If you believe the review by Andrew O’Hehir in Salon Magazine, the movie Secratariat is the latest Halloween thriller.
The reviewer obviously has a huge chip on his shoulder about something…….The Tea Parties, ladies doing laundry, or the fact that there was a lot less multiculturalism in 1970 than there is now. All of this fueled his bizarre review of a movie that just happened to be innocently playing at theaters across the country.
This guy is psycho. OK, I’m not medically qualified to say that, but his review definitely is a little off.
He seems genuinely upset that a show taking place in 1969-1970 could not address the Vietnam war or racial tensions. My note to Mr. O’Hehir would be…… Every show can’t be about everything.
Not only would it be confusing, but historically inaccurate. Believe it or not, not everyone was caught up in the news events of the day like a nicely wrapped up after-school special. Many people raised their families and went to work and conducted their lives without paying much notice to the news from the nation’s hot spots. It didn’t mean they were racist or evil. That’s just how it is. I was a baby then, and my own parents can tell me little about the era we hear so much about on the news and movies. Other than whistling an occasional ditty by Joan Baez, it affected our house very little.
It’s not an evil whitewashing lie to tell that story. That’s how it was for some. And if you want a gritty, hard hitting expose, maybe you shouldn’t look to a Disney family show about a horse to meet your needs.
Here are some of the words Mr. O’Hehir uses to describe the movie.
Creepy (twice)
Christian friendly
crazy
Burning a cross
master race propaganda
scary
xenophobia
evil
Tea Party and Glenn Beck like, in that they portray a black man who ‘loves Jesus’.
One quote I found really strange was that it “seems to reference enduring American virtues -- self-reliance, stick-to-it-iveness, etc. -- without encouraging you to think too much about their meaning or context.”
What is the disturbing context of ‘self reliance’ to which he is referring? Is there something wrong with ‘stick-to-it-iveness’ that I don’t know about? Whatever can he mean?
Here is the pouty faced, bratty ending to the whole review…..
“Big Red himself is a big, handsome MacGuffin, symbolic window dressing for a quasi-inspirational fantasia of American whiteness and power. Horses don't go to the movies, and this movie is about human beings, and our nonsensical but inescapable yearning to find the keys to the future in stupid ideas about a past that never existed”.
So There! Times Infinity!!!!
(OK, I added the last four words).
The venom really comes out when Hollywood strays from the course of their usual stream of filth. All I can say is…
I’m off to the movies!
-Lynnae
Update!!!!!!
Having seen the movie all I can say is that Mr. O’Hehir’s vitriol was akin to heckling a procession of Jerry’s kids.
There was a subplot about the daughters anti-war activism, and he’s wrong to say the show didn’t mention Watergate. I could tell that big red horse was thinking about Nixon the entire time.
-Lynnae
