Pajiba

Ooooooh, bad history makes my damn blood boil. A few points:

1. Spotted anachronisms:
a. house in the opening shot. I will eat my hat if that is a 18th-century house. If it is, they have done absolutely nothing to make it look authentic. The damn thing looks sided. I also think in one shot I see a random Cape in the background. Do some goddamned research, for God's sake.
b. groomed brows
c. Those earrings look like something from Claire's.

2. The City on a Hill (capitalized) was Boston. It wasn't just some random-ass place that was on a hill. Given that it's the tea party (lowercase), they probably want to invoke the original Tea Party while distancing themselves from the liberal bastion they perceive Boston to be.

Ryan, I didn't understand a damn word of it either. But maybe we just aren't "drinking the tea" enough to get it.

omg I'd love nothing more than to mock the shit out of this, but it's too damn easy.

Also, I cosign with Ryan, about halfway through I'm like "Huh?" What the hell is this even about?

Good Grief. Seriously how in the hell do political lines dictate someone's ability at being artistic? Well, it really shouldn't. But time and again productions that boast being from representatives on the right consistently fall flat on their faces.

About the only thing that I can think of is that art as a whole is a liberal forum. Conservative politics thrive on everyone having not only the same philosophies but often following the exact same action even when there are people within the ranks who might internally feel otherwise. This also tends to follow many of the religious in their numbers and the same goes for the workforce as well. They want people who all think and act the same without those in the middle rocking the boat with other interpretations. If it doesn't come from on high, it isn't welcomed. Republicans, to a fault, tend to vote entirely on one side of an issue. And while that certainly can make them a power in terms of passing something (or not), there have been times when those within should have said something to question their party's policy but were either discouraged or outright silenced. And no, it is not because they are evil but rather they view such constant opinions to be bureaucratic and inefficient. To be fair this regimentation works very efficiently in many forms- but art isn't often one of them.

On the liberal side, art works very well. Free thinking and independent thought produces many more choices of output. Politically however, this too can have downside as one might see when the Democrats hold a majority and still often fall into inefficiency as they find in much harder to keep a completely united front at times. There are often too many varying opinions which can lead to very little being accomplished as everybody insisting on getting their individual say in.

And this is where art comes in. Art is an opinion. Even when it is based on reality it still will always have a slant or gray area that needs to be filled in. When a single person fills it in themselves if is a reflection of that one person and therefore tends to be accepted as a singular thought. Audiences can accept a singular thought as we all encounter opinions every day. But when they are filled in with a group's collective opinion or thought, the audience's view of the presentation becomes that of a statemented agenda with underlying motives. And that tends to turn audiences off. We can accept opinions, we may not always LIKE them, but we accept that they are there. But when something feels like it's being preached down to us by a group, the facade it's being presented in is automatically cheapened.

When Michael Moore makes a movie, I do not think of him as speaking for the Left, rather I feel it's his own personal beliefs quite possibly because it doesn't fit neatly in a group peg-hole. When I've seen productions touted as being from the Right, it just feels like it was put together in a boardroom. I feel if the Right wants to be taken a little more seriously, they are going to need to have more visible individuals out in front, and they are going to have allow some leeway in their presentations. Which means sometimes allowing those that create art to stray off the party lines. Artists abhor rules, restrictions, regulations, instructions or authority. If they want more artists to play in their sandbox, they are going to have to allow them to build sandcastles in their own ways.

Huh? Was that trailer supposed to make sense?

Hm. It's not that conservatives can't make movies,(see Sam Raimi). Evidently they just can't make movies about conservative values. Probably because conservative values are BO-ring (come on, how can you have entertainment without gratuitous non-marital sex?).

Wait, I'm confused. Did they just edit out all the parts with Wishbone for the trailer?

What the jabbering fuck did I just watch? Aside from something that had acting worse than I saw watching high school plays?

More proof that New Hampshire really is the South of the North.

Dustin Rowles,
I find so interesting that you can review Courage, without even seeing it. But then again, I would never trust anyone who writes like you. My 3rd grader has a better vocabulary,grammar and style.

Pretty! This was a really wonderful post. Thank you for your provided information.