Sub Ratione Dei

Married to the Mafia: Why Religulous Works

I have mixed feelings about Bill Maher's Religulous. There is, I think, something of a tension running throughout Maher's documentary. In an opening scene set in a Trucker's chapel and he gives some pretty standard questions. When challenged he responds that he has one agenda: doubt. His gospel, Maher explains, is the gospel of "I don't know".

However, before long the critical agnosticism morphs into acerbic incredulity at all religious belief. Religion is quickly portrayed as being synonymous with talking snakes and humans having dinosaurs as their next door neighbours. Even when Maher does get more reasonable interviewees such as Francis Collins (who has been in the news for other reasons recently) it appears that we do not have a interview so much as an hack job, the Catholic Herald has more on this angle of Maher's effort. In other words, the gospel of I don't know like so many of the interviews seems to have been left on the cutting room floor. In it's place one is left with an apologetic rant. And, Maher does this well with a great deal of humour. 

Maher picks his targets well, we have the second coming of Jesus (apparently), the creation museum detailing the science behind human-dinosaur cohabitation and talking snakes, and ex-gay ministries etc. As James Mcgrath has noted some of the argument is as incredulous as his subjects.  However, on reflection I find myself more ambivalent regarding the film.

Like many Christians on viewing the film I had the same reaction to many. This is nothing but a parody of the faith of millions, it does not reflect the the actual beliefs of many, it is a straw man critique. In this sense Matthew's comment reflected my belief:

It’s because they make all of these arguments that defeat what they perceive religion and the case for God to be.  Meanwhile, anybody who has studied philosophy or theology in the slightest sits back, listens, and at the end are left thinking…so what?  They never even touch the real questions.  They just set up these juvenile straw men and then convincingly knock them down in front of their own cameras.  Very impressive.  All the while they reveal their total misunderstanding of the theists case.

Matthew continues by linking to one catholic priest's critique of Religulous which I included below: 

In terms of broad brush-stokes he is obviously right, the religion of Religulous is not the same as the religion of so many of Christianity's adherents. It is not a big stretch on Fr Barron's epistemology to say that faith is in a symbiotic relationship to doubt - the certainty against which Maher takes aim is not intrinsic to faith. But the difficulty is while all this is true it does not excuse the fact that for many of those interviewed in the film the mocking description of their faith Maher puts to the audience was an accurate description of their belief and I don't think one would have to search too hard to find similar views nearby.

And this is where I am somewhat more sympathetic to Maher's presentation. While the dominant motif of Religulous is an all-round anti-religious piss-take the minor and more humble facet which I alluded to earlier does re-appear at the end. It is here I think that Religulous does raise a valid point.

Here's Maher's closing sequence:

Watch Religulous - Ending Montage in Activism & Non-Profit  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

It is easy to criticise Maher's characterisation of faith as anti-rational as "making a virtue out of not thinking" but there is still an argument to be had. In particular I thinking of Maher's characterisation of moderate religious people as being "mafia wives" (c. 4m 15s onwards) . Those who through acquiescence allow the terror in the name of God to perpetuate.

Sam Harris in his illiberal diatribe on religion argues in a similar vein:

Of course, people of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity [contrary, one may add, to Harris' position], while others would burn  the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. One of the central themes of this book, however, is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. (The End of Faith, 14-15).

Harris goes on to suggest that the religious moderate is intellectually dishonest and Maher, although not going so far argues in a similar fashion. They're wrong for it suggest that traditionally fundamentalism is the norm from which moderates are rebelling. But, as I think Dan itimated a few days ago, there is a line at which boundaries of identity are crossed. So, here's the question: unlike Maher analogy I don't think we should be resigning in disgust but perhaps we should be asking some other to leave?

Perhaps, notwithstanding the crass manipulation of sources, the first responce to Religulous should not be defence but acknowleding maher may have a point.

Is it a Free World?

Milton Friedman (left) defined a free market as one in which two parties enter into a agreement "provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed". Discussing the view Cavanaugh concludes that on Friedman's approach

Freedom is what exists spontaneously in the absence of coercion. This approach is agnostic about the positive capacities of each party to a transaction, for example, how much power or property each party has as his or her disposal. To be free, it suffices that there be no external interferences. (p. 4-5).

Later in his analysis of this view of freedom Cavanaugh contrasts this with that of Augustine to first emphasise that there is not unbridled lack of coercion, the parties are rarely in an equal position and secondly that freedom must have a telos. Cavanaugh cites an advertisement paid for (circa 1994) by the US Agency for International Development in a textile trade magazine that lauded the fact that "Rosa Martinez produces apparel for US markets on her sewing machine in El Salvador. You can hire her for 33 cents an hour". Cavanaugh asks, is Rosa Martinez free? (p. 21) At face value then on Friedman's definition probably. However, as Cavanaugh continues

The problem with this view is that it pretends to be blind to the real disparity of power at work here whilst simultaneously stripping away the ability to judge an exchange on the basis of anything but sheer power, since any telos, or common standard of good, has been eliminated from view ... However, in order to judge which exchanges are truly free and which ones are not, one must abandon Friedman's purely negative and functionalist approach to freedom and have some positive standard by which to judge. For example, if we admit that Rosa Martinez's exchange with her employer is voluntary and informed, yet still want to claim that it is not truly free, we must be able to muster an argument based on some sort of human flourishing and the ends of human life that are being violated by her working for less than a living wage. In other words, once we admit that freedom defined strictly negatively is inadequate, we are pushing ourselves toward the recognition that Augustine was right; to speak of freedom in any realistic and full sense is necessarily to engage the question of the true ends of life. (p. 24, 25-26).

I have raised some of these issues before but was reminded of Cavanaugh's critique watching Ken Loach's It's a Free World, a film that powerfully dramatises Cavanaugh's argument and the problems of a context-less (globalised) emphasis on individual rights. While both Cavanaugh and to a lesser extent my earlier post focus on the outsourcing of capital to in the search of human labour overseas It's a Free World (UK Link)takes a more local approach.The film centres around Angie recently fired person who in an attempt to make a better life for her and her family sets up an employment agency supplying the demand for mainly Eastern European cheap labour. Although based in the context of undocumented workers it is not the illegality but rather dependency of would be workers have when there are few other avenues that Loach exploits. In the context of the discussion of freedom the would-be worker's predicament is desperate, they want to work. In fact,, at various points we see them beg Angie for work. It is, it seems, a perfect example of an intended transaction that is, to quote Friedman "bi-laterally voluntary and informed". This is summed up in a pivotal (although one not mentioned in most reviews) whereby Angie and Rose (Angie's business partner) hit on the idea that a cheaply rented house can be used to accommodate twice the suitable number of people by ensuring worker work shift, half sleep while the other half work - thereby doubling their income. Loach then dramatises the dilemma of Rosa Martinez although here, it is not capital but people that are globalised. Here we have a parody of Friedmanite freedom, a person who must choose between no work and starvation or live in cramped inadequate accommodation is 'Free'. It is of course a perverse argument. As with many of Loach's films It's a Free World ends on a depressing note with a scene of Angie recruiting new workers in the Ukraine a sign that the cycle of inequality and coercion continues. And, in a case of life mirroring art we have over the best week seen Friedmanite definitions of freedom expounded in Parliament. On the 14th Christopher Chope, a Conservative MP proposed without a hint of irony that the minimum wage rules in the UK be amended to allow a freedom for workers to "opt-out" and earn less than the legislated minimum! (Background and story here).

References ... William T Cavanaugh, Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire, Eerdmans, 2008.

Elsewhere ... Cinema Autopsy The Age Lessons from the School of Inattention

Home of the Brave

I have just spent a lazy afternoon watching the film Home of the Brave, the 2006 film starring Samuel L Jackson focused on the life of four members of US forces dealing with post-Iraq and post-military lives. "Dealing" is not really the right word, for each in the own way what confronts the soldiers on return is alcoholism, physical disability, grief, anger and, above all, PTSD. Surprisingly Rotten Tomatoes, usually a key guide for me to movies gives this a rating of 23%, with the rating of just the top critics coming to a whopping 0%! However, I thought it was a pretty decent, if slightly overblown little film.

Reading through some of the reviews what surprises is me is the way some have dismissed the film for its alleged patriotism. Kam Williams, for example, summarily dismisses the film as "[p]atriotic claptrap masquerading as a touchy-feely salute to the troops". Yes, sometimes the story seems contrived - the fact that four soldiers all returned to the same town seems far-fetched, for example. However, unless the simple act of showing soldiers as brave is patriotic, which is absurd, then I fail to see Williams' point. While this is a film based around a deployment of US troops to Iraq in contrast to the majority of reviewers I do not see this as being about Iraq at all. That is, if we accept that this film has a purpose which - given the director Irwin Winkler has films like Rocky V to his discredit credit may be assuming too much. Notwithstanding that the film brought to mind the predicament of the person leaving a religious cult after many years on the inside. What we find is a complete disconnect between suburban life and military life. War is shit, lets not pretend otherwise when "heroes" return. Seeing limbs blown off, children dying, people hating you with murderous intent etc is going to mess with your mind, whether for a just cause or not. Along these lines it is interesting that in the closing monologue by Tommy Yates (Brian Presley) explaining to his confused parents why he has re-enlisted to return to Iraq it is this camaraderie, where people understand and friends are dying together that is listed as the reason. Home of the Brave is not pro-Iraq, anti-Iraq or even pro-war or anti-war - it does try to show part of the reality of war in a way a 1000 embedded journalists never could.

Hope in Defeat

There have been a spate of 9/11 films recently and previously I have passed critical comment on two of these: Flight 93 and United 93. Given these review I can’t say I was expecting a great deal from World Trade Center; I had visions of Nicholas Cage as the crusading heroic Police Officer saving the day for countless people. Instead Cage really helps no-one and the film is all the more potent because of it. The general comments I have made regarding the mythic nature of 9/11 still apply in this case (I am hoping to post a more formal discussion of this in the next couple of days) but, of itself, this is no bad thing. The plot is an extremely simple one. Police officers barely into the twin tower’s concourse are submerged in rubble from the collapsing building and as a result many die. Two officers fight for their life and they survive. And that’s about the full story. Why then do I rate this as such a good film. Because it is politically muted piece. With the exception of a former Marine turned accountant who quit his job to help out and, the end credits inform us subsequently re-enlisted and served two tours of duty in Iraq, there is not overt politicisation from the main characters, this is only done by the politicians on TV. In point of fact up until their rescue the two policemen were oblivious to the days event’s. There are drawbacks, the flashbacks for example were just plain irritating and the less said about Jesus holding a bottle of water the better. Nevertheless I consider this a genuinely good movie. Lawrence Toppman has said of World Trade Center

Yet the film is really about what happened to all of us. The United States took a body blow, didn't collapse, dug in its heels. The effort to pull McLoughlin and Jimeno from the wreckage becomes a metaphor for the nation's attempt to pull itself out of stunned mourning afterward.

At the risk of making my commentary a little too eloquent, bollocks! The film is not a metaphor for anything, and that is its strength. In the midst of chaos ordinary people helped other ordinary people. David Karnes (pictured right) for example, based on the film representations is a man I would not immediately gravitate towards, and yet he goes out of his way to offer assistance. That is World Trade Center's message. And that has sod all to do with being American it happens all over the world, witness the aftermath of any natural disaster, terrorist or nation-state's bombing campaign and you will see the same, people helping other people. Sometimes humans do sick things but in the aftermath you're likely to see others go out of their way to assist in the chaos. World Trade Center is a superb portrayal of that fact. 

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Buy from Amazon.com

Retribution

This week I have watched two DVDs; reflecting on both what is interesting is that both deal with the subject of revenge as a means of achieving justice. Hard Candy (2006) Hard Candy is an uncomfortable film to watch. The film opens with 32 year old photographer Jeff (Patrick Wilson) grooming a young 14 year old girl Hayley (Ellen Page) on an Internet chat site and shortly they meet in a coffee bar. Shortly thereafter what you fear is going to happen happens and Jeff takes Hayley back to his house. There the table begins to turn and the hunter becomes the hunted. It transpires that there is more to Hayley as she takes Jeff hostage and accuses him along with the already evident paedophilia with being involved in the death of a local child; a picture of whom we discover in Jeff's safe. Not that his guilt is clear cut, we do not know (until the end) whether he really is involved. What we are sure of however is Hayley's violent proclivities and sense of justice. Hence there is a truly painful castration scene. Ultimately this film deals with paedophilia and vigilantism and, in the end the film takes the cheap way out and shows that Jeff murdered the young girl, his ensuing death therefore is justice (allegedly). The film itself was a bit of a let-down but is worth seeing for the performances of the two leads, both are truly superb performances. Rating: 2/5. Buy from Amazon.co.uk Buy from Amazon.com Pierrepoint (2005) Like the performances in Hard Candy Timothy Spall does an excellent job of portraying the reserved Alfred Pierrepoint in this biographical film. Pierrepoint was the Chief Executioner in England responsible for the executions of many high profile murderers such as that of Ruth Ellis in 1955. In the course of his career (1932 - 1956) Pierrepoint executed over 600 individuals including over 200 Nazis executed after the war by the British. Pierrepoint himself would later become an opponent of Capital punishment famously remarking

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."

Given this later sentiment it is not surprising that the film does seem to question capital punishment. This is particularly noteworthy in the the manner with which Pierrepoint conducted the executions. Pierrepoint quickly rose the ranks to become the main executioner in Britain; he was known for his efficiency once completing an execution (of James Inglis) in seven seconds. Elsewhere in Belsen he executed Nazis in such numbers that he often had to hang two at the same time. By contrast however we see Pierrepoint being called to execute James "Tish" Corbitt. In real life Tish was a regular of Pierrepoint's pub, in the film he was a closer friend. Tish it turns out is convicted of murder and in the moment of execution this impersonal efficiency Pierrepoint has spent a career developing is shattered. No longer is the condemned `a murderer/criminal' it is a person with a story and a life. Rating: 4/5 Buy from Amazon.co.uk (This was released as The Last Hangman in the US, I can't find it listed on Amazon though).

United 93 and the ‘ Mythic Moment ’

 

Back in August I commented on the TV drama Flight 93. Tonight I watched the its Hollywood Counterpart United 93. To summarise perhaps the key point of that post I offered some concern with the term 'American Hero' that was applied to the passengers; it was not the labelling of the passenger's as heroic that I balked at, rather it was considered that the adjective American was needed. After posting some comments on this film I will briefly expand on what I mean this and offer a couple of supplementary comments.

Straight off the film is definitely worth seeing and is in truth far more substantial (I really don't know that this is the right word) than I though it would be. Paul Greengrass has done a good job and both maintaining a realism to the film and creating an element of suspense. As I mentioned in the Flight 93 film there is a degree of the Us and Them profiling (I will not say racial as this is less apparent in the Hollywood Version). Bomb the System picks up on this aspect when he writes:

United 93 also reminds me that filmmakers have the capability to convey agenda in the millisecond a single edit, like the one that cuts from United 93’s terrorized passengers reciting The Lord’s Prayer to the terrorists reciting prayers to Allah in the plane’s cockpit. The comparison and implication behind that simple cut made me very angry and skeptical of the filmmaker’s stated intention to faithfully recreate and imagine the events of that day without editorialization.

One could also add the opening scene which shows a future hijacker preparing and shaving his body and in this opening scene is shown naked to the millions of viewers. This adds nothing to the narrative other than being insensitive to a Islamic cultural norm, namely that nakedness before strangers is forbidden. This does, perhaps unconsciously, only serve to emphasise this aspect. (On a similar note I also note that the one individual to criticise the plan to retake the plane from the hostages is himself a German in contrast the the American majority, this is I think a significant point but more on that later). What I want to consider is why this moment of re-taking the plane is so potent and so often recounted. Tom Shale may be right that the round of Flight 93 films is dominated by the "lust to make a buck". That is only really half an answer though as there must be a market for the films in the first place. Part of the answer may be in its power of imagination; what would we do faced with the same situation knowing that we are on a suicide mission where the intent is murdering many lives above and beyond the plane's passengers. It is an example of the Hitler Dilemma I referred to earlier. I have a feeling that a better argument can be made because Flight 93 was where the American Citizens won. To label an incident where all the participants died may be viewed as crass, I understand that. The victory is, I think, a contextual one when viewed within the context of the mythic character of 9/11 to the American psyche. This understanding of 9/11 as mythic moment has been taken from Mark Lewis Taylor in his Religion, Politics, and the Christian Right (reviewed here). Taylor's delineation of this idea is worth recounting at length:

The enduring mythic understanding of the Eden-like nation, protected between its oceans and chosen for a divine destiny, together with Reagan's revival of new senses of the nation as frontier, constructed the mythic backdrop against which the uniqueness of the 9/11 moment can be discerned ... The morning in America on September 11, 2001, ruptured this mythic view. It was not destroyed; indeed the myth would surge with new strength. But the damage was real. As a mythic moment, 9/11 was felt as a violation of the sanctuary between oceans. The weapons used that day, hijacked commercial airliners, were not the nuclear missiles of Reagan's nightmare. Still, the attacks from the skies on 9/11 exploded with an impact that was momentous for Americans because of the way Reagan and so many before him spun the myth of a protected and divinely sanctioned America (40-41).

It will be noted that there have been no cinematic docu-drama releases following the details of Flight 11, 77, or 175. It is only Flight 93 that is singled out for this coverage. Why then is it that it is this particular flight that is singled out? Reviewing this film for the Observer Philip French gives some indication in his closing praise of the passengers:

At the very least, it [United 93] is a fitting memorial to the courage of these men and women who decided they were not going to be passive victims and ended up saving hundreds of lives and averting the destruction of a national shrine.

9/11, as Taylor outlines, is a mythic moment or rather an anti-mythic moment. The Puritanesque City on a Hill fantasy was shattered in one ordinary morning, the sheer helplessness in the face of determined malevolence made America impotent. Flight 93, and its story of overcoming terror with might for the greater purpose of American well-being, is a counter story to this impotence; it is a somewhat small preservation of the pre-9/11 world, the time when America's destiny was determined by America (this I think is furthered by the previously cited non-American opposition to the self-saving actions of the passengers). I think the same can be said of the upcoming recently released World Trade Center DVD with its focus on the heroism of two New York Police Officers. Note: As I hope is clear I am differentiating the actual story from its reception into the public consciousness. It is the reception I am criticising.

Buy United 93 at Amazon.co.uk

Buy United 93 from Amazon.com

Land and Freedom

I've just watched Ken Loach's Land and Freedom. I know I'm 12 years too late but if you haven't done so already then you have to pick it up and watch it. Absolutely superb.

Death of a President

Tonight the Mockumentary "Death of a President" premiered on More4 (UK viewers can watch this again on the 13th at 2100). Using archived footage of President Bush interspersed with acting the premise of the story is that while in Chicago addressing local business leaders in October 2007 President Bush is assassinated. This has understandably caused some disquiet and outright condemnation for filming such an event. To an extent I sympathise with this event but to it is important to note that while the assassination is the ostensible subject matter of the film it is not as some have suggested some sort of left-wing wish fulfilment. Jeff Jacoby for example

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society.

I am certainly not going to suggest that the film is not political, it certainly is; however I think Nicole Bell is on to something when she counters this suggestion:

For anyone laboring under the illusion that this film is some sort of left-wing wish fulfillment fantasy, Seeing Dick Cheney being sworn in as the 44th President of the United States should be enough to dispel those thoughts.

The point is that the assassination of the president is the launching pad for the real political point the tendency of all western societies (I take the US scenario to be paradigmatic here) to retreat to a politics of fear in the face of attack. This is evidenced in the almost immediate launch of a Patriot Act III, the ostracism of Others (especially the linking of Syria and the 'Muslim Terrorist' aided and abetted by President Cheney's promptings).

Ultimately, as in the similar (although non-docudramatic) film The Assassination of Richard Nixon the would be assassin does the act for wholly personal reasons. Anyway, in closing I do not think this is in any sense a classic, in a couple of years it will I think be an entirely forgotten film but it is nonetheless and interesting and well-made film so try and check this out.

Note: Because of the nature of the film I understand some may not want to watch this. Unfortunately US readers may not even get the chance to make that choice, major cinema chains are refusing to even screen the film (although I am sure there must be some independents over there).

Flight 93

Flight 93 is a TV Movie that was broadcast in January 2006 and was released on DVD in the UK in June. Like its Hollywood counterpart United 93 this film is essentially a fly on the wall docu-drama of the hijacking and attempted recapture of the fourth flight of September 11, 2001. What can be said of the film?

First, this is an emotionally draining film because it is less about terrorism than the passenger's confrontation with their deaths and the numerous telephone calls to loved ones. This has long been the staple of disaster films; what made this different is that they refer to real conversation and real tragedies and it is emotional.

The film is put together well and because of its focus on the flight and the attempted recapture by the passengers it understandably is a one-sided account. The passengers and crew are emotional, angry, scared etc while the hijackers are reduced to a supporting role who are essentially automatons. This leads me to a problem with the film; I do think Flight 93, no doubt unintentionally is guilty of racial stereotype. With the exception of a black co-pilot and his wife I could not see any other passengers from racial minorities, particularly those of middle-eastern descent. I am certainly not arguing for a representation of an Iranian Todd Beamer (pictured) but I ask the question can't a Muslim be a victim of terrorism? Would the story really be compromised if in addition to the recitations of the Lord's Prayer one were to see a Muslim praying in the background. Sure this is to a degree historical revisionism but I also suspect it is more truthful. The white Middle Classes were not the only victims on September 11, 2001; there are also a catalogue of forgotten victims of the terror attack. Why is this an issue? Because Flight 93 is not just a tragic story it has become part of the cultural capital of American thought that legitimates the "clash of civilisations" bollocks first propagated by Samuel Huntingdon (developed later here); such oppositional rhetoric is far more difficult to sustain in the face of victims of different races and/or faiths. Such presentations caricature "the terrorist" as the focused, impersonal wooden characters of Flight 93 who because of the lack of Muslim victims are implicitly portrayed facto aggressors/Other. We have a need to be careful of such media portrayals:

We must not again allow public emotion or the public media to caricature our enemies. If our enemies are now to be some nations of Islam, then we should undertake to know those enemies. Our schools should begin to teach the histories, cultures, arts, and languages of the Islamic nations. And our leaders should have the  humility and the wisdom to ask the reasons some of those people have for hating us.

Wendell Berry, Thoughts in the Presence of Fear, in Ed. Stanley Hauerwas & Frank Lentricchia, Dissent from the Homeland: Essays after September 11, Duke University Press, (2002), 283.

Patriotic Americans may stop reading here because there is one other issue I feel compelled to rant about. This being the characterisation of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 as American Heroes. One website puts it like this:

Due to the heroic efforts of these few brave Americans, and perhaps due to other causes, that fourth plane never made it to the terrorists intended destination and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of additional lives were spared. In any case, because they did resist and took positive action to fight the terrorists, those passengers are heroes, and represent the true spirit of America when faced with such trials.

I am not an American but a Brit and even in this state with its "special relationship" the term American in any discussion of politics does not immediately bring to mind a particularly noble image. The following statement I have just copied of the White House. The first pillar of the US' national security policy:

The first pillar is promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity - working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend prosperity through free and fair trade and wise development policies.  

I am afraid the stated aim of freedom, justice, and human dignity just does equate with a foreign policy that approves of the indefinite detention without charge of countless Guantanamo detainees. My point is not to launch a tirade into US policy but to state that the actions of the passengers on Flight 93 may well have been heroic but to grant such a recognition outside its borders they should be heroes that were American because an "American hero" is to much of the world often-time a synonym for tyrant.

Buy `Flight 93' from Amazon.co.uk
Buy Flight 93 from Amazon.com

The powerful photo below is is taken from the website of photographer  James Nachtwey. To me it raises the question as to what it means to view the acts of terror through the prism of the Cross?

“ Liar, Liar ” goes Political.

Bulworth, directed by and starring Warren Beatty, is a film of sheer genius. Bulworth is a film of political satire that while not as acerbic as some British satire (if there's one thing us Brits do well it is self-deprecating satire) is both really funny with an albeit none-too-revolutionary message on the reign of money and an unrepresentative elite in the democratic process.

Set against the backdrop of the 1996 presidential election Bulworth focusses around Senator Jay Billington Bulworth (Democrat) who is seeking re-appointment to the Senate is disconsolate following a shady investment deal that has left him broke. After securing a $10 million life insurance deal in exchange for railroading a socially progressive insurance deal for the nation's poor he arranges for his own assassination (wonderfully called a 'weekend research project'). This new-found freedom prompts him to tell the truth to a Black Church. In response to an angry woman's question "Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?". Bulworth's candid response is:

Isn't that OBVIOUS? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade! I mean - come on! You can have a Billion Man March! If you don't put down that malt liquor and chicken wings, and get behind someone other than a running back who stabs his wife, you're NEVER gonna get rid of somebody like me!

It is not long before the desire to tell the truth devoid of all political decorum becomes characteristic of Bulworth's entire campaign. This experience, along with a new relationship with a young activist (Halle Berry), soon leads him to regret the hit he has taken out on his own life and launches him on the new approach of rapping all his political speeches (yes, you did read right!).

In closing I will leave you with possibly the best quote of the film Bulworth argues on a live television interview that:

We just gotta eliminate them. White people, black people, brown people, yellow people, get rid of 'em all. All we need is a voluntary, free spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction, everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody til they're all the same color.

Buy from Amazon.co.uk
Buy from Amazon.com