Right wing film studies

Jesse Taylor noted a while back that since the success of Gibson’s Passion, conservatives have been routinely trying to draw all sorts of lessons from box office receipts, and they’ve been doing a pretty damned inept job of it.

In the continued effort to search for something, anything, to latch on to at the box office, they noticed the surprising success of a movie about Penguins. Michael Medved, the floor is yours:

“March of the Penguins,” the conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved said in an interview, is “the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.” Speaking of audiences who feel that movies ignore or belittle such themes, he added: “This is the first movie they’ve enjoyed since ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ This is ‘The ‘Passion of the Penguins.’

You just don’t have a incomprenesible conservative wankfest about film without inviting the National Review. Apparently J-Pod was still recovering from the failure of the viewing public to recognize the unmistakable timeless genius of Ron Howard, so they had to send Rich Lowry:

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, told the young conservatives’ gathering last month: “You have to check out ‘March of the Penguins.’ It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things – the dedication of these birds is just amazing.”

Indeed, nothing says family values like snuff films and annually choosing a new spouse. That this reads like a fourth rate parody of the classical conservative version of natural as normative pretty much goes without saying. Moving on…

In part, the movie’s appeal to conservatives may lie in its soft pedaling topics like evolution and global warming. The filmmakers say they did not consciously avoid those topics – indeed, they say they are strong believers in evolutionary theory – but they add that they wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible.
“It’s obvious that global warming has an impact on the reproduction of the penguins,” Luc Jaquet, the director, told National Geographic Online. “But much of public opinion appears insensitive to the dangers of global warming. We have to find other ways to communicate to people about it, not just lecture them.”
In a subsequent interview for this article, he added, “My intention was to tell the story in the most simple and profound way and to leave it open to any reading.”

What the filmmakers appear to be saying is that there was no particular need to discuss evolution and global warming in a portrayal of the life-cycle of the Emperor Penguin, so they didn’t do it. It’s called economy, and focus, not an endorsement of the other side, as buffoons like Medved would interpret it. In the world of rightwing film commentary, not explicitly endorsing science as legitimate means of inquiry is the same as endorsing the ludicrous opposite position. You’re either with us or against us. The film also focuses on heterosexual penguins, which demonstrates the folly of same-sex marriage.

Let’s close with a showstopper. The film isn’t about Penguins at all. It’s about Christians:

“Some of the circumstances they experienced seemed to parallel those of Christians,” he said of the penguins. “The penguin is falling behind, is like some Christians falling behind. The path changes every year, yet they find their way, is like the Holy Spirit.”