder is be accurate about causes. The least offensive way to put it is that a black with and IQ of 86 will do as well as a white with an IQ of 86 and he'll do it by acting white. Suggesting acting white ought to be a goal. Acting white means acting successful, more or less, nothing about color.
If that improves black scores, well good. I think it won't - too much data supports the IQ measurements - but at least everybody will be doing as well as they can.
So that's certainly literally racist. It's something to embrace, however.
"If you don’t like the people he’s lampooning, it’s easy to convince yourself that he’s revealing something deep and important... But... it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor."
The movie could be valuable if it convinces some leftists to realize that they do this every single day
"Do you enjoy watching unsuspecting human subjects endure this social experiment?"
I enjoy anything that hoists Affluent White Female Liberals (aka Suburbosaurus Beckiensis) by their own petard. That dinner? They pay for that!?!
What truly god awful human beings. They deserve every bit of scorn heaped upon them.
"it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor. [And]... the human instinct for avoiding confrontation is exploitable if you’re sufficiently willing to violate the social contract...."
These films make me very uncomfortable for exactly this reason. They aren't fair to the point of dishonesty. It is called "nutpicking," and there is a LOT of it.
The left promoted Borat as an ‘important’ film because it exposed what every leftie believed conservatives to be. Here with this new film, because it targets the left, we’re invited to believe the people exposed were just being polite but being ‘painted’ and victims of manipulative editing. I do not accept the invitation.
"it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor. [And]... the human instinct for avoiding confrontation is exploitable if you’re sufficiently willing to violate the social contract...."
That's essentially how the whole professional anti-racist gig works. The professional anti-racists have an agenda so I can't trust them to be fair to the people they are tricking either. And of course, tricking them itself is unfair.
It seems to me like a protection racket. They've monetized the Milgram Experiment. They've monetized the struggle session.
Michael Moore would like a word. How dare conservatives do what leftist filmmakers have been doing for decades. "That's not fair!" they cried.
I should always "click for more" but I don't. Now I have. I take issue with this:
But... it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor.
An excerpt I saw that is widely viewed is the sequence with Robin D'Angelo, who I believe was also paid $15,000 for her participation. Is McCardle saying the White Fragility author and conman is "fringe"? WaPo allowed me to read it, and yes, yes she is. She's calling D'Angelo a fringe element when I think she's an elemental part of the Left's institutional racist program known as anti-racism.
Other than that I appreciated McCardle's opinion piece. Perhaps it will in time mark the point when the Left started pushing D'Angelo out to the fringe and off the cultural radar. As Alinsky points out, idealogues cannot stand to be mocked.
They're not real people. They've been fake all their lives.
So the author of "White Fragility" is now a "nut?" I thought she and Tah-nesi Coates were essential voices of reason to you and your kind.
Borat had a song about throwing Jews down the well but now that the sentiment is part of the left's platform I suspect the film is awkward for them now…
I didn't enjoy watching those sucker abuse Uncle Frank, it made me cringe, but it was good to show what it would look like because the professional antiracists have called for that kind of thing to be done at family gatherings. They try to reach into your family to foment anger, hate and division and make foolish people believe they doing something good. They're horrible people.
"But... it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor. ...." McArdle asserts, without evidence. Shouldn't she be called on it?
Then there is the element of criticism of Walsh's pranking methods, which is mixed with outrage that it's been turned against 'right-thinking, good-hearted' victims. It's an assault on their virtue, and McArdle responds with HowDareYou-ism. Why not comment on that? People that are capitalizing on this kind of rancid behavior modification ought to be shamed. They deserve it, and more.
Exposing the absurdity of people trying to be inoffensive in a setting where signalling behavior is required to advance within the new hierarchy, is what Walsh is showing: Wokeism is false. It's a grift, designed to use guilt to extort money. Some of these same people, struggling to be inoffensive in Walsh's setups, would turn some really awful behaviors on like a light switch, if a target presented itself - because they've been coached to do so.
I don't plan to see it, because I don't like setup movies, generally, even Candid Camera. I don't like seeing manipulative strategies flexed at the expense of others, which is one of the reasons I don't like Wokeism. I'm glad Walsh made the movie though. I saw one short video by a black woman who gets it - she enjoyed the movie and gave a favorable review, noting that Walsh has exposed the dark, cynical, money grubbing - which heartens me, seeing intelligent people moving past the paradigm.
That's essentially how the whole professional anti-racist gig works deserves emphasis (first try didn't end the bolding)
I saw the movie too. The fact that Robin and the rest of those grifters routinely are paid big money to spout their nonsense shows what a scam this anti-racism/DEI industry is.
“ But... it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor."”
But it’s ok if Trump’s statements are taken out of context to make him look bad. Editing for advantage happens all the time and in nefarious ways. No group is exempt. Why should there be?
Megan is smart. She is a Never Trumper, but not obnoxious like all the other Never Trumpers.
Critical Mockumentary Theater (CMT) was conceived in the woke of social progress that exposed license with liberal intent.
The time-display has been overrun by italics.
Oh, test.
"Yeah, well Michael Moore also "pretended to be someone he wasn't" and so did Sacha Baron Cohen. Was Roger and Me a mockumentary?"
No, it was a documentary, conducted by someone who was using comedy. I don't think Moore set up any fake scenarios. He was being himself.
But it wasn't fiction.
I've recently watched some Matt Walsh segments on YT but haven't been that impressed, as much as I agree with many of his opinions.
And the movie ads don't inspire me to want to watch the whole thing, either.
Straighten up!
I pretend to be somebody I am.
thats just crazy talk
Having sat through one of these grifters discussions on race as part of a corporate DEI campaign, it is easy to make them look bad with or without the ability to edit them.
If Walsh went to regular people and did this, I might feel bad, but Robin What's her name has made millions of of regular people by preaching this Gospel. Her book is a best seller and those dinner party ladies have had numerous stories written about them in Corporate Media. Walsh is punching up.
That sums up what bothers me about the mainstream press. They have an agenda, so I can't trust them to be fair to the people they are tricking.
Why is it bad if he has an agenda ? As long as he honestly portrays people, that should be fine. Show me a man journalist who doesn't have an agenda.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Does Trump hatred make people stupid or does it simply reveal the stupid hiding inside all of us?
9/24/24, 8:32 AM
Embrace the healing power of "and"!
It was funny.
“Do you enjoy watching unsuspecting human subjects endure this social experiment?”
Why yes. As a matter of fact I do.
“Why not redo the Milgram experiment with hidden cameras and edit it into a feature film?”
Really? So if I enjoy watching overpaid liberals exposed as silly, then I’m the kind of person who enjoys seeing people tortured? Absurd.
I didn't like Borat precisely because I don't enjoy cringe humor. I don't think I'd like this movie either.
60 Minutes pretended to give their targets a fair shake. The fairness ended up on the cutting room.
I've never seen anything of Michael Moore's, but I did see "Borat" and thought a lot of it was funny.
I like funny.
Race isn't really that important in general, though it can become important in some contexts. One of the follies of our times is to inflate race into a hyper-consideration in society. We would be better off sticking with MLK: the content of one's character is more important that the color of one's skin. People deserve to be treated as individuals. Walsh is wading around in a pond of people who (for whatever reason) think that race is very, very important. Their ideas cannot end well.
I saw it and enjoyed it.
A difference between Walsh and Cohen is that Walsh portrays the common man as the voice of reason and the mocks the so called elites while Cohen mocks the common man.
"I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking. And of course, tricking them itself is unfair."
It's so unfair for the right to fight back. They're so untrustworthy. All these nice people, tricked! Exposed as shallow grifters! Antiracism as a con! It's so unfair. Not funny.
It's funny though how the very headline assumes the prog default. They know their audience.
I'd actually agree with the sentiment...if these people were not seeking personal wealth from this nonsense. This is a classic grift.
The fact that he lured them by paying the fees they demanded — including $50,000 for one women — might make some people think they deserved what they got.
It’s not that the money shows they deserve it; the money shows they are not fringe. They are professional propagandists who have purportedly thought all this through sufficiently to train others. I don’t much care for the whole squirm/cringe/awkward genre of humor, but it seems to me that the criticisms of the film above are indistinguishable from criticisms of the genre.
I thought the interviews in the film were quite anodyne. So Walsh took a sympathetic rather than hostile or interrogative approach -- what's more likely to have someone speak openly? There's nothing about the Robin D'Angelo interview that reveals something that she didn't say or logically imply in her book. That Walsh subtly walked D'Angelo into endorsing separate hallways for whites and minorities was stunningly brilliant -- and really all the interviews did was take anti-racism to its logical conclusions to demonstrate the illogic (or immorality) of the theory.
The pranks in the film are a different animal, and serve a different purpose. By their nature, pranks alter the reality, and the responses you get are often people trying to mediate discomfort (sometimes diplomatically, sometimes aggressively). I don't think objections to that approach should be conflated with the "deception" of a sympathetic interviewer scenes.
it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor.
I have told the story here before about the incident that got me off Facebook: I was at a choir retreat with my church choir in Pennsylvania, where everyone but me and one other couple were quite progressive. The couple were "out" conservatives; I was closeted. In part, this was because I didn't see why we had to talk about politics in church choir; in part it was a feeling of unease about how I would be treated if they knew, based on little things I saw in their treatment of the conservative couple.
So there we were, a group of 10 or so that did not include the conservative couple, sitting at a table eating lunch together. It was 2016 and election season was in full swing. These people whom I had known for years, whom I cherished as friends and worshiped with, were saying the most mocking, dismissive, insulting things about conservatives - not just people who planned to vote for Trump, but anyone who didn't plan to vote for Clinton.
Eventually, I quietly excused myself and went up into the knave to sit alone with my thoughts. One person, one, noticed that I had left and came upstairs to ask if I was all right. He seemed to know that my issue was political (in a narrow sense), but he didn't come right out and ask.
After that, I realized that I was avoiding checking my Facebook feed because I was learning too much about my friends. I still love those people and sing with them when they do choir residencies, and as far as I know they still don't know my political leanings.
But these people weren't fringe. This might have been their worst moment, but all that was happening was that they were speaking freely in what they thought was an all-progressive setting. I didn't set out to fool them or to draw out that moment - it was all them.
That's a good point, AMDG
"mockumentary" = is it not enough that some mocking take place and filmed/recorded ?
What form of video refutation of DEI insanity would pass the Althouse/ McArdle test for "fairness"? I suppose four years of watching Kamala Harris as President would do the trick. But that's an awfully expensive way to refute something that urgently requires debunking.
Saw it last weekend. Not my cup of tea but still well done for all that. Thumbs up 👍.
I really enjoyed his "What is a woman" and have enjoyed the clips I've seen from this one. I look forward to seeing it but it does not seem to be playing in Puerto Rico.
Possibly because it would make little sense to most people here. We really don't have any distinctions based on skin color.
Some objections to Cubans and Dominicans but even there not at all serious.
John Henry
John Henry
I've been crushed by the tumbling tide (Time)
And my soul has been psych-italicized(Time)
Saw “Reagan” and enjoyed it. Good performance from Quaid. This one will be next.
Sounds like Candid Camera.
The professional anti-racist business seems to me to be akin to selling absolution, selling indulgences.
Haven’t seen the movie, but I wonder how much it delves into whether the term “racist” has any meaning as applied to humans, rather than systems.
I thought the essential point of “What is a Woman” was: If you want to be a woman, what is it that you want to be?
Shorter Althouse:
It is unfair to trick leftists into being honest and making fools of themselves.
The people he's lampooning aren't "the fringe" though. They were and are mainstream figures that McArdle's Washington Post featured and quoted as authorities on race relations.
""mockumentary" = is it not enough that some mocking take place and filmed/recorded ?"
A mockumentary is not a documentary that includes mocking someone. It is instead a fictional story filmed in documentary style (breaking the fourth wall, interviews with the characters, etc.) to make the fictional story appear to be real. Mocking may, but need not, be involved.
""mockumentary" = is it not enough that some mocking take place and filmed/recorded ?"
The "mock" in "mockumentary" means fake, not mocking. Like mock turtle soup.
The filmmaker had an agenda, so I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking
It'd be nice to live in a world where every reporter, opinion columnist, etc didn't "have an agenda," but here we are. Does anyone think the quotes and clips used in the typical Washington Post *news* article aren't selected and/or edited based on the reporter's agenda?
Hell, The Daily Show was little more than deliberately taking footage out of context, and we've all heard serious news people assert that young people getting their news from the Daily Show was valuable and praiseworthy!
When James O'Keefe or some other rightwinger plays undercover footage that's embarrassing to a Lefty all we hear is how the video should be ignored because it was "selectively edited."
That's as opposed to the editing that the Media does every day, with every story, which is in some way less "selective" even when it consistently takes people out of context, creates false impressions, etc.
60 Minutes and The Daily Show win Peabodies; Matt Walsh is dismissed as unserious and a mean-spirited trickster.
Unsurprisingly, many of his targets are painted as grifters, demagogues or well-meaning morons
That's because they ARE grifters, demagogues or morons. "well-meaning"? Not so much
Because if you were well-meaning, you'd be "color blind"
Interspersed are more sympathetic figures, White and Black, trying to convince this caricature that race doesn’t actually matter very much.
These are the only "well-meaning" people.
If you don’t like the people he’s lampooning, it’s easy to convince yourself that he’s revealing something deep and important... But... it’s easy to make [a] group look bad if only the fringe’s worst moments survive the cutting-room floor.
Robin DiAngelo isn't "fringe", she's the heart and soul of the movement
Borat picked on random people just trying to go about their lives. "Am I a Racist" went after despicable grifters who make a living doing what they were rightly mocked on camera for doing.
That sums up what bothered me about the movie. The filmmaker had an agenda, so I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking.
Sure you can. Because the people he went after have the resources to fight back if he actually defamed them. But he didn't, and none of them have tried to claim the he did.
And of course, tricking them itself is unfair. The fact that he lured them by paying the fees they demanded — including $50,000 for one women — might make some people think they deserved what they got.
1: No, it's not wrong to trick and expose grifters and demagogues. Do you get upset went a team exposes a fake "faith healer" as a scam? How is that any different than this?
2: They DO deserve everything he did to them while they were raking in the bucks
If DEI were a right-wing policy, 60 minutes would have done an in-depth exposition on what happens in these sessions years ago.
Now picture public school teachers leading these same sessions for high school students. That's what was happening during COVID.
...and Matt Walsh is Martin Luther nailing AWFLs to the Wittenberg Cathedral's door.
But was it funny?
I haven't seen this movie so I'm probably missing it but where was the trickery? If the person making this movie defrauded someone then that would presumably be actionable. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of the word "trickery" in this context. I suppose it's the idea that allowing people to think that you agree with their point of view constitutes trickery when you really don't. Except this goes on all the time in everyday living.
"Do you enjoy watching unsuspecting human subjects endure this social experiment? "
Uh, no. Makes me uncomfortable. So, I won't be watching Am I Racist. But I already despise the people being mocked, so it's not like I'm missing anything.
Whether it's fair to the subjects is kind of irrelevant; they are being actively and lucratively sociopolitical, and in that realm social and political attacks should be expected. Show me one of the subjects who would be kind and forgiving to an actual "racist" and I might reconsider.
Yes, absolutely. His "reenactment of the Smollett incident in Chicago had the audience guffawing as well as the cash reparation payment to his "I never turn down cash" assistant.
To Catch a Predator was done with good intentions but I felt it was wrong somehow. Getting my entertainment that way.
Walsh is punching up.
Excellent point. A lot of DEI drivel very much feels like punching down, starting from the assumption that it's proponents are moral superiors.
None. One could say that Walsh's behavior influenced some of the participants in the several workshops to react in a certain way but all of the leaders and interviewees who were paid were paid their standard fees to do what they do, NOT to participate in the movie.
"I pretend to be somebody I am."
Me, too. And the scolds and the superficially virtuous find it absolutely confounding. It's a lot of fun.
In general, the Woke are more racist than conservatives. For example, they talk down to POC (use a simpler vocabulary), whereas conservatives speak the same. They assume that blacks are incapable of voting, succeeding, controlling their anger or behavior. They are vicious to any black who is conservative (Clarence Thomas for example). How dare they go off the reservation?
"Megan used to be a brilliant writer, willing to go against conventional wisdom to actually report facts."
She wanted to paid for her writing- after being forced to move several different times (independent, The Atlantic, The Economist, and Bloomberg, I think it broke her and when she landed at WaPoo she decided enough was enough and bent to the will of the people signing her paychecks. The sad thing is that if had remained true to her inner self she probably could have retired on a healthy Substack.
Oops, nave. I was talking into my phone.
But I'm Diversitist!? Yes, you are.
Same apply to Michael Moore's or Katie Couric's “Under the Gun,” documentaries?
"That sums up what bothered me about the movie. The filmmaker had an agenda, so I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking. And of course, tricking them itself is unfair. "
This is the first time i have seen the "italics problem" manifest. Quite amusing.
We have a couple of local examples but maybe it is just the "stupid inside."
All FILM is fiction. Documentaries are no exception. And it's not a left/right thing or a question of the filmmaker's "honesty"; it's just the reality that ANY film is the culmination of a lot of choices on the part of the filmmakers as to what to film, how to film it, how to edit the pieces together, what music to add, etc. A documentary isn't necessarily any more valid as a representation of the "truth" than a scripted movie that was "based on a true story," or even a totally fictional story. There's a lot of truth in fiction.
Because all films are fiction, it's not really a fair or useful criticism of "Am I A Racist?" to point out how easy it is to make real people look ridiculous in a documentary, since that's true of any documentary. The questions you should be asking, IMO, are whether the story the filmmaker is telling you an interesting and entertaining one, and to what extent does it alter your understanding of and feelings about things happening (or that have happened) in the real world? Even a film as chock full of nonsense as Oliver Stone's "JFK" can contain SOMETHING truthful in it (wittingly or unwittingly) that affects how you think about the Kennedy assassination.
I haven't seen AIAR?, but it sounds like an entertaining film that could have a lot of additional value in getting people to think about the DEI/anti-racism industry.
The filmmaker had an agenda, so I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking. And of course, tricking them itself is unfair.
Is it about being fair to the subjects of the film or fair to the audience watching the film? I didn't watch this movie but I did watch his film, "What is a Woman." I suspect both films were made using similar tactics. Matt Walsh would feign support for the cause, then get footage of people talking about the cause, and then presumably clip the most extreme instances of them talking about the cause. In the 'What is a Woman", movie I assumed he would take the most egregious clips. But my sense was that these most extreme clips were still true and accurate to what that person actually believed. Could the subject have included extra verbiage that made their ideas seem more reasonable? Perhaps, but not including that verbiage isn't unfair to the audience if the selected clips more accurately help the audience discern the true motivations and extent of the beliefs of the subjects of the film. And in my mind, films are made for audiences not for the subjects of the film.
As an aside my impression is that the folks who support trans ideology are more likely to be true believers than the folks who advocate for racial DEI stuff, who in my estimation are more likely to have a dose of the grifter in them.
A friend of mine was once a subject of a "60 minutes" segment. He was advised to bring his own video equipment.
Exactly !
Saw it over the weekend. I hardly ever go to movies, but when I hear that theaters are pulling out of screening the movie because of violent threats I make a point of going to see the movie as soon as possible after that. to make sure the tactic backfires on the little fascists.
Having followed Sraira Rao on Twitter for some time, and seeing what an odious husk she is after reading her in her own words for the last few years, I was actually MORE sympathetic to her after watching Am I A Racist than I was before. Because seeing her in person (well, on film) humanized her a little bit for me. Because everyone on Twitter becomes a bit of a carichature of their real selves.
And we should all be careful of falling into that trap.
She's still a vile bitch, though.
ding ding ding
No need for mockumentaries. Just look at Martha's Vineyard. They got rid of those illegals PDQ. No trickery needed.
Now lets have a city of 250,000 take in 100,000 Haitians. Share that wealth.
Comments all leaning to the right.
"The filmmaker had an agenda, so I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking."
Which is why I hate what Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock did to "documentary" films. They made propaganda films socially acceptable and even socially celebrated.
Hard to see any improprieties here, gotta say.
Let's have an experiment: Collect all of the footage shot for Matt Walsh's film, and all of the footage shot for, I dunno, an hour-long CBS Trump interview, and in each case, hand it over to an editor with a strong opposite bias. Let's see what they turn out. I bet it would be highly entertaining.
The left went all in for the BS Smolette Story... and many still believe him. That's the state of the leftist mind in America.
Why not redo the Milgram experiment with hidden cameras and edit it into a feature film?
It would be interesting, esp. since IIRC I've read that the results weren't exactly as portrayed
It's my view, often repeated here, that lefties, in general, are nasty little shits. A more precise statement would be that there are two kinds of lefties. I believe, without any supporting evidence, that easily half are nasty little shits. The other half are not themselves nasty little shits, but without any qualms, they seem to fully support and are led by the other half who are nasty little shits.
It's our job to point out and discredit the nasty little shits.
- Krumhorn
"The classic example is "Borat." The central character is pretending to be something he isn't, perhaps for sheer comedy, perhaps with a political agenda, and the idea is to extract something revealing from people who are not in on the joke."
I don't think Walsh's movie is at all comparable to that.
With the understanding that I haven't watched "Am I Racist" but have seen "What Is A Woman?" and presume the approach to making both is essentially the same, what Cohen and Walsh are doing in their movies are different.
With "Borat", Cohen is going for laughs by doing unexpected/outrageous things and filming the reactions he gets from people who are, as you said, "not in on the joke". Walsh's approach is to get people to let down their guard and talk about things they actually believe in a way they never would in a more confrontational setting.
What I remember about "What Is A Woman?" is how people Walsh interviewed just kept digging themselves into deeper holes as they continued to talk without any pushback on their ideas until they reached the point where they finally realized how they sounded, and then promptly ended the interview.
"With the understanding that I haven't watched "Am I Racist" but have seen "What Is A Woman?" and presume the approach to making both is essentially the same, what Cohen and Walsh are doing in their movies are different."
It's very different. In "Am I Racist?" Walsh adopts the persona of someone who is naive and basically on the side of the people he's interviewing. He acts as if he is coming to them for training or as if he's a humble worker catering a dinner for women who are doing a session with trainers, and he poses as a trainer himself and proposes a series of escalating exercises (in the Milgram mode).
In "What is a woman?" he's doing relatively straightforward interviews.
Note that to do a persona and have it be entertaining, you need acting talent. Walsh relies on a very dry deadpan style. He's not Sacha Baron Cohen. That guy is a comic genius. Even with Borat, you worry about the fairness to those who are not in on the joke. I had ethical qualms. I empathize with the people who are being tricked. I don't want to be complicit by laughing at everyone. Walsh's targets were not as stupid and ill-intentioned as he wanted us to see them. I don't like to be pushed around.
"Walsh's targets were not as stupid and ill-intentioned as he wanted us to see them."
One defining characteristic of the left is the importance they put on intentions. Or on what they claim are their intentions, anyway.
It would be nice if they'd maybe stop now and then and take a look at the results of their actions, instead of patting themselves on the back because they "meant well". I won't be holding my breath waiting for that, though.
After that, I realized that I was avoiding checking my Facebook feed because I was learning too much about my friends.
Same thing after the first assassination attempt on Trump. People I'd known for 40+ years. Knew they were left-of-center, but we avoided politics.
They really showed themselves that day. I've written them out of my life.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Post a Comment