Second, comparing Moore to Grffith seems a little misplaced, since we're ignoring in that comparison the shift in baseline values between then and now.

True.

First, I suppose that to depend on the strength of the movie-maker's views. If positions are strongly held, they can hardly avid getting leaked out to at least some degree into the finished product. The Great Rotundo would seema fine example of this.

Second, comparing Moore to Grffith seems a little misplaced, since we're ignoring in that comparison the shift in baseline values between then and now.

Does anyone in here aside from Eric, have any doubt whatever about what Moore's politics really are?

Ironically, I think you misinterpreted Eric's intent. I don't actually believe Eric has any illusions of what Michael Moore's politics are. The point was, you can't claim that Moore is liberal because of his movies while at the same time saying...

Tri, it is an ignorant point of view to claim D.W. Griffth made conservative movies as you do not have any idea what his politics was.

As Eric said to ZR3...

...you can't have it both ways; you can't say, well, Birth of a Nation wasn't conservative but then criticize Moore.

I think this is the whole point of James' post. You can't tell what Eastwood's politics are necessarily from his movies. You can try, but you will probably fail since there are innumerable interpretations available. Moore and Griffith are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Of course, what isn't defying interpretation is Bitsy defending Jessup.

Quit trying to be an idiot, Eric. Extra effort in that area you don't need, trust me on this. Look closely at my response again and you may note that there's no defense at all, there. What there is is a sharper definition.

plus those dang liberals just weren't asking him questions very nicely.

Once again, were you to actually read what I wrote, you'll notice the emphasis on their respective values.

... as you do not have any idea what his politics was.

As James points out above, Griffith's "political intent is so pervasive as to defy counter-interpretations. That’s probably true." And I could agree; yet, you nutty righties have no problem criticizing Michael Moore's films and politics even though you probably have no idea what Moore's politics may truly be. So, Zelsdorf, you can't have it both ways; you can't say, well, Birth of a Nation wasn't conservative but then criticize Moore.

Moreover:

Since liberals feel rather than think, you just feel you know what his purpose was

How does this not apply to the very thing you're criticizing Triumph about? Seriously, you are so blatantly hypocritical here within in the span of just two sentences that I'm surprised you didn't fracture your neck with such an about-face.

However, cowards and idiots wait for police protection. Police investigate killings and DUI's.

Shouldn't you be living out in the woods a la Randy Weaver with stupid talk like this? Seriously, if it's one thing you nutty righties have a hard time with, it's separating movie fiction from reality. That's why "24" is so popular with you guys; you think it reflects reality when it merely reflects your cowardly sense of bravado. Here's one reason why your analogy breaks down: most "cowards" and "idiots" aren't retired military who know how to adequately fire a gun and protect themselves. I suppose that never occured to you? Of course not, because in Zelsdorf's version of reality, talking about how tough you are means being tough.

Of course, what isn't defying interpretation is Bitsy defending Jessup. Y'see, Jessup was just misunderstood--plus those dang liberals just weren't asking him questions very nicely. If only they'd a' asked with respect, why, Jessup would've freely and gladly admitted to ordering the Code Red instead of lying about it.

Next up: Bitsy defends Peck's Mengele in "The Boys from Brazil," explaining that if only Olivier's Lieberman hadn't been so liberal and smug, he (Mengele) would've totally told Lieberman about the Hitler clones if only asked.

There’s no such thing as a conservative movie. Or a liberal movie. Or a libertarian movie.

There are only movies which are produced by conservatives, liberals, or libertarians hoping to get across a message that comports with their views and conservative, liberal, or libertarian viewers of said movies who find elements therein that reinforce their own view or, alternatively, strike them as hamhandedly trying to get across a contrary view.

I think this statement is too sweeping, too. But not just because of the likes of BOAN or Michael Moore or An American Carol.

I think your real point is that people take what they want from art and, as such, what the filmmakers meant is less important than the consumers' impressions. And that's not wrong, per se. But authorial intent is not meaningless. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that there are such things as political movies, but a lot of messages don't fit into the kind of easy idological boundaries that make for easy discussion.

I sparked quite a debate on this very issue over at whedonesque by posting a link to the Hot Air poll last month that included Serenity. A lot of (liberal) posters there found the notion that a Malkin site could find a Whedon product so amenable damned near offensive. And yet, it is patently obvious to me that the most important message of Serenity -- that we all have the right to be wrong -- is an unequivocally libertarian message. Whedon may be a liberal in the main, but that principle flies in the face of the modern liberal project of forced equality that the Alliance attempts -- and which is clearly viewed as evil -- in the film.

There are other themes in the film that lean the other way, of course. And then there's the nonsense only people who think caricatures are real would give credence to (for instance, a few posters objected that Serenity couldn't be considered conservative because conservatives would never approve of Wash and Zoe's inter-racial marriage. No, really.). Sadly, one sees such absurdities all the time, even from certain regulars in these threads.

So, yes, Serenity is a conservative movie, precisely to the extent -- and because of that fact that -- libertarianism and conservativism are conflated and/or aligned. I could make much the same argument about The Incredibles (the theme of which is that it's okay to be special and trying to make everyone 'special' means that no one is). Sounds like GT falls into this category, as well, no matter what Eastwood intended. If that's a problem, it's down to the failure of people's imaginations, not the message itself.

What it comes down to, in the end, is how highly what Jessup is trying to defend, is taken by his accusers. In Jessups mind, apparenty it is paramount. In the minds of his accusers, not so much.

They built their strawman and then tore him down and in doing so managed to impugn via guilt by association a lot of other ideas that I would support.

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

I think it changes the meaning a little in the context of Col. Jessup replying to Lt. Kaffee, but YMMV. My intent is not to defend Col. Jessup's incipient facism, but to note that facism is a epithet hurled too liberally about by, how you say, creative teams. If you limited your quote to the following:

We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline.

Would it still strike anyone as fascist?

One of my favorite film scenes of all time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08