First Daughter, because unlike Chasing Liberty, the daughter fell in love with a red-blooded American rather than some sissy-pantsed Euro.  Plus, it was directed by a black guy, which shows conservative dedication to racial diversity.

I think that line says everything about conservatism that could ever actually need to be said.

Red Dawn.  Wank fodder for Young Republicans for over 20 years.

Juno.

Boat Trip, because, the heroes make the choice to remain steadfastly straight despite being surrounded by the gay, and also because it reminds me of all those cruises the National Review have done. Maybe we could all pitch in and get Cuba Gooding Jr. a spot on this year’s boat trip”.

Return of the King. You can’t beat a flick where the long lost white king (and his magical white allies) defends the big white castle from a coalition of non-white, swarthy hordes on elephants, black ghosts and goblins, and whatnot.

The Conversation
Epitome of covert and illegal activity excused by ratiocinative situational ethics.

ROTK: Though I should add that the line, “you bow to no one” to the Hobbits at ROTK ending #4 almost makes up for the rest of it.

Philadelphia because the fag dies in the end and America is A-OK in its response to AIDS.

How about Woody Allen’s Crimes And Misdemeaners? It’s a genuine masterpiece IMO, but thinking about it, I can see why the wingnuts would want to claim it as their own:

Martin Landau, playing an uber-wealthy, patrician businessman, a respectable and much-admired figure of the community - and who, of course, has been cheating on his wife and embezzling money from his firm - murders his now inconvenient mistress (with the help of his mob boss brother) and gets away with it without the least hint of trouble…apart from some slight amount of guilt which quickly fades. Pretty much a Republican Success Story.

It gets Rethug bonus points because Allen’s character is your typical pointy-headed intellectual, who ends up utterly defeated when the woman he loves ends up with the Alan Alda character, a smarmy, vulgar Rich fuckface. (Alda is terrific in this role!!)

Oh, and Forrest Gump. I don’t think I need to explain it.

Bond. James Bond.

Glory, the movie about the African-American 54th Massachusetts regiment in the Civil War, especially the scene wherein Morgan Freeman chews out Denzel Washington’s Malcom X angry black man character.  In fact, from the conservative point of view, the 54th regiment acts like the way they wished all blacks would act, join the military and get killed fighting for whitey.

You’ve Got Mail and pretty much any other movie where the pernicious rich jerkwad gets the hot thoughtful chick because he’s really OK down deep.

Any movie from the bible and anything having to do with Camelot.  Especially any storyline where the “womenz” bring down the “menz” and their perfect paradise (aka Eden and Camelot).

I enjoy that good old American wrestling picture “Million-Dollar Baby”. I’m only halfway through it but I know Dirty Harry is a True Patriot, a proud Hollywood conservative who’ll stand up for the sanctity of… WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?! ERROR!11!!1WOLVERINES!!!1!

Jesse,

re: Mannequin, I present to you this.

You’re welcome.

Starship Troopers.

Order, rank, regimentation, uniforms, spaceships, troops, gore, uniforms, paranoia, xenophobia, did I mention the uniforms?

Hey, I loved Escape From New York.  Bob Hauk and Snake Plissken are so slashy.

Philadelphia because the fag dies in the end and America is A-OK in its response to AIDS.

Heh. At first I blanked on the film and thought you were trying to describe The Philadelphia Story.

You know, it’s a funny thing about Short Circuit—knowing how many PackBots the US Military has on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can’t look at an iRobot product without thinking “wow, Nova Robotics” actually exists.

Isn’t Starship Troopers supposed to be ironic?

Other than that, people sure do dig the Tolkein.

What says conservative better than movies like Friday the 13th that combine titillation with absolute punishment for any expression of sexuality?
And hey, doesn’t the black guy always get killed first too?

Fatal Attraction, where childfree working women are psychotic attackers and wreckers of sane homes (if you simply overlook the choices that the men in the situation make ...)

The Godfather - because it doesn’t matter who you kill so long as you go to church and follow orders.

Aliens - uppity female unwed mother put in her place by good female defending motherhood.  With big guns.

Being John Malkovich - showing that anyone can become a star in America.  No guns, though.

Blazing Saddles - a model for racial harmony in the United States.

Dawn of the Dead - an ode to the American mall, and the comfort it provides.

Hannah and Her Sisters - actually, they’ve only seen the porn version of this, but it was hot.

King Kong - illegal immigrant taught lesson.

Romeo and Juliet - shows what happens when abstinence education is ignored.

I’m also adding the The Wrestler. Because it’s completely okay to lift an entire plot from the “play within the play” in another movie (Barton Fink), as long as no one notices. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqh1cXu-vck&feature=related

Yeah, I spent the whole Faramir movie storyline going, “What the FUCK?!  That is NOT my Faramir!” I was very disappointed, and it’s not like they needed to create more drama in that series; it wasn’t necessary for tension purposes.  It was just a way of destroying a perfectly good character.

If I recall from listening to the commentary of Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens on The Two Towers Extended Edition, they didn’t think that Faramir as written in the book would work on film.  They talked about how it had been established to the audience (including many who had never read the books) since the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring that the One Ring had a tremendous power over the minds of others, and to have Faramir in the movie not be tempted by the ring at all negates it.  That’s probably also why they didn’t have Tom Bombadil in the movie, because besides being a minor sideshow, it also then requires an explanation to the audience why the ring did not affect him either.

Jackson and Boyens felt that their Faramir is still true to Tolkien’s vision because, unlike Boromir, he is still able to let the ring go.  Personally, I wasn’t really bothered by how they wrote Faramir in the movies.

What I can’t forgive Jackson for is omitting that Denethor had a palantir, because his madness makes no sense without it.  Even the extended edition didn’t reveal that Denethor had a palantir, when it would have taken no more than a few seconds to establish it.  In the extended edition, when Gandalf bursts in to the mausoleum to prevent Faramir from being burned alive, Denethor has a few seconds of dialog where he says to the effect that “though you may triumph on the field of battle for a day, you cannot defeat Sauron”.  Right at that moment, Jackson could have had Denethor whip the palantir from out of his cloak and then shown the look of recognition and understanding on Gandalf’s face.  Oh well.

Wasn’t there a blogger—Jill Stanek?—who said, seriously, that Michael Corleone was the perfect man?

I would add that of the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movies, most of the extra scenes in Return of the King detracted from the theatrical version, whereas I felt that the added scenes in Fellowship and The Two Towers enhanced them.

Plus, in Godfather II, Michael makes a bigger deal out of Kay having an abortion than he does over anybody’s death, even his own brother.

I always found Fredo’s murder to be unnecessary.  At the end of the movie, you get the sense that Fredo was perfectly content to spend the rest of his days going fishing with Anthony.  In a strange way though, from Michael’s point of view, killing Fredo the way he did was an act of compassion.  When Michael embraces Fredo at mama’s funeral, Fredo feels loved again and is no longer scared.  Fredo was probably feeling more happy and content than he had been in quite a while when the bullet from Al Neri’s gun entered the back of his head and ended his life quickly and painlessly.

“..Isn’t Starship Troopers supposed to be ironic?..”

Conservatives don’t do irony.

Demolition Man, specifically the scene where Sandra Bullock’s character THANKS Sylvester Stallone’s character for incapacitating her before the pivotal battle. Also Waterworld, where Jeanne Tripplehorn is completely useless with a spear gun. I suppose, really, any movie that features a token woman who’s just strong enough to seem like the man’s equal, except when manly man stuff needs to get done and there’s just no way the woman can do it.

Re: Short Circuit - I always thought the movie addressed the Fisher-Stevens-as-Indian guy with a wink to the audience in this exchange:

Newton Crosby: Where are you from, anyway?
Ben Jabituya: Bakersfield, originally.
Newton Crosby: No, I mean your ancestors.
Ben Jabituya: Oh, them. Pittsburgh. (thanks IMDb!)

Maybe I was reading too much into it, but it was definitely something I only picked up on recently.

I almost launched into a discussion of Heinlein and neo-fascism and his view of women, but I decided not to.

OT: I would like to thank you for the SNORG TEE ad. The young ladies are simply FINE

Just thanks

Most “conservative” movies I’ve seen only become that by people completely missing the point.

take for example, 2006’s Hard Candy

Many, many people have watched this movie and assume the little girl is the good guy, because she’s a cute little girl, and he’s a horrible pedo. besides, she’s the main character. Except the perspective follows him. And part of the point is she’s even more of a monster than he is, and just picked an acceptable target, because nobody cares about pedophiles. Which is morally about the same as “nobody cares about hookers.”

Calling it an “anti-decadence, anti-perversion, hard on crime thriller” is missing the point about as hard as calling Lolita a tragic love story.

This is what most “conservative movies” are. The surface has something that is similar to their agenda, but any thinking person would realize is about exactly the opposite. Like those people who claim Requiem for a Dream or Trainspotting are pro-drug movies.

More than 50 comments in, and no one has offered up 300. I can’t believe you people. You don’t have infer or imply or extrapolate. It’s a straight up homage to fascism.

What was that terrible Meryl Streep/ Albert Brooks movie—Defending Your Life?  Where everyone went to a kind of purgatory that was a hotel chain based on your income during life or something?  I just remember iit pissed me off almost as much as Indecent Proposal.  Usually things that piss me off are the sort of thing that conservatives like a lot.

It’s a straight up homage to fascism.

or would be. But the Death of the Author. It’s an unreliable narrator telling the legend as people would in the days before writing and research.

Frank Miller is objectively pro-fascist, but he occasionally makes something amazing, despite his best efforts.

No, we can’t call “Godfather: Part II” conservative; it depicts immigrants as having the appalling nerve to continue speaking something other than English in America. Also, that dirty socialist Vito killing an enterprising capitalist just because he refused to coddle those who wouldn’t push themselves to be as successful as he was. Although it IS probably the only movie mentioned here that pretty much features David Vitter as a character.

“Night of the Living Dead”:  Zombie Republicans kill everybody.

Do The Right Thing
It reinforces conservative stereotypes

Um, call me a nerd, but I enjoyed ‘The Phantom Menace’ and the other three Star Wars prequels.  The movies showed how easily and quietly a nation can be misled into fascism (and the Clone Wars were, despite Lucas’ assertions to the contrary a perfect analogue of the ‘Total War Against Terror’).

Does that make me conservative?  No, it makes me a person who looks for political subtext in George Lucas movies.

Hmm… Ghostbusters is just about 25 years old. I was just thinking about it because I recently saw it during a trip:

*Academics are frauds who waste time and money on pointless bullshit. Put them in the private sector, though, and they’ll save the world through an entrepreneurial small-business startup.
*Negotiation with the bad guys is sometimes tried, but never works. Only blasting works in the end. (didn’t work with the library ghost, didn’t work with Slimer, didn’t work with Gozer, etc.)
*The EPA is evil.
*Old timey pagan religions are basically tantamount to demon worship.
*Manly men save the world. Women are receptionist/assistants or damsels-in-distress. Rick Morranis is a wimpy guy in distress. (Note: this may be such a common part of Hollywood that it doesn’t bear mentioning.)
*White ghostbusters are Ph. D. bearing ex-academics with a long-term interest in the paranormal. The black guy? Working stiff looking for a steady paycheck .

Demolition Man, but I don’t know how seriously so. The future setting is a hamfisted “liberal nanny state utopia”: guided by a new-agey guru, guns are banned, you are fined for swearing, detained criminals are brainwashed non-violently to be “pussified”... and of course a single evil (black) terrorist from the manlier, meaner past can single-handedly bring it down, and only Mr. Conservative Hero (brought back from the past because his species was driven to extinction) can stop him. It’s almost too perfect, I always wondered if it was satirical or genuine.

Aside: the “burly guy from the past in a peaceful brainwashed future” theme was already done, in a less “Hollywood” way, by Stanisław Lem in Return from the Stars

I always took Demolition Man as satire.

But if you must have Stallone as a cop in a futuristic sci-fi action movie, AND you want conservative themes, I’d go with Judge Dread.

Knocked Up.  Because of course every beautiful woman who’s just landed an on-camera job as an entertainment reporter will be delighted to incubate the seed of an unemployed, unattractive, emotionally immature schlub.

Yes, but it’s even better in the book. Where she also calls the Nazgul’s steed a “foul dwimmerlairk.” I really wish they’d included at least that bit of Saxon in the movie, and at least a short nod to Theoden’s fascination with meeting real live holbylan.

As for ROTK, the Movie, being reactionary—well, it didn’t help how Jackson mutated Faramir’s character. Then again Faramir was a bit of a Mary Sue for Tolkein, and perhaps the Jackson version is more brutally plausible than the book’s philosopher-warrior.

But Tolkein himself was just such a creature as a young officer in the trenches, one of only a handful of his Oxford classmates who survived WWI.

What Jackson did with Faramir also bothered me, though I can see his reasons. I also disliked how the movie removed some of the stranger, quirkier aspects of the books (Tom Bombadil, Galadriel’s explanation of how the rings work, the Barrow-Wights, etc.) to make way for the major plotlines (though, once again, you can see why.) I did like the added part in the second movie, about exactly how and why love between humans and elves is so hard for the elves.

I think you’re all confusing “conservative movies” with “movies conservatives are going to co-opt into hidden secret messages about how great conservatism is.”  In other words, movies where the plot is actually nothing to do with any conservative value, but after a quick “Peppermint Patty is secretly gay OMG hahaha lololol!!11!1!” - style over-analysis reveals something hidden.  That’s the list you’re going to eventually see.

The two most recent examples of this, of course, are The Dark Knight, which is now being identified as a sweeping glorification of the War on Terror and phone-tapping, and The Incredibles, which right-wingers have co-opted into a Ayn Randian philosophy of the evils of letting democratic society restrict man’s individual abilities.

Red Dawn is probably the strangest conservative movie to me, not because the story’s premises are so absurd, though they are. The USSR and Cuba could never have successfully invaded and occupied the nuclear-armed USA.

No, what’s weird about Red Dawn, to me, is that beneath its wacky screeds and , it may be a semi-accurate picture of a volunteer, locally based insurgency against an occupying force. It seems to suggest that the tiny, weak rebellions of the Wolverines, and other groups who doubtless would spring up, could actually repel a strong invading force.

Which is strange, because most conservatives have been completely impervious to this lesson for the past seven years. I can’t think of the movie without thinking of this.

August, of course you’re right for the most part. I often think that today’s movement conservatives see creeping liberalism in Hollywood movies only because they’ve chosen to be just absurdly conservative. From that point of view, damn near everything is too ‘liberal’. Still, some movies really are ideological.

August, I think the thread is discussing both kinds.  No one here really believes that Coppola’s heroes of the Seventies are meant to be exemplars or that the Seventies were 25 years ago; but Forrest Gump is indeed a scary conservative movie, albeit not the worst imaginable or even the worst “Zemeckis on Our Glorious White Past” film.  There’s also the possibility that Verhoeven and Kaufman make conservative movies kinda in spite of themselves, with the bits they mean satirically being the most seductive.

“Tango and Cash”

(h/t “W” aka Will Ferrell)

“No, what’s weird about Red Dawn, to me, is that beneath its wacky screeds and , it may be a semi-accurate picture of a volunteer, locally based insurgency against an occupying force. It seems to suggest that the tiny, weak rebellions of the Wolverines, and other groups who doubtless would spring up, could actually repel a strong invading force.”

As I recall, some professor pissed off a bunch of conservatives by writing about showing it to his class to try get them to understand the Iraqi insurgency.

Actually, I don’t think the movie really implies that the some-how all-powerful commies are beaten by the insurgency. Swayze and co. get crushed, eventually, and the end just shows that the U.S. eventually wins and puts up a memorial to the insurgents.

I sure liked that movie when I was 10.

Actually, I don’t think the movie really implies that the some-how all-powerful commies are beaten by the insurgency. Swayze and co. get crushed, eventually, and the end just shows that the U.S. eventually wins and puts up a memorial to the insurgents.

Right, although that’s pretty much how insurgencies achieve their aims. Huge amounts of insurgents die, compared to the occupiers, and the insurgents, like the rest of the local population, suffers greatly more than the occupiers. Still, the occupiers often eventually decide either to exterminate the locals, or leave.

The thing with the professor, that’s exactly what I mean. A complete inability, or perhaps refusal, to put the shoe on the other foot and see things from their opponents’ point of view.

August,

I don’t believe there is such a thing as “over-analysis.” Texts are meant to be read, and no author or audience can be aware of all of the potential readings available. Potential readings include the readings of other cultures or of yet-to-be-born audiences, for example. I personally feel that all readings are valid. Some are just more valid than others. How this is determined is case by case, and related directly to the ability of the reader to muster cogent evidence in support of his or her analysis. One can’t over analyze, simply fail to effectively support one’s analysis.

Also, I’d like to nominate “Brotherhood of the Wolf” as a conservative/ pro-fascist movie. Though, I’m not sure conservatives would recognize it as such; it’s French. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s portrayal of Native Americans is profoundly insulting, for one thing. For another, it includes a stabbed-in-the-back plot about fifth columnist/ cultists who have infiltrated the R.C. Church and a provincial French government. This group of decadents is, of course, eventually destroyed by the righteous violence of both state and church. The authorities re-assert their power through supermen-like agents of positivistic kung-fu justice. It’s one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Tolkein’s Faramir, as other people have mentioned, basically undermines the power of the ring. That change was a good one if you ask me. Tolkein created a vivid, lively world, but as a coherent story…well..lets just say it could have used a good editor. Turns out that Jackson and co. ended up being said editor. (The “entertainment” additions, quite frankly don’t seem that out of place)

And yes. “You bow before no man” is probably the highest high point that I think any movie has ever reached. It coasted from there…the loss of the scouring of the shire is probably ok in this light.

Starship Troopers IS ironic, and probably is on the whole a more anti-conservative film than anything. It had a strong concept of military service based citizenship, but where the book put this in a very positive light, in the movie, it gave the military a way over-inflated impression of their own power, leading to the massive defeats that humanity takes. It’s professional soldiers with incredible equipment vs. cannon fodder.

Yes. I think Starship Troopers is a way underrated movie. Why do you ask?

Red Dawn is probably the strangest conservative movie to me, not because the story’s premises are so absurd, though they are. The USSR and Cuba could never have successfully invaded and occupied the nuclear-armed USA.

You may not have noticed yet, but conservatives are really really really in love with the idea of themselves as beleagured victims at threat from massive evil forces, yet able to win through by sheer grit, their massive testicles, and the application of phallic weaponry.

The application of this to the unthinking support of Israel is left as an exercise for the reader.

Song of the South - makes me feel right at home with an Aunt Jemimah scarf on my head rolling out the dough singing ol’ Negro Hymns (wiping tear from nmy eye).

Tolkein’s Faramir, as other people have mentioned, basically undermines the power of the ring.

What?

This makes no sense.

Sam doesn’t crave the ring. Aragorn resists its power. Gandalf protects Frodo when he could ‘accidentally’ let Frodo die and carry the ring as his own. Legolas doesn’t want to be the Lord of the Ring. Galadriel is offered the ring and she turns it down, albeit after a struggle.

Why should Faramir be different?

I hated what Jackson did with Faramir. Not only does it ruin the contrast between the Good Brother and the Bad Brother (over-simplification here, I know), but it makes no sense. Frodo and Sam dragged back to Gondor? What??

I’ve never even heard this “the One Ring affects everyone equally with greed” thing until today. For that matter, why is the ring safe (albeit temporarily) in Rivendale? Lots of people there who should be craving that little ring…

Faramir was a perfect character in that he provided a contrast to the “inherently bad” nature of the families that you see in fantasies so often. Faramir has a bad father, yes, and a brother who was headed in that direction, but Faramir struggles to be better than what he came from - to be a true steward, not a false king. I admire that, in a literature-scape crowded with people who are good or bad solely based on their parental heritage. (For instance, Aragorn is good because he has the blood of the true king. Ok, fine, but not interesting.)

Of course, I see LOTR differently from a lot of fans, so I could be wrong. But that’s how I interpret Faramir, IMHO.

Although, I agree that Starship Troopers is underrated.

I hated that movie the first time because I thought the blood and guts and military love were real, not satire. Sure, laugh at me for missing the satire, but then go watch The Patriot or something. Bleh. Then I read that the movie was fantastic satire and totally 100% fell in love with it. The military commercials are a thing of beauty.

Shame the sequels had to suck so hard.

300, I enjoyed, but all the American crap with the wife they could have cut and I would have been happier. “Freedom isn’t free,” fuck off. Seriously. Although as much as I hated her character, I didn’t need her to be brutally raped. I hate Hollywood so much sometimes.

Can someone compile a list of movies where the Intentionally Annoying ‘Heroine’ is Brutally Sexually Victimized? 300 comes to mind, as does The Other Boleyn Girl. I suspect that the correlation between Conservative movies and Bitch Gets What Is Coming to Her movies is high.

Because I’m that kind of geek, the full Eowyn quote:

“Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!”
 
“Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.”
 
“Do what you will, but I will hinder it, if I may.”
 
“Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!”
 
“But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Eomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.”

I am SUCH an Eowyn fangirl.

::cough::

That being said, I always viewed Demolition Man as satire, or at least not a straight up conservatopia flick principally because La Resistance is made up of the sort of people that doctrinaire conservatives would rather see crushed beneath the heel of authority: civil libertarians and uppity minorities and assorted liberal types who refuse to be homogenized into social compliance. The message of that flick is, to put it mildly, somewhat mixed.

Damn it, leave Ghostbusters alone! Honestly I have to admit I don’t have a substantive argument against GB being a conservative film, at least at the moment. Except to say that I think conservatives have a maddening tendency to claim such concepts as “irreverence towards authority” which is hardly a trait of real life conservatives.

Al Pacino’s Scarface: The uplifting story of an ambitious enterpreneur who pulls himself up from Humble Beginnings to wildly succeed in the business world through nothing but All-American pluck and gumption*! Hoo haa!

(*And murders. Lots and lots of murders. But never mind that part.)

Conservatives have such a rich vision of how everyone else should live and behave, so let’s see… V for Vendetta and American Beauty without the twist that the settings are undesirable places to live.

Agreed Lamenter. I too think conservatives have a tendency to stake a claim to things that transcend political affiliation or ideology. Like, as you pointed out, “irreverence towards authority” or, say, “the past.” One thing that always infuriates me is the claim by conservatives that rhyming and metered poetry is somehow conservative. Absolute bunk. It’s rather like claiming that alliteration or parallelism is Communist. Though, to be fair, all of these arguments are wrapped up in the passe formal/ anti-formal crusades of the 1950s-80s. I digress.

“That’s right boys, it’s doctor Venkman!”

I think it’s deeply disingenuous for red blooded conservatives to claim there was a time in which they didn’t claim ALL poetry was faggoty subversion.

Of course, I see LOTR differently from a lot of fans, so I could be wrong. But that’s how I interpret Faramir, IMHO.

You have to remember that Peter Jackson also had to make the movies for a large audience of people who never read the books.  I had a co-worker who loved the movies but had not read the books.  I loaned her Fellowship of the Ring and she found it so boring that she could not finish it.

Lamenter, your average conservative would, yes, be disingenuous to claim that he or she enjoyed anything more culturally important than the “Left Behind” series. However, part in parcel with conservatives’ claim that they defend Western Civilization is that they are defending the West’s artistic tradition. Of course, their definition of Western art is frightfully stunted. For example, non-representational art, free-verse poetry, and bop jazz might not be included in the canon at all. Journals like the New Criterion voice this bullshit all the time.

Many, many people have watched this movie and assume the little girl is the good guy, because she’s a cute little girl, and he’s a horrible pedo. besides, she’s the main character. Except the perspective follows him. And part of the point is she’s even more of a monster than he is, and just picked an acceptable target, because nobody cares about pedophiles.

Karpad, I had interpreted the movie as being a revenge story, that the deceased girl Donna Maurer was a friend or relative of Hayley’s, and that she had taken it upon herself to bring Donna’s killers to justice. 

I only saw Hard Candy once, so I don’t remember everything in detail, but I do recall that there is a moment where you start to think Hayley might be wrong about Jeff, and that Hayley is the bad person.  But when Jeff admits his culpability, then you realize Hayley was right all along.  Maybe I am missing something, but that is how I saw it.

Sam doesn’t crave the ring. Aragorn resists its power. Gandalf protects Frodo when he could ‘accidentally’ let Frodo die and carry the ring as his own. Legolas doesn’t want to be the Lord of the Ring. Galadriel is offered the ring and she turns it down, albeit after a struggle. </blockquote>

Honestly, do you ever listen to yourself?

Sam?  Desired the ring.
Gandalf?  “Don’t tempt me, Frodo!”  Desired the ring.
Galadriel?  Desired the ring.  In your own words, “after a struggle”.
Faramir?  Desired the ring.  Rejects it after a struggle.
Aragorn?  Tempted (in the film, see the battle at the falls of Rauros), rejects it after a struggle.  His temptation is milder than the others, to be sure.
Legolas?  You got me there, but since Legolas is little more than a pair of pointy ears through the whole of the series, it’s not worth much.

IP MASKER: KILLSCRIPT

I appreciated that he and Eowyn were paired off, as much as I appreciate any love story in there.  I haven’t read the books since 2002, though, so I’m a bit rusty.

I think Eowyn would have made a better queen of Gondor than whatzername.  Actually, I go on and on about it here http://hackenblog.hackenbush.org/2008/12/03/some-thoughts-on-the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy/

I have nothing to add, but I absolutely love a comment thread that includes Mark Foxwell, Xoverboard, and an off-topic discussion of LOTR.

Stogoe, I kind of recommend reading the books before you weigh in on the characters in LOTR. There are a whole slew of characters who do NOT “desire the ring” in the manner of Faramir-of-the-movie who kidnaps Frodo and drags him off against his will in order to take possession of the ring.

Your own post kind of proves my point, actually.

...the days when whites were white, blacks were black, and animals talked!

How would you know? You white? Black?

NO

Lawdy, lawdy, lawdy! I’s gots to go with Song of the South etc are not mine.  Some easy IP checking can tell that.

I took them as irony, so the troll did not achieve its objective anyway.

Convoy. Based on a country song, made in 1978, watched last month: I could still count the “Small Town America” talking points

...well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs…
‘Course, I don’t know how the eggs feel about that…

Shattered.

re: stallone movies

With a few possible exceptions (the “comedy movies, for examples), Stallone movies are all dude flicks - all blowing things up, shooting people and sometimes some gratuitous t&a;, but never plot, developed characters or substance.  (I say this as someone who LOVES the dude flick genre for its escapist tendencies.)

Aren’t dude flicks inherently “conservative”? They all revolve around the (usually white) male hero of either overblown physical fitness with awesome fighting skillz or an amazing and totally convenient knowledge of something sufficiently rare or unexpected so as to be impressive and useful. (and of course, he’s always a sexual dynamo). And the damsel-in-distress or sex toy that exists only to be in danger or on her back or at home pining for the return of her hero.  The fight against huge odds, the absurd resolutions.  If they’re American movies, there’s usually no small dose of “america! fuck ya!” smashed in.  Aren’t all these things pretty much the sum total of conservative fantasies?

This is virtually EVERY Stallone movie. And Segal and Van Damme movie too, come to think of it.

Or is this just a male “mary sue” thing?

“How would you know? You white? Black?”

Fat MiddleEastern?

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed Ghostbusters; I don’t hold my entertainment up to a political standard. I thought it was quite entertaining and imaginative. Also, obviously, it’s not a didactically conservative film. I think that the best conservative films—both artistically, and in terms of serving the cause of conservatism—are the ones that can entertain liberals like me, and vice versa for liberal films.

Nonetheless, putting together all of the bullet points in my post above, I don’t think that I can escape the view that the film—perhaps unintentionally—espouses a right-wing viewpoint. (Academia bad, business good, EPA bad, pagan religions bad (demonic), negotiation fails, blasting succeeds)

Actually, I’ll give Segal some credit - the villains in his “best” (dubious distinction, i know) flicks are either dirty politicos who spew platitudes about patriotism and values but then indulge in hookers and blow behind the scenes(Hard to Kill) or pollution spewing corporations who will kill anyone who threatens their sacred profit margins (“Fire down below” and “On Deadly Ground”)

That’s a good point, actually. I hereby remove Segal from that list . . . maybe.

“the villains in his “best” (dubious distinction, i know) flicks”

The best of his villians, imo, is the voodoo dude from ‘Marked for Death’.  Although, William Forsythe did a awesomely hamfisted job in ‘Out for Justice’.

she’s even more of a monster than he is, and just picked an acceptable target, because nobody cares about pedophiles. Which is morally about the same as “nobody cares about hookers.”

Uh, no, it’s not.  Prostitutes harm no one except themselves, and many are forced into the “occupation”, or, to put it less euphemistically, are enslaved.

Fear of pedophiles has been blown out of proportion, most pedophiles don’t even act out on their impulses, but those who do cause serious harm to their victims.  Not caring about pedophiles is not remotely morally the same as not caring about prostitutes.

Okay, actually good movies with conservative messages:

—Ghostbusters.  I know, I know, it’s a great movie, but seriously, the bad guy is the EPA.  It’s every inch a Reagan-era comedy: big, noisy, macho, and reactionary.  Still awesome.

—Forrest Gump.  I guess you could argue whether it’s a good movie, but it’s definitely conservative, from the nostalgia for pre-1960s America to the depoliticized treatment of Vietnam to the message that women who don’t settle down with the first mentally retarded guy who presents himself are sluts who will be punished with AIDS.  The screenwriter recently recycled a bunch of the same elements in “Benjamin Button,” including his strange interest in making his hero a white Southerner who happens to be totally free of racism and can pal around with saintly black people in their wacky revival churches.

—The Incredibles.  I love Brad Bird and his movies to death, but I can’t deny the guy has a thing for crypto-libertarian plotlines where the heroes are just born superior and the rest of the world needs to fall into line.  “Ratatouille” has the same issues.  In “The Incredibles,” the bad guy’s evil plot is to market inventions that will make ordinary people the equals of superheroes.  Aside from the fact that it’ll make money for a guy who’s kind of a jerk, this is bad…how?  (On the other hand, Bird also gave us the antiwar, pro-forging-your-own-identity “The Iron Giant.”)

—Pretty much any Disney movie except “Lilo and Stitch” and “The Emperor’s New Groove” treads icky gender and/or racial territory.  That said, I actually think “The Little Mermaid” is pretty feminist, in that fathers trying to “protect” their daughters from growing up and girls (literally!) sacrificing their voices to become sexually mature women are presented as bad things.  Walt Disney himself was very conservative and had a huge hard-on for “the good old days” which comes up in a lot of Disney projects (not just the movies, but, for example, the inclusion of Main Street USA and antebellum New Orleans in Disneyland).

—ROADHOUSE!

I have to imagine the conservative messages in Ghostbusters are unconscious as none of its creators are known to be doctrinaire conservatives, I think the “academics are frauds angle” is overemphasized as the worst thing about the university is the crusty old dean. And the EPA villain could even be seen as an indictment of the Reagan administration for MISUSING the resources of important regulatory agencies. Really, the movie’s message if you can call it that is anti-authority, which Amanda pointed out not long ago is not the exclusive province of the right wing.

Oh, and “The Incredibles” was originally going to open with a neighborhood barbecue where a bitchy career woman harangues Mrs. Incredible for being a stay-at-home mom (not knowing she’s really a retired superheroine), leading to a rant about the importance of quitting your job to raise a family.  I’m indescribably relieved that the scene was cut, since Evil Career Woman Catfights Noble Hearth Goddess is one of my all-time least favorite media tropes.

Red Dawn really is a Conservative wet dream. It’s all their most cherished survivalist, rugged individualist memes distilled, dried and crystallized into mental crack they can just mainline through their eyeballs. Who needs to see “The Turner Diaries” as a movie when you’ve got this ?

I’m surprised nobody has yet mentioned “The Handmaid’s Tale”, which, at least conceptually, has gotta be a glimpse of utopia for the Christofacists.

Can someone compile a list of movies where the Intentionally Annoying ‘Heroine’ is Brutally Sexually Victimized?

I know my particular favorite from that huge category is the Kirk Cameron crapfest “Listen To Me.”  It’s got all the well know conservative props, driven home as subtly as a sledgehammer.  Let’s see; we’ve got;

1) the hero is a smarmy smirking country boy whose accent comes and goes, but who’s supposedly smarter than anybody else. (W, anyone?)

2) the whole movie is about a subject that the screenwriter actually knows nothing about (debate) and makes up the rules as he goes along (like W and debate)

3) the hero makes horrible smirking sexist jokes that supposedly endear him to the heroine. (again, like W)

4) the hero sorta accidentally on purpose kills the rich guy by shoving him into traffic, then defends himself by saying he was fighting for the heroine’s honor.  No investigation is held. (like W and Iraq)

5) Even though the hero and the heroine couldn’t debate their way out of kindergarten show and tell, they take on the robotic like Ivy League team, in front of the Supreme Court, no less. (like W and Al Gore)

6) the heroine starts sobbing about her rape, and her abortion afterward, which somehow prove that geez, wimmenz are just too emotional to have control over their own bodies.  (gag)

7) In spite of all this, the heroine and hero win the debate and walk hand in hand off to the White House. (yeah, right)

However, I can classify “Listen To Me” as a conservative movie, but not a good movie, because like “An American Carol”, it really, REALLY sucked.

“Love, Actually” - romance as written by evolutionary psychologists - the men all have their sexual dreams come true, no matter how far-fetched (the “ugly” British guy goes to America and has a four-way with insatiable hot mid-western chicks) while the women over 30 get no sex. Laura Linney’s character can’t have a relationship because she’s on call 24/7 to her violent insane brother who lives in a psych ward that gives him access to a telephone 24/7, while Emma Thompson is ditched by her husband for a younger woman.

Can we just automatically lump in every movie where the white guy is better at being Japanese/Native American/etc than people who, yanno, *actually are*? And then kicks ass with his leet exotic skills? (...f*cking F*CKING The Last Samurai!)

Independence Day with the focus on Amurika solving the world’s problem with an alien invasion (oh yeah and they helped too).  Gah.

The salute scene in Stargate.  So cheesy.  (makes finger down throat gesture)

No one has mentioned the ABC television miniseries “Path to 9/11”  which was riddled with right wing propaganda.

The remake of Manchurian Candidate - faceless corporation gets (or attempts to get) a charmless politician elected and doesn’t face much punishment even after getting caught.

Conspiracy Theory - included scenes of torture with obscure warner brothers cartoon references “you forgot the gravy”

Wargames (if they changed a few things) imagine the computer hacker’s character being sent to Gitmo and changing the ending so that US could “win” a nuclear war.

It is beyond the scope of 25 years but the ‘academic’ played by Walter Matthau in Failsafe pegs today’s idiotic warmonger Neocon perfectly.

Judge Dredd!