Posted by
ShiningCity on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:37:12 AM
By the way, I saw Expelled last Friday on opening night.
The New York Times hates it, which, of course, means it's a very good movie.
Here's a quaint contrast of Gray Lady reviews. (Doesn't matter the authors so I didn't take the time; they're all the same "person" anyway.)
Excerpt from movie review: Brokeback Mountain (emphasis mine)
THE lonesome chill that seeps through
Ang Lee's epic western,
"Brokeback Mountain," is as bone deep as the movie's heartbreaking story of two cowboys who fall in love almost by accident. It is embedded in the craggy landscape where their idyll begins and ends. It creeps into the farthest corners of the wide-open spaces they share with coyotes, bears and herds of sheep and rises like a stifled cry into the big, empty sky that stretches beyond the horizon
....(oh hurl).
Epic?? C'mon on. (Note to self: avoid all references to "herds of sheep" when discussing such a topic.)
UPDATE: At SgtRelic's suggestion, I took a look at the Gray Lady's opinion on Michael Moore's little movie about 9-11. Let's see how their reviews measure up to Expelled's "sleazy documentar[y]" that "masquerade[es] as investigative inquiry." And I've reproduced the entire movie review for Expelled. It's such grand writing, you ought not miss it.
Excerpt from movie review: Fahrenheit 9/11 (emphasis mine)
espect for the president is a longstanding American tradition and one that is still very much alive, as the weeklong national obsequies for Ronald Reagan recently proved. But there is also an opposing tradition of holding up our presidents, especially while they are in office, to ridicule and scorn.
Which is to say that while Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be properly debated on the basis of its factual claims and cinematic techniques, it should first of all be appreciated as a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression. Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery, Mr. Moore takes wholesale aim at the Bush administration, whose tenure has been distinguished, in his view, by unparalleled and unmitigated arrogance, mendacity and incompetence.
That Mr. Moore does not like Mr. Bush will hardly come as news. "Fahrenheit 9/11," which opens in Manhattan today and in the rest of the country on Friday, is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to the republic.
New York Times' movie review: Expelled (emphasis mine)
Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this) [Classic tactic I: fail to definitively support emotional outbursts, and then follow with philosophical gobbledygook], while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times.)
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism [Classic tactic II: Lead reader to assume understanding and ability to discuss complex ideas, yet simply regurgitate terminology incidentally recalled from undergraduate sociology], the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated [Classic tactic III: Assume a relationship does not exist because you do not understand one] — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method [Revisit tactic II: substitute terminology from undergraduate biology-for-liberal-arts-majors instead of sociology]. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges [Classic tactic IV: act horrified that anyone dare draw abstract conclusions but do so yourself in the disciplines of "art" and "media"] at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
“Expelled” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic [Revisit tactic I].
The differences in the characterization of Moore's movie (and Moore) with Expelled is striking. The Moore article at least attempts to definitively review the film while maintaining respect for those involved in its production. The latter review is hostile emotionalism. In fact, the NYT couldn't give the movie a better endorsement.