Well in Britain when there is a knifing it is silent. Knives don’t go bang bang. So there is no need to escape quickly in a vehicle.

If they have blood on their hoodie they turn it inside out so the blood doesn’t show and walk away.

How many Britons die each year in drive-by knifings?

Cheers.

But then I jump back to the discussion about what art should portray, sort of. Sure, if a president in the *real* world gave a speech like that, they’d get picked apart and left for dead, but would it really happen in the world of the movie? Hard to say- if Rumson was defeated by that speech, would there be any slimy anti-Shepherds left to do the picking? Perhaps not. Further, since Shehehrd’s staff is so politically savvy, I’m sure there are ways they could have back-pedalled and compromised without making it look like Shepherd was flat-out reneging on his promises. For example, “I’m gonna get the guns,” could be retro-grade defined as, “I’m gonna make the background checks for gun licenses much, much more stringent and make them an annual thing once a person gets theirs,” in accordance with the new bill- here, guns aren’t inherently and overarchingly illegal, it’s just a lot harder to obtain one legally, so he’s still “getting” them, in a sense. Since in the movie, all we really see are Rumson and his personal cronies and yes-men and the people in the West Wing, there is no way of telling what the tactics or methodologies of people outside those spheres are like and thus how they would react politically to the speech.

So, the speech actually may, indeed, have worked. After all, that last shot is, as you say, of both Houses of Congress ardently applauding his entrance. Maybe they weren’t politically savvy enough to *ever* realize the potential ramifications of the speech, nor the misconduct in its delivery.

There. That’s how it still stays happy for me. Huzzah!

But as for that conversation about art again, I’d re-submit Caroline’s point that this is a question best left to each individual to answer for their own self. But, I’ll submit I sometimes get hung up in trite details that are in conflict with reality, even if the characters react to their world (basically) as one would expect a person in that world to react- your example, Caroline, of the arpartments, is one I get bothered by a lot, sadly. It’s (one of the myriad reasons) why I couldn’t stand _Friends_. At the same time, though, I suppose when it gets to me, there are usually other things getting to me at the same time, and they often have to do with other aspects of the writing (eg. character development, structure, dialogue, etc.). So maybe I’m nitpicky about some things, but I get that way as things add together.

I think Caroline hit it spot on: “I think a film has to be somewhat believable, still grounded even if only by one root hair in reality, for it to be truly inspiring. And explicitly stating the moral doesn’t mean there isn’t subtlety elsewhere (acting, dialogue, result, etc.).” I really couldn’t agree more. The degrees of how grounded in reality a movie should be will vary from person to person, but you’re especially right about that second part. (Imagine Nic Cage trying to deliver that same speech as Michael Douglas. I mean… I cringe.) The skill in execution of the entire thing, and in every way, has a lot to do with how successful of an Inspire Factor a movie’s speech has.

WARNING: SIDEBAR APPROACHING

And Lee, I do think you’re right, at least in terms of the “political neutrality” of President Whitmore. He, too, gives an awesome speech, all-inspiring and epic- and, as is Shephard’s, *totally* unrealistic (which is partly what makes it so awesome, imo- why I love both of them is a *different* sidebar of some overthinking, but for another place, I suppose). So let’s dissect that character a bit, shall we? (Yes, yes we shall…)

He’s a former pilot, as they insist on reminding us while he’s being criticized on TV, then later when he says his place is with the other people flying during their assault at the end. Former soldier, so this implies a Republican (for, Kerry and a few other famous ones notwithstanding, most vets and former members of the armed services tend to be Republican). But his knee-jerk reaction to negotiate and not strike with more than fighter planes, even after most of those planes are blown up, is indicative of a dove, not a hawk. While his decision to “nuke the bastards” is rather hawkish in itself, the fact that he/mankind had to be ordered to “die” by the alien he was talking to before he finally decided to use nuclear weapons is rather “sissy,” which equates to Democratic in a lot of minds. Yet what does he do, but jump into the cockpit of one of the planes launching in that last attempt at a stand- rather gung-ho, ala Custer or something/one (and thus, at least vaguely Republican, since the collective culture seems to assign this mindset/attitude to Republicans). Also, ignoring the “liberal bias” in Hollywood (since there is a notion that all movies portraying political figures are automatically going to make the “good” ones liberal and the “bad” ones conservative), it’s rather hard to tell what his politics are, since they are never stated: we only see President Whitmore in the context of the alien invasion. We hear nothing about his actual policies other than, “Can there be a peace between us?” and, “Spread the word [about how to kill these bastards].” His “people” also don’t really present their views or politics, either- they, too, are only presented in the context of the invasion. It is suggested by the television in the beginning that his approval ratings are low because he isn’t performing as expected, but what, precisely, he isn’t performing *on* is, as far as I can remember, not specified- he’s just under-performing. And his speech and responses, once the “Peace? No peace!” was heard, are probably pretty much what anybody in his position and situation would have been compelled to do. Of course, an inexperienced person wouldn’t want to fly a plane in the end, so that is something special to his character, but I’m sure even the most peaceful of world leaders would be okay with using nuclear bombs against a race that wants to exterminate ours; and it’s noble and patriotic to be willing to die for the cause, but Republicans don’t (or at least shouldn’t) have soul claim to those (although some misguided ones may try to claim they do).

That’s all I’ve got in a spur-of-the-moment analysis- did I leave anything out?

But yes, I do believe President Thomas Whitmore is portrayed as politically neutral.

::end sidebar::

Now that I think about it more (overthink it, if you will) I think there might be two ways to view heavy-handedness and subtlety. Yes, explicitly stating the main point you are trying to prove isn’t subtle. I think the examples you have chosen don’t cross into the unbelievable, though. In all of the examples I have seen/read the characters have to struggle for what they achieve and what they achieve doesn’t seem to be beyond the realm of possibility. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, (without spoiling anything) I think it’s obvious what the less believable alternative would have been. If everything worked out in the end and you got a PERFECT happy ending that proved that the side we had been rooting for was right, then that would have been very heavy-handed and hard to swallow. Instead, the result is a little subtler. We win, but we also lose. We learn to fight and to stand up for truth and honor and what is right although we might often lose. We will achieve change and success bit by bit, in increments.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. First of all, love Jimmy Stewart. The Shop Around the Corner=one of my favorite movies. Yes, the protagonist is the embodiment of an ideal, he is naive, his actions stretch the realms of believability quite a bit. But he operates under the rules of Congress. (I think?…It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film.) The help he gets and the general exuberance and fervor in those finals scenes is a little over the top. However, the thing that finally resolves the issue of his guilt doesn’t seem to be that unbelievable. Right wins through an acceptable pattern of human behavior/relationship/interaction (I’m trying not to ruin anything).

The Grapes of Wrath (at the least the book version). They struggle, they persevere, but it doesn’t seem impossible. It’s not as though it ends with them in a nice big house with steady employment and a guarantee that there will always be food on the table. They are still in pretty terrible circumstances, they just have hope and will continue pressing on.

I think a film has to be somewhat believable, still grounded even if only by one root hair in reality, for it to be truly inspiring. And explicitly stating the moral doesn’t mean there isn’t subtlety elsewhere (acting, dialogue, result, etc.).

If you made it to the end of another one of my incredibly long comments I feel like I should give you a prize. But I don’t have one. So… *pat pat*. There.

If the film had chosen to leave the political message out and istead made the speach about a man defending the honor of the women he loved it would have been a much better movie.

Sorry it took so long for me to put that into words.

Reading the rest of your comment, I was thinking about inspiring films, and especially the difference between a “heavy-handed” one and a “subtle” one. It seems to me nowadays that audiences have grown anti-heavy-handedness, which seems a good thing at first — I mean, subtlety is always better, right? But when I think about many of my favorite old movies, such as the aforementioned Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Casablanca, The Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc…. Well, these are movies that wear their morals on their sleeves. Talk about heavy-handed! All of these films end with a climactic speech in which the hero tells the audience exactly what to believe. And yet I’d argue that these movies are some of the best of the best of all time. Explain that, subtlety-lovers.

@Foxbat: Hey, lay off the politics. We’re an entertainment site. Now, if you want to make an argument that countries with gun bans have more knife-related rap lyrics than gun-related ones… That would be Overthinking It.

Especially Dan and the baby roasting, mlawski combining robots (technology) with some kind of magic objectivity chip (mysticism), and “and then they will outlaw clubs and “knives don’t run out of bullets”.

Not having seen the film, I will instead respond to mlawski and Caroline on art. I think quite obviously (at least I hope so) all movies cannot and should not be realistic all the time. How dull would the world be if we only had nonfiction? Without unrealistic elements you eliminate entire genres like fantasy, science fiction, many animated films, romantic comedy. And I like those. But outside of those there is also the compression of time and unrealistic circumstance of either a incredibly dramatic unusual event or the combination of far too many unusual events to be realistic.

Perhaps you wish to limit this discussion to whether “art should reflect life, or can it be a better version of life, one that inspires viewers to change their world in order to live up to the artistic fantasy”. In this case, the focus is shifted to subjugating reality to prove a point or contribute to the artistic vision instead of just having something unrealistic for the sake of making a film more entertaining or some such reason. I think this connects to the discussion of bias that happened earlier in the comment section. Certainly, if one views a film as presenting a clear viewpoint (which it has to…no film can be completely blank, can it?) the scenes are a collection of evidence supporting that point. However, I do think there is something to be said for a light hand and a degree of subtlety in making this point and presenting this evidence. A fantasy world that is TOO idealistic can make that artistic fantasy seem completely unattainable, possibly causing people to stop reaching for it. Alternately, it may repel people who are opposed to the fantasy and make it easily dismissable (ahem, see comments above). But that is just a case of execution, so yes, there are merits in both representing reality and a version of reality that we wish were our own.

New question: Connecting to that “worst speech in political history”…what if that artistic fantasy is something negative? Should we represent horrific/untasteful/etc. things on film if they are someone’s artistic vision even if they might inspire someone to make that vision a reality? Free speech? Freedom?

He proposed introducing legislation to take away people’s guns. Its already illegal to shoot someone. So if a criminal isn’t going to follow that rule what makes you think they will follow your gun law too? Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Look at all the stabbing in Britain. Now they want to outlaw knives. After that it will be clubbings. And then they will outlaw clubs.

Point being if you make having guns a crime only criminals will have them. It doesn’t make you any safer. A person with malicious intent will find a way to depribe you of your money or your life to get what they want. In Texas the knoledge that most homeowners are well armed keeps us safe at night.

In britain people get stabbed all the time and it is just as fatal if not more since knives don’t run out of bullets.

It was a silly movie with a silly political agenda at the time. The fact that people still consider global warming legislation even today knowing that it is a fraud is just sad.

The writting was good enough so that people with clouded political ideas such as “guns are the real crime problem in america” might actually buy his speach. Myself, I found it to be a load of tripe.