The American Conservative Staff
(”The Blind Side” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Art & Architecture Culture Little Way Of Ruthie Leming So, I had an illuminating and unsentimental conversation with a film and television agent today. There is some interest in making a film of The Little Way Of Ruthie Leming, and we were talking about the prospects. She told me that the landscape has changed greatly. “How often do you go to the movies?” she said. Um, only when I’m taking my kids, I said. That tells you something, she said. The only movies they’re making today are movies for kids and teenagers. Every now and then you see a Blind Side, but that’s rare. They’re not making the kind of great adult dramas that we grew up with. You couldn’t get Driving Miss Daisy greenlighted, she said. Grown-ups watch movies on TV, iPad, and computers. We don’t go to the theater anymore, for the most part. That’s certainly true for me and my wife. But the thing is, it’s not because we’re not willing to make the effort; it’s because there’s not a damn thing for adults to see. Is it that adults don’t want to go to the movies, so they don’t make movies for adults, or is it that they don’t make movies for adults, so adults have no reason to go? I think Richard Linklater could make a great movie out of Little Way. Anyway, what do you think of the movies? Do you go? Why or why not? I work from home, and have the freedom to go to the movies anytime. But there’s rarely anything worth driving 35 miles to see. I’ll take the kids to see crap like Star Trek, but it is complete crap, which is not always a bad thing, but still… ]]>
(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
(”The Blind Side” is briefly mentioned in this.)
David Epstein, the HBD-woke author of The Sports Gene, writes in Slate: If you’ve watched gymnastics in Rio, you’ve probably noticed that the gymnasts are pretty small, and that Simone Biles, the greatest gymnast probably ever, is small even compared to her American teammates. But at 4-foot-8, Biles is actually only slightly smaller than her peers. In fact, over the last 30 years, the average elite female gymnast has shrunk from about 5-foot-3 on average to about 4-foot-9. Why are elite female gymnasts getting smaller? Because the more demanding gymnastics routines have become, the bigger an advantage it is to be small. A smaller gymnast not only has a better power-to-weight ratio. She also has a lower moment of inertia. You can think of moment of inertia as essentially a measure of a body’s resistance to rotating. The higher the moment of inertia, the harder it is to rotate the object. And larger bodies with more weight far away from the axis of rotation have a higher moment of inertia. Think about figure skaters. You’ve probably noticed that when figure skaters spin, they start rotating much more rapidly when they bring their arms close in to their chest. By moving their arms in, they’ve decreased the amount of weight that’s far away from the axis of rotation and they’ve decreased their moment of inertia, making it easier for them to spin at high speed. The smaller a gymnast is, the easier it is for her to rotate in the air. In the past, the judges gave taller, more elegantly moving young women advantages because they looked better. But that gave an advantage to Eastern European girls raised in the traditions behind the Bolshoi ballet. The Americans have lobbied to make scoring more objective, which gives the advantages to Mary Lou Retton-style muscular human cannonball body types like Biles’. Over time, the various Olympic sports have become hyper-specialized by body type, so medalists tend to be rather freakish looking. One interesting question is which sports have the best normal looking athletes: i.e., the winners look like movie stars rather than people selected at an early age for their odd proportions. Traditionally, men’s pole vaulters — an event that requires both lower body speed and upper body strength — have been good looking guys. When women’s pole vaulting was introduced, they tended to be good looking too. Slate recently ran an article by a woman journalist claiming that Allison Stokke is the most popular lady pole vaulter in the world for a “gross” reason: i.e., people think she’s pretty. (Slate has since memory holed their old headline and replaced it with “Allison Stokke Is the Most Popular Pole Vaulter in the World, and I Wish That Weren’t So Depressing.”) But Stokke is only the 168th ranked women’s pole vaulter in the world. My guess is that when pole vaulting was extended to high school girls, the early adapters tended to be rich guy’s daughters who are high-flying cheerleaders during football season. For example, the daughter in the real life family featured in the 2009 Sandra Bullock movie The Blind Side went on to be the Mississippi state pole vaulting champion several times in high school. Her dad had been the U. of Mississippi’s all-time best point guard and her mom the college’s head cheerleader. But I don’t know whether this pattern has continued. In general, girly girls tend to be more attracted to the anti-gravity sports like gymnastics, figure skating, and pole vaulting. ]]>
(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
Oscar contender “Boyhood” is Richard Linklater’s somewhat overpraised autobiographical movie about his youth in Texas is the 1960s-70s as filmed through the gimmick of following a boy actor growing up from about 2000-2012. From Criticwire: ‘Boyhood’ and the White Savior By Sam Adams | Criticwire February 17, 2015 at 12:51PM Does “Boyhood’s” near-total absence of Latino characters make it racist? Although the praise for Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood” has been about as unanimous as praise can get, there’s been a small but persistent objection, mainly lodged by critics of color, that the film’s focus on a white middle-class male and the claim to universality implied by its title effect a kind of erasure. “Depicting a white American male from childhood to adolescence,” Armond White wrote, “it celebrates the emblematic figure of American social power. If Mason’s boyhood is “Boyhood,” what about the boyhoods of those whose lives are radically different from his own? What about “Girlhood”? Wouldn’t the movie have been more interesting if were about Mason’s sister (Lorelei Linklater) or his mom (Patricia Arquette)? Not if Richard Linklater had made it. Is the concept of “autobiographical” really that unclear? So far, Richard Linklater is the only writer-director in American movie history to make an autobiographical movie over 12 years. If you want to watch an autobiographical movie called “Girlhood,” then you would need a former girl to have made it. And so far no former girls have done that. Truth be told, Linklater might have better off sticking with his working title, “12 Years” (although half-stealing it from a movie about slaves would not have have helped his case)…. But in order to suggest life continues outside the frame, we first have to see a hint of that life inside it, and for Grisel Y. Acosta at Latino Rebels, “Boyhood’s” near total lack of Latino characters amounts to a kind of subtle racism: When we see “The Birth of a Nation,” after returning from the bathroom because of becoming sick to our stomachs, we know without a doubt what the problem is and we can easily criticize the film —despite its merits in editing— for its horrendous content. A film like Boyhood, on the other hand, has been praised universally for its “life-like” dialogue and visual realism, largely due to the fact that it was shot over the course of 12 years. Much like “The Birth of a Nation,” it is being praised for its innovative technique and will likely be shown in many a film school, just like “The Birth of a Nation” often is. However, unlike “The Birth of a Nation,” the racism depicted in “Boyhood,” I suspect, will not be seen as clearly as the racism in the former film. The sole exception to that absence — at least according to Acosta; I haven’t had an opportunity to rewatch the entire film to scan for Latino characters on the periphery — is Enrique, the yard worker played by Roland Ruiz, the one who picks up on an offhand suggestion by Arquette’s character and turns up years later as a college graduate and restaurant manager. For Acosta, this constitutes an iteration of “the horrific ‘save me White person’ trope that has been depicted in countless films, from ‘Dangerous Minds’ to ‘The Blind Side.’” Some folks will argue, “Well, what’s wrong with the Mom character being nice?” You must look at the overall structure of the story. If you delete all people of Mexican descent from the imagery onscreen, then only have one interaction with a person of Mexican descent, and that one interaction is one of a white savior uplifting the Mexican, THAT IS RACIST. But, because it is cushioned in the decade-plus depiction of a warm, interesting family, we will accept it. We will say, “Oh, but it’s still such a wonderful film.” We will say, “Oh, but didn’t Linklater really accomplish something with this.” We will say, “Look at how brilliant we can be.” We won’t say, “Damn, we made a really racist film.” Ever. I mean, it’s not like we have the KKK running around lynching people, right? This isn’t the first time that scene has been a focus for critics of the film. Back in August, the Daily Dot’s Jaime Woo wrote: Logically, it feels like a stretch: the initial exchange so brief and minor that his evolution feels unearned. Worse, Ernesto’s journey relies on an audience that has internalized the idea that Olivia’s words could have such effect, a trope on race and class called-out incisively by the show “Cougar Town”: “If there’s anything we’ve learned from Michelle Pfeiffer in “Dangerous Minds” or Sandy Bullock in “The Blind Side” or Hilary Swank in that movie nobody ever saw, it’s that all you need to fix minority problems is a really pretty white woman.” Jose Solís at the Film Experience has a different idea. What if the absence of Latinos in significant roles is a function of Mason’s point of view, the way that his father and mother, who are named Mason Sr. and Olivia in the body of the film, are credited in the end as “Dad” and “Mom”? Maybe there are no Latinos because Mason doesn’t notice them, because “Boyhood” is the story of a boy who grows up to be a racist. He writes: Being a huge fan of Mr. Linklater’s work, I came up with my own justification: while Boyhood” itself is not racist, perhaps the boy in question is. Think about it, the film is clearly Mason’s (Ellar Coltrane) story and as such, we can safely assume that everything is seen from his perspective. But is he a reliable narrator when it comes to political correctness and tolerance? As a Caucasian, heterosexual male, growing up in one of the most conservative states in America, wouldn’t it make sense that Mason would grow up to be racist? ORDER IT NOWLooking past the “Room 237″ nature of this particular explanation, not to mention the implication that racists are primarily political conservatives — see the aforementioned “The Blind Side,” not to mention Hollywood’s long history of condescending uplift — the fact that the movie is nearly devoid of non-white characters, let alone any discussion of race, would make it impossible to tell. The Atlantic’s Imran Siddiquee phrased it in less fantastical terms: In this tale of a white family living in a state that borders Mexico, isn’t it strange that the only time they’re shown truly interacting with a Spanish-speaking non-white individual is when they are saving them from a life of manual labor? Perhaps we’re meant to gather from this that Mason is aware of the barriers that those with brown skin must overcome to make it in a place like Texas, but unlike the film’s references to other forms of discrimination, it’s not made obvious. Back at Latino Rebels, José Zuazua offers a more plausible explanation: Linklater simply wasn’t paying attention. (Zuazua hasn’t actually seen “Boyhood,” which Criticwire normally considers a deal-breaker, but it’s point worth considering.) “Birdman” screenwriters Just because (probably) White people made a movie where White characters are front and center, that doesn’t mean the movie is actually racist as well. It just makes it a false representation. A story. A vision. A fable. By the way: are there any Latinos in front of the camera in Boyhood’s rival Birdman? Not that I can recall, and Birdman is written by four Spanish-speaking gentlemen. Hollywood used to make movies with Mexican characters, but somewhere along the line it stopped. ]]>
(Review Source)
Steve Sailer
(”The Bonfire of the Vanities” is briefly mentioned in this.)
(Review Source)
American Renaissance
(”The Bonfire of the Vanities” is briefly mentioned in this.)

The system would have to destroy him.

The post There Will Never Be Another Tom Wolfe appeared first on American Renaissance.

(Review Source)
American Renaissance
(”The Bostonians” is briefly mentioned in this.)

What should dissidents be watching?

The post An American Renaissance Movie List appeared first on American Renaissance.

(Review Source)
The American Conservative Staff
(”The Bourne Supremacy” is briefly mentioned in this.)
In keeping with a proud tradition of not placing too much importance on most pop culture products and arguing vehemently against reading political messages in the plotlines of space operas, I had steered clear of the ever–widening circle of arguments over the political “message” of Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up (I should mention at this point that I have not seen this movie).  There is a part of me that would like to encourage left-of-center movie reviewers to see every cinematic depiction of normal human behaviour as a coded conservative propaganda effort, thus reinforcing the association of normality with conservatism that any supposed propaganda effort would be trying to achieve.  This saves conservatives some of the trouble in actually producing our own films, as it attributes the production of films in which conservatives had no role to our supposedly vast network of Hollywood influence.  In addition to being very amusing, because it is so obviously contrary to fact, this serves to increase the public perception that such-and-such a popular, entertaining movie is “conservative.”  It also gives conservative movie reviewers things to write about, as they attempt to perceive the hidden references to Burke in The Bourne Supremacy*.  For the most part, however, I find this sort of movie criticism annoying because it is so obviously wrong and compels everyone to label quite arbitrarily different pieces of art, television and film according to mostly inappropriate or misleading political categories.  Instead of appreciating Pan’s Labyrinth as a work of magical realism, it seems as if everyone felt compelled to show off his anti-fascist credentials by talking up the supposed political lessons of the film.  Instead of trying to understand, say, the New Caprica sequence in Battlestar Galactica as an interesting attempt to tell a different side of a war story there was no shortage of observers who wanted to make it into a commentary on Iraq.  Interpretations of 300 were similarly obsessed with either its horrible Orientalism or its supposedly subversive attack on Bush.  I suppose there could be and are political messages worked into all sorts of stories (I am more sympathetic to interpreting Apocalypto as a conservative morality play, which is far less speculative given the well-known politics of the director), but I suppose I have never quite understood why this becomes the basis for criticising the story or, more dramatically, rejecting it outright.  This is my general rule of thumb: the less overt and clear the political references, the better the work of art.  If you can very readily glean a political message from a film (at least any film not explicitly intended as propaganda), it is probably not terribly well made and probably not worth watching.  Take V for Vendetta, for instance–please!   There have been some cases where Hollywood studio politics clearly clashed with the marketing and release of films that had potentially very un-P.C. implications, resulting in their narrow release and fairly dismal box office receipts (and possibly contributing a little to their later critical acclaim).  Children of Men and Idiocracy were two films that, even in the Cuaronised version of the Children of Men plotline, seem to have conveyed messages that so horrified their respective studios that the studios seem to have tried to sabotage their success.  Both films pointed towards–probably unwittingly for the most part–the issues of “birth dearth” and demographic collapse that might be taken as encouragement for a natalist politics, and Idiocracy also had the “bad” taste to clearly put intelligence and heredity at the center of its story.      *In case anyone couldn’t tell, this is not a serious example. ]]>
(Review Source)
The Butler
The American Conservative Staff
(”The Butler” is briefly mentioned in this.)
On Martin Luther King Day, 2015, how stand race relations in America? “Selma,” a film focused on the police clubbing of civil rights marchers led by Dr. King at Selma bridge in March of 1965, is being denounced by Democrats as a cinematic slander against the president who passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the movie, King is portrayed as decisive and heroic, LBJ as devious and dilatory. And no member of the “Selma” cast has been nominated for an Academy Award. All 20 of the actors and actresses nominated are white. Hollywood is like the Rocky Mountains, says Rev. Al Sharpton, the higher up you go the whiter it gets. Even before the “Selma” dustup, the hacking of Sony Pictures had unearthed emails between studio chief Amy Pascal and producer Scott Rudin yukking it up over President Obama’s reputed preference for films like “Django Unchained,” “12 Years a Slave,” and “The Butler.” “Racism in Hollywood!” ran the headlines. Pascal went to Rev. Sharpton to seek absolution, which could prove expensive. Following a 90-minute meeting, Al tweeted that he had had a “very pointed and blunt exchange” with Pascal, that her emails reveal a “cultural blindness,” that Hollywood has to change, and that Pascal has “committed to this.” These cultural-social spats—LBJ loyalists vs. the “Selma” folks, Sharpton vs. Hollywood—are tiffs within the liberal encampment, and matters of amusement in Middle America. More serious have been the months-long protests against police, following the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner on Staten Island, some of which have featured chants like, “What do we want? Dead Cops!” The protests climaxed with the execution in Bedford-Stuyvesant of two NYPD cops by a career criminal taking revenge for Garner and Brown. Race relations today seem in some ways more poisonous than in 1965, when there were vast deposits of goodwill and LBJ pushed through the Voting Rights Act easily, 77-19 in the Senate and 328-74 in the House. Only two Republican Senators voted against the VRA. But not a week after LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act, the Watts section of Los Angeles exploded in one of the worst race riots in U.S. history. After seven days of pillage and arson, there were 34 dead, 1,000 injured, 3,000 arrested, and a thousand buildings damaged or destroyed. The era of marching for civil rights was over and the era of Black Power, with Stokely Carmichael, Rap Brown, and The Black Panthers eclipsing King, had begun. In July 1967, there were riots in Newark and Detroit that rivaled Watts in destruction. After Dr. King’s murder in Memphis in April of 1968, riots broke out in 100 more cities, including Washington, D.C. By Oct. 1, the nominee of the Democratic Party, civil rights champion Hubert Humphrey, stood at 28 percent in the Gallup poll, only 7 points ahead of Gov. George Wallace. Though Nixon won narrowly, the Great Society endured. And in the half-century since, trillions have been spent on food stamps, housing subsidies, Head Start, student loans, Pell Grants, welfare, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits, and other programs. How did it all work out? Undeniably, the civil right laws succeeded. Discrimination in hotels and restaurants is nonexistent. African-Americans voted in 2012 in higher percentages than white Americans. There are more black public officials in Mississippi than in any other state. In sports, entertainment, journalism, government, medicine, business, politics, and the arts, blacks may be found everywhere. Yet the pathology of the old urban ghetto has not disappeared. In some ways, it has gotten much worse. Crime in the black community is still seven times what it is in the white community. Test scores of black students remain far below those of Asian and white students. While 40 percent of all infants are born to single moms, the illegitimacy rate in black America is over 70 percent. Whether it is dropout rates, drug use rates, delinquency rates or incarceration rates, the rates for blacks far exceed those of white and Asian-Americans, and of immigrants and Hispanics. White households have a median family income below that of Asians, but far above that of black Americans. White households have on average $143,000 in wealth in stocks, bonds, home equity and other assets, 13 times that of the average black household. At Howard University in 1965, LBJ declared, “We seek … not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” “Equality as a result”? Measured by the average incomes and wealth of Asians and whites and Hispanics and blacks, we have failed. And income inequality is back again, as issue No. 1. After 50 years of affirmative action and the greatest wealth transfers in human history, “equality as a fact” has not been achieved and will not be, absent a greater seizure of power by the U.S. government and larger and virtually endless transfers of wealth. The reports of Karl Marx’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of  The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Copyright 2014 Creators.com. ]]>
(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
(”The Butler” is briefly mentioned in this.)
This is one of those weeks where the inside pages of the newspapers (for those of you who remember newspapers) grab one’s attention better than the big headlines. The story that the comment threads are talking about: the four young blacks in Chicago who kidnapped and tortured a retarded young white guy. The blacks are in custody; their mugshots have been broadcast to the media. You don’t have to look very long at those pictures to know where we are here: on the left-hand side of the Bell Curve. Intelligence-wise, in fact, we’re on the left-hand side of the black Bell Curve—IQs in the high seventies or low eighties. It’s worth making the effort of imagination to see how the world seems to people like that. So how does it seem? Well, it looks the way the images and the Narrative promoted in our Main Strea m Media and the schools portray it. These blacks, aged 18, 18, 18, and 24, grew up on a steady diet of school textbooks, TV shows, and movies keeping alive the resentments about slavery and Jim Crow. Their teachers told them more about the underground railroad than about Thomas Edison; more about Harriet Tubman than about George Washington; more about Frederick Douglass than about Mark Twain. If they were given any poetry it was Maya Angelou, not Longfellow. Movie producers gave them The Butler, Twelve Years a Slave, The Birth of a Nation. All that picking at historical scabs left these dimwitted youngsters with the feeling that whatever happens to whites, they have it coming. Mix that in with the different behavioral profiles of blacks—low impulse control, high levels of psychopathology, the pack mentality—and you get events like this one. Indeed, you get much worse: anyone remember the Knoxville Horror? Do whites do cruel things to blacks? Yes, they do. One exceptionally cruel thing, the Charleston church murders of 2015, is still generating small news storie s on page sixteen. The differences are in numbers and style. Numbers: Single-offender interracial crimes of violence break five black on nonblack to one the other way. Five out of six are black on nonblack. That at any rate was the case up to 2008—when the Department of Justice mysteriously stopped producing the relevant tables. Style: And that’s single-offender style. I can’t find numbers for gang attacks, but my impression from news stories is that this is very much a black thing. If interracial single-offender violence breaks five to one, I bet gang attacks are at least twice as disproportionate. Race differences in behavior account for much of this, of course. But those differences are amplified by the strange modern fashion, among nonblack educators and media creators, to nurture and inflame black hatred of whites — to keep black resentment alive. There is a corresponding effort to keep white people hating their own ancestors, their own country, and themselves — keeping white ethnomasochism alive. So there’s nothing very surprising here. The main interest of this story in fact is that it goes against the cherished liberal Narrative of heartless whites being cruel to soulful blacks. Reporting on it therefore faced a headwind of fudging and equivocation from the Main Stream Media. It’s been almost painful to watch the reluctance with which respectable outlets dribbled forth the racial facts of the Chicago case. Without that Facebook video of the torturing, they probably wouldn’t have done so at all. The MSM air was thick with excuses and equivocation. The gem here was a 600-word piece in Thursday’s Washington Post: If the attackers had been white and the victim had been black, the incident would have, of course, conjured America’s ugly history of white mobs committing violence against black people. There is no parallel history of the reverse happening on anything remotely approaching the same scale. [Link (to a piece about lynching in the 19th and early 20th centuries) in original] Pro-Trump narratives converge in one awful attack streamed on Facebook, by Callum Borchers, January 7, 2017 As Steve Sailer commented on Borchers’s bizarre argument: Obviously, if you stop and think, hundreds of thousands if not millions of white individuals have suffered violence at the hands of mobs of multiple blacks over the last 50+ years, but that’s not a Thing in our national discourse. That’s just noise. Regrettable and forgettable. How many memorials to crime victims are there in this country? (I believe there is one in Orange County, CA and one in Long Island, NY.) Why do you even know such things? Are you racist? I’d like to see the actual statistics on gang attacks — in recent times, not in 1850-something. If the Washington Post were a real newspaper, instead of a preening mirror for insulated Goodwhite elites, it would have dug them up for us. I can recall some incidents of white gang violence against blacks — the Howard Beach vigilante attack back in the 1980s, for example [Michael Griffith dies fleeing a white mob in Howard Beach in 1986,NY Daily News Flashback, December 20, 2016]. But it really doesn’t seem to be much of a thing in this century, certainly nothing like as much a thing as black gang attacks on lone whites. Probably that’s just confirmation bias on my part, though. The truth of the matter could easily be shown by the numbers. So what are the numbers for gang attacks, black on nonblack versus nonblack on black? Didn’t MSM journalists used to research and publish this kind of thing so that the American public was well-informed? Hello, MSM journalists? Hello? Hello? … ORDER IT NOWJohn Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived atJohnDerbyshire.com. ]]>
(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
(”The Butler” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Scene from the new BIRTH OF A NATION---a bloodthirsty mob. Credit: VDare.com Anti-white snuff films are now practically their own genre. The newest movie following in the footsteps of Machete and Django Unchained is Birth of a Nation, a loving tribute to the 1831 Nat Turner slave rebellion which led to the death of more than fifty white men, women and children. Not surprisingly, it received a rapturous reception at the Sundance Film Festival. Less than 24 hours after its roaring arrival at the Sundance Film Festival, “The Birth of a Nation” has made history with the biggest deal in the festival’s history. Fox Searchlight has acquired world-wide rights to the Nat Turner biopic for $17.5 million — a whopping amount that reflects the movie’s critical and commercial prospects and the crowded field of bidders hitting festivals now. It was clear from the movie’s premiere that it would go for big money. The audience gave the movie an extended standing ovation through the closing credits, and Nate Parker, who directed, produced, wrote and stars in the film, left the auditorium as Sundance’s favorite son. [Fox Searchlight Acquires ‘The Birth of a Nation’ for $17.5 Million, by Erich Swartzel,Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2016] Here are some highlights from historian Stephen B. Oates’s October 1973American Heritage article, Children Of Darkness, detailing what the rebellion was like: As Turner’s column moved relentlessly toward Jerusalem one Levi Waller, having heard that the blacks had risen, summoned his children from a nearby schoolhouse (some of the other children came running too) and tried to load his guns. But before he could do so, Turner’s advance horsemen swept into his yard, a whirlwind of axes and swords, and chased Waller into some tall weeds. Waller managed to escape, but not before he saw the blacks cut down his wife and children. One small girl also escaped by crawling up a dirt chimney, scarcely daring to breathe as the insurgents decapitated the other children—ten in all—and threw then bodies in a pile. … And so it went throughout that malignant night, as the rebels took farm after farm by surprise. They used no firearms, in order not to arouse the countryside, instead stabbing and decapitating their victims. Although they confiscated horses, weapons, and brandy, they took only what was necessary to continue the struggle, and they committed no rapes. They even spared a few homesteads, one because Turner believed the poor white inhabitants “thought no better of themselves than they did of negroes.” By dawn on Monday there were fifteen insurgents —nine on horses—and they were aimed with a motley assortment of guns, clubs, swords, and axes. Turner himself now carried a light dress sword, but for some mysterious reason (a fatal irresolution? the dread again?) he had killed nobody yet. At Elizabeth Turner’s place, which the slaves stormed at sunrise, the prophet tried once again to kill. They broke into the house, and there, in the middle of the room, too frightened to move or cry out. stood Mrs. Turner and a neighbor named Mrs. Newsome. Nat knew Elizabeth Turner very well, for she was the widow of his second master, Samuel Turner. While Will attacked her with his axe the prophet took Mrs. Newsome’s hand and hit her over the head with his sword. But evidently he could not bring himself to kill her. Finally Will moved him aside and chopped her to death as methodically as though he were cutting wood. With the sun low in the east, Turner sent a group on foot to another farm while he and Will led the horsemen at a gallop to Caty Whitehead’s place. They surrounded the house in a rush, but not before several people fled into the garden. Turner chased after somebody, but it turned out to be a slave girl, as terrified as the whites, and he let her go. All around him, all over the Whitehead farm, there were scenes of unspeakable violence. He saw Will drag Mrs. Whitehead kicking and screaming out of the house and almost sever her head from her body. Running around the house, Turner came upon young Margaret Whitehead [age 18] hiding under a cellar cap between two chimneys. She ran crying for her life, and Turner set out after her—a wild chase against the hot August sun. He overtook the girl in a field and hit her again and again with his sword, but she would not die. In desperation he picked up a fence rail and beat her to death. Finally he had killed someone. Naturally, this film is basically guaranteed to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay next year, killing three birds with one black stone named Nate Parker. So what moved Parker to write his script? In between the standing ovation he received when he took the Eccles theater stage and the other “standing ovation that lasted through the credits, in what was arguably one of the longest standing Os in recent festival memory,” Parker had this to say: “I made this film for one reason, with the hope of creating change agents. That people can watch this film and be affected. That you can watch this film and see that there were systems that were in place that were corrupt and corrupted people and the legacy of that still lives with us,” said Parker. “I just want you, if you are affected and you are so moved, to ask yourself, ‘Are there systems in my life that need attention whether it be racial, gender?’ There are a lot of injustices.” Parker spoke about how he gave up acting for nearly two years to make the film, and the resistance he faced with getting it financed. “It was very difficult, for so many reasons,” he said. “I think any time we’re dealing with our history, specifically with slavery, I find that it has been desperately sanitized. There’s a resistance to dealing with this material.” [Sundance: ‘Birth of a Nation’ Receives Rapturous Standing Ovation at Premiere, By Rebecca Ford, Hollywood Reporter, January 25, 2016] What kind of change do you think he has in mind? Ironically, 100 years ago the real The Birth of a Nationwas released. This movie depicted white southerners banding together to protect their civilization against another program of “change,” radical Reconstruction. That Nate Parker would select the same title used in D.W. Griffith’s immensely influential silent film is obviously intentional, but hardly necessary. Black-run Newark, New Jersey has already canonized Nat Turner with the Nat Turner Park (at its unveiling in 2009, President Obama sent a member of his administration to the ceremony) [Newark opens Nat Turner Park in Central Ward after 30 years, By Cullen Nutt, NJ.com, July 28, 2009]. Men like Turner are the heroes of the new anti-America. And even the arch-leftists of Hollywood are having a hard time adjusting. Currently, the Oscars are under siege by spoiled black actors and directors who know they can count on the Main Stream Media to portray The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as racist. Indeed, the Academy has already caved, pledging “to double its membership of women and minorities by 2020 through an ambitious affirmative action plan that includes stripping some older members of voting privileges.” It will also add three new seats to the governing board exclusively for women and minorities [Oscars’ Film Academy pledges to diversify membership by 2020, CNBC, January 22, 2016]. ORDER IT NOWA Los Angeles Times study in 2012 noted The Academy was 94 percent white and 77 percent male, publishing a follow-up piece in 2013 detailing the horror that The Academy had only dropped to being 93 percent white and 76 percent male. [Diversity efforts slow to change the face of Oscar voters, By John Horn and Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2013]. (Of course, many of these whites do not identify as such. But that doesn’t seem to matter to blacks.) And even this majority non-black Academy was eager to celebrate “diversity” at the 2014 Oscars. As the LA Times article stated: John Ridley, an African American screenwriter who wrote the “12 Years a Slave”screenplay, took note of the irony: From all outward appearances, this is a banner year for diversity in Hollywood. His film, directed by the black filmmaker Steve McQueen, received seven Golden Globe nominations, and other black-themed films including “Lee Daniels’ The Butler” and director Ryan Coogler‘s “Fruitvale Station” are getting awards-season buzz. 12 Years A Slave won Best Picture at the 2013 Academy Awards. Unfortunately,as with mayoral elections, many blacks seem to believe when “they” win something, it is racism if anyone else wins ever again. Considering the rapturous reception given to racism porn from The Butler to The Help, there will be plenty of similar films offered in the years to come. The government even subsidized the film Selma by buying free tickets for schoolchildren. And with each new film, there will be another controversy over alleged racism if it doesn’t win an Oscar. But Parker’s The Birth of a Nation raises the stakes. It’s not just going to promote white guilt but black violence. There can be no doubt it will be celebrated by Black Lives Matter and its allies. One can only hope the movie doesn’t inspire those seeing the movie to duplicate Turner’s actions. Considering how blacks haveresponded to past anti-white incitement from both academia, the MSM, and the American Left, there’s little reason for optimism. Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2 013. ]]>
(Review Source)
Steve Sailer
From the New York Times: Alice Walker is author of the 1982 novel The Color Purple, which Spielberg made into a movie. She gets awarded lots of honorary degrees and lifetime achievement awards. Isn't
(Review Source)
The American Conservative Staff

“The Commune” is a punishing movie; it’s 111 minutes but feels longer. I don’t blame the actors. Dyrholm and Hansen are especially fine, gifted at expressing every shade of misery. The ...

(Review Source)
Steve Sailer
(”The Conformist” is briefly mentioned in this.)
The Italian director was only 77, although he'd been famous since his 1970 film The Conformist. Bertolucci was some kind of Marxist, but The Conformist mostly served as an insanely good looking testimonial to how the Italian Fascists, say what you want about their politics and economics, had style. Among the Italian-American cognoscenti, however, Bertolucci...
(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
Kubrick would have framed this shot more perfectly (but not much more) (photo by Hasim Kilic) The extraordinarily cinematic-looking assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey today in an Ankara art gallery by a young Turkish policeman is the latest in a long series of events I routinely characterize as “Byzantine” because I have no idea what’s really going on, but it makes me sound knowing. From Reuters: Russian ambassador shot dead in Ankara gallery The Russian ambassador to Turkey was shot in the back and killed as he gave a speech at an Ankara art gallery on Monday by an off-duty police officer who shouted “Don’t forget Aleppo” and “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire. Tarantino would have made sure the camera was level (photo by Burhan Ozbilici) President Tayyip Erdogan, in a video message to the nation, cast the attack as an attempt to undermine NATO-member Turkey’s relations with Russia – ties long tested by the war in Syria. He said he had agreed in a telephone call with Russia’s Vladimir Putin to step up cooperation in fighting terrorism. At a special meeting at the Kremlin, President Putin ordered increased security at all Russian missions and said “the bandits” who committed the act would feel retribution. “We must know who directed the killer’s hand.” By the way, AP photographer Burhan Ozbilici bravely kept photographing and caught this picture from the wrong end of the barrel of the gun. The 2001/A Clockwork Orange-style picture at the top of the post is credited by Reuters to Hasim Kilic/Hurriyet. The assassination of an ambassador, not least of a major power such as Russia, marks a dangerous escalation of tension in the region and beyond. Security sources said he was off duty and some witnesses said there was no security scanning machine at the entrance. Travolta would have worn a white suit The attacker was smartly dressed in black suit and tie and stood, alone, behind the ambassador as he began his speech at the art exhibition, a person at the scene told Reuters. … A video showed the attacker shouting: “Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!” and “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Greatest”) as screams rang out. He paced about and shouted as he held the gun in one hand and waved the other in the air. Russia is an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its air strikes helped Syrian forces end rebel resistance last week in the northern city of Aleppo. Turkey, which seeks Assad’s ouster, has been repairing ties with Moscow after shooting down a Russian warplane over Syria last year. The gunman was killed by special forces. Three other people were injured. “We regard this as a terrorist act,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. “Terrorism will not win and we will fight against it decisively.” GULEN Erdogan, who has faced a string of attacks by Islamist and Kurdish militants as well as an attempted coup in July, identified the attacker as 22-year-old Mevlut Mert Altintas, who had worked for Ankara riot police for two and a half years. CNN Turk TV said police had detained his sister and mother. A senior security official said there were “very strong signs” the gunman belonged to the network of the U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, who Ankara says orchestrated the failed coup in July. Erdogan has denounced Gulen as a terrorist, but the cleric, a former ally, denies the accusation. Yeah, but Erdogan probably blames earthquakes on Gulen by this point. So who really knows? I wrote a column about Gulen for Taki’s Magazine three years ago that can be helpful in getting up to speed. Gulen described the killing as a “heinous act of terror” that pointed to a deterioration of security in Turkey resulting from Erdogan’s wide-ranging purge of police as well as the army, judiciary and media following the coup bid. The government says Gulen, who has lived in self-imposed exile in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania since 1999, created a “parallel network” in the police, military, judiciary and civil service aimed at overthrowing the state. See, Bertolucci got the symmetry right I’m not crazy about deporting Gulen to face Erdogan’s justice, such as it is. It seems there ought to be enough evidence by now to put Gulen on trial here in the U.S. for skimming hundreds of millions of American taxpayer dollars off all the charter schools his followers run in our country. Also, how about investigating just why a foreign cult is attracted to running over a hundred American charter schools? The FBI was raiding Gulen’s charter schools in 2014, but then you stopped hearing about it. Perhaps the CIA had a talk with the FBI about charter school ripoffs and H-1b immigration fraud being a feature, not a bug? Commenters peterike and Harry Baldwin point out the resemblance to Bertolucci’s ultra-influential 1970 film The Conformist. I finally saw The Conformist a year or two ago and realized the huge impact it had on American 1970s movie directors, especially Italian-Americans like Coppola, Scorsese, and Cimino. My impression is that The Conformist gave Italian-American film-makers a jolt of ethnic pride and encouraged them to upgrade the look of American movies in the 1970s. ]]>
(Review Source)