info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Review: PATRIOCRACY (2012)
97 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Leeper
Jul 9, 2012, 12:31:53 PM7/9/12
to
PATRIOCRACY
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: It is no secret that the politics of this
country are highly polarized and filled with more fire
and smoke than with light. That is the problem that
Brian Malone's PATRIOCRACY examines. You will not find
a whole lot in PATRIOCRACY the film that you do not
already know something about. If you did not know
about these issues you probably would not be seeing
this documentary in the first place. This film is a
diagnosis of the problem without much in the way of a
cure, though it does propose some solutions and tries to
be optimistic about them. What you will get is at the
least a reasonably complete statement of the problem of
the polarization in one compact summary. Rating: high +1
(-4 to +4) or 6/10
For the past four years the United States has been as politically
polarized and vitriolic as it has been in a century. The Congress
has been at near standstill with a battle between confirmed
liberals and extremist conservatives. Those who have tried to
bridge the gap with moderate views have been admonished, sometimes
their careers have been destroyed, and one, Gabriel Giffords, was
nearly shot to death. Rallies of protest are frequent and the
rhetoric is often hate-filled and vicious. Denver-based
writer/director Brian Malone's film falls in two parts, one is a
statement of the problem and one is of Malone's approaches to a
solution. Both parts seem optimistic for the size of the problem.
Along to provide voices of reason are respected experts like Bob
Schieffer and Alan Simpson.
In looking at the polarization Malone examines several arenas of
controversy contributing to the schism. He examines the role of
the Internet. There was a time when if one had an outlandish
political opinion, one was at least exposed to more moderate
viewpoints on television and in the newspapers. But now the
Internet connects people allowing someone with such a perspective
to find many other people with similarly extreme viewpoints. On
blogs, on commentary radio and television, one can surround oneself
in a virtual community of people with similar ideas reinforcing
those opinions in one another. One can easily avoid being exposed
to countervailing opinions.
Malone looks at Fox News and MSNBC, which masquerade as news
networks though they actually collect no news of their own.
Frequently they simply just spread and even create rumor. Their
programs look physically like network news programs with news-like
graphics, newsroom-like backgrounds; they have the format of news
programs with official-looking anchor people, but they provide the
pre-chosen spin to news that has already been reported elsewhere.
Malone calls then entertainment shows rather than news programs.
Malone looks at how Fox News and MSNBC each provided their own spin
to the Giffords shooting and the deficit crisis standoff.
The director looks at the 112th Congress, which Bob Schieffer
characterizes as the worst, the nastiest, and the meanest Congress
in his memory. He looks at the effects on elections of the
Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court which allows
corporations to anonymously funnel huge funding into political
campaigns as if the corporations were citizens. He considers that
effect that ruling will have.
The film spends about seventy minutes presenting the aspects and
facts of the polarization. Nothing it presents is at all
surprising and most of it is familiar. But the case for there
being urgent problems is cogent for those not already convinced.
The last twenty minutes is spent on his suggestion for a solution
to the problem. That there is a solution sounds good, but his
solutions are not so convincing. Ex-Congressman Mickey Edwards has
several steps but they are of dubious practicality. One of his
steps is "reform campaign spending." (Great idea. I'll get right
on it.) One is to get people to "forfeit party allegiance." (How
hard can that be?) And so forth.
The approach used in the film is one of even-handedness. The film
sides neither with the rightists or the leftists. That would be a
quick way to alienate half of the audience. But Malone does get
his point across. The United States political system is not yet
irreparably broken, but it definitely needs some maintenance to get
it working again. I am not greatly optimistic about Brian Malone's
solutions or that enough people have the will and power to correct
what is going wrong. But Malone makes a convincing case, if one is
needed, that things that are wrong are going very wrong. I rate
PATRIOCRACY a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. PATRIOCRACY
will be available on DVD and digital download on July 17, 2012
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1916719/>
What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/patriocracy/>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2012 Mark R. Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: It is no secret that the politics of this
country are highly polarized and filled with more fire
and smoke than with light. That is the problem that
Brian Malone's PATRIOCRACY examines. You will not find
a whole lot in PATRIOCRACY the film that you do not
already know something about. If you did not know
about these issues you probably would not be seeing
this documentary in the first place. This film is a
diagnosis of the problem without much in the way of a
cure, though it does propose some solutions and tries to
be optimistic about them. What you will get is at the
least a reasonably complete statement of the problem of
the polarization in one compact summary. Rating: high +1
(-4 to +4) or 6/10
For the past four years the United States has been as politically
polarized and vitriolic as it has been in a century. The Congress
has been at near standstill with a battle between confirmed
liberals and extremist conservatives. Those who have tried to
bridge the gap with moderate views have been admonished, sometimes
their careers have been destroyed, and one, Gabriel Giffords, was
nearly shot to death. Rallies of protest are frequent and the
rhetoric is often hate-filled and vicious. Denver-based
writer/director Brian Malone's film falls in two parts, one is a
statement of the problem and one is of Malone's approaches to a
solution. Both parts seem optimistic for the size of the problem.
Along to provide voices of reason are respected experts like Bob
Schieffer and Alan Simpson.
In looking at the polarization Malone examines several arenas of
controversy contributing to the schism. He examines the role of
the Internet. There was a time when if one had an outlandish
political opinion, one was at least exposed to more moderate
viewpoints on television and in the newspapers. But now the
Internet connects people allowing someone with such a perspective
to find many other people with similarly extreme viewpoints. On
blogs, on commentary radio and television, one can surround oneself
in a virtual community of people with similar ideas reinforcing
those opinions in one another. One can easily avoid being exposed
to countervailing opinions.
Malone looks at Fox News and MSNBC, which masquerade as news
networks though they actually collect no news of their own.
Frequently they simply just spread and even create rumor. Their
programs look physically like network news programs with news-like
graphics, newsroom-like backgrounds; they have the format of news
programs with official-looking anchor people, but they provide the
pre-chosen spin to news that has already been reported elsewhere.
Malone calls then entertainment shows rather than news programs.
Malone looks at how Fox News and MSNBC each provided their own spin
to the Giffords shooting and the deficit crisis standoff.
The director looks at the 112th Congress, which Bob Schieffer
characterizes as the worst, the nastiest, and the meanest Congress
in his memory. He looks at the effects on elections of the
Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court which allows
corporations to anonymously funnel huge funding into political
campaigns as if the corporations were citizens. He considers that
effect that ruling will have.
The film spends about seventy minutes presenting the aspects and
facts of the polarization. Nothing it presents is at all
surprising and most of it is familiar. But the case for there
being urgent problems is cogent for those not already convinced.
The last twenty minutes is spent on his suggestion for a solution
to the problem. That there is a solution sounds good, but his
solutions are not so convincing. Ex-Congressman Mickey Edwards has
several steps but they are of dubious practicality. One of his
steps is "reform campaign spending." (Great idea. I'll get right
on it.) One is to get people to "forfeit party allegiance." (How
hard can that be?) And so forth.
The approach used in the film is one of even-handedness. The film
sides neither with the rightists or the leftists. That would be a
quick way to alienate half of the audience. But Malone does get
his point across. The United States political system is not yet
irreparably broken, but it definitely needs some maintenance to get
it working again. I am not greatly optimistic about Brian Malone's
solutions or that enough people have the will and power to correct
what is going wrong. But Malone makes a convincing case, if one is
needed, that things that are wrong are going very wrong. I rate
PATRIOCRACY a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. PATRIOCRACY
will be available on DVD and digital download on July 17, 2012
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1916719/>
What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/patriocracy/>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2012 Mark R. Leeper
Mark Leeper
Jul 9, 2012, 12:38:25 PM7/9/12
to
Ed Stasiak
Jul 9, 2012, 4:03:56 PM7/9/12
to
> Mark Leeper
they have access to a much greater variety of news sources
covering every spectrum of opinion.
And because of that, they're no longer accepting the official
party line.
>
> In looking at the polarization Malone examines several arenas
> of controversy contributing to the schism. He examines the role
> of the Internet. There was a time when if one had an outlandish
> political opinion, one was at least exposed to more moderate
> viewpoints on television and in the newspapers.
People today still have access to TV and newspapers, in fact
> In looking at the polarization Malone examines several arenas
> of controversy contributing to the schism. He examines the role
> of the Internet. There was a time when if one had an outlandish
> political opinion, one was at least exposed to more moderate
> viewpoints on television and in the newspapers.
they have access to a much greater variety of news sources
covering every spectrum of opinion.
And because of that, they're no longer accepting the official
party line.
moviePig
Jul 9, 2012, 5:22:41 PM7/9/12
to
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ed Stasiak
Jul 10, 2012, 10:42:28 AM7/10/12
to
> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak
simply and easily allows one to find information outside of "official"
sources, as well as freely interacting with those all over the world."
Why do you hate freedom of speech?
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > And because of that, they're no longer accepting the official
> > party line.
>
> Alas, look around you ...the newly wide spectrum of opinion
> simply allows one to find "published" confirmation of exactly
> his comfortable wavelength, as well as to bond insularly with
> those similarly reclined.
"Rejoice, look around you ...the newly wide spectrum of opinion
> > And because of that, they're no longer accepting the official
> > party line.
>
> Alas, look around you ...the newly wide spectrum of opinion
> simply allows one to find "published" confirmation of exactly
> his comfortable wavelength, as well as to bond insularly with
> those similarly reclined.
simply and easily allows one to find information outside of "official"
sources, as well as freely interacting with those all over the world."
Why do you hate freedom of speech?
Mark Leeper
Jul 10, 2012, 1:33:17 PM7/10/12
to
free news from lots of different sources, but that means the quality
of new will soon suffer.
The point is that if you subscribe to Rupert Murdoch's politics for
example, you can surround yourself with news and editorial from people
who agree with Murdoch. Meanwhile established sources like the New
York Times are in serious trouble. They are in the business of
investing in reporting, getting news, and selling it to the public.
But the public is less willing to buy since they can get their version
of the news free. Murdoch's income is not from honestly reported
news, but in influencing people to vote in ways that are profitable
for him. He wants to give his worldview away free. That is probably
the wave of the future. News will be collected and created by shoddy
means and distributed freely to profitably influence the public. The
value of the news is degraded and will be more so. Just this week
THIS AMERICAN LIFE and NPR MORNING EDITION aired a story that even
small local newspapers cannot be bothered to collect local news. They
outsource local news reporting to companies in places like the
Philippines who get incomplete information off the Internet and re-
write it with fake bylines as articles that they get forty or fifty
cents a piece for.
see <http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156311078/fake-bylines-reveal-true-
costs-of-local-news>
-- Mark
moviePig
Jul 10, 2012, 7:23:44 PM7/10/12
to
On Monday, July 9, 2012 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, Mark Leeper wrote:
> PATRIOCRACY
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> CAPSULE: It is no secret that the politics of this
> country are highly polarized and filled with more fire
> and smoke than with light. That is the problem that
> Brian Malone's PATRIOCRACY examines. You will not find
> PATRIOCRACY
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> CAPSULE: It is no secret that the politics of this
> country are highly polarized and filled with more fire
> and smoke than with light. That is the problem that
> a whole lot in PATRIOCRACY the film that you do not
> already know something about. If you did not know
> about these issues you probably would not be seeing
> this documentary in the first place. This film is a
> diagnosis of the problem without much in the way of a
> cure, though it does propose some solutions and tries to
> be optimistic about them. What you will get is at the
> least a reasonably complete statement of the problem of
> the polarization in one compact summary. Rating: high +1
> (-4 to +4) or 6/10
>
> For the past four years the United States has been as politically
> polarized and vitriolic as it has been in a century. The Congress
> has been at near standstill with a battle between confirmed
> liberals and extremist conservatives. Those who have tried to
> bridge the gap with moderate views have been admonished, sometimes
> their careers have been destroyed, and one, Gabriel Giffords, was
> nearly shot to death. Rallies of protest are frequent and the
> rhetoric is often hate-filled and vicious. Denver-based
> writer/director Brian Malone's film falls in two parts, one is a
> already know something about. If you did not know
> about these issues you probably would not be seeing
> this documentary in the first place. This film is a
> diagnosis of the problem without much in the way of a
> cure, though it does propose some solutions and tries to
> be optimistic about them. What you will get is at the
> least a reasonably complete statement of the problem of
> the polarization in one compact summary. Rating: high +1
> (-4 to +4) or 6/10
>
> For the past four years the United States has been as politically
> polarized and vitriolic as it has been in a century. The Congress
> has been at near standstill with a battle between confirmed
> liberals and extremist conservatives. Those who have tried to
> bridge the gap with moderate views have been admonished, sometimes
> their careers have been destroyed, and one, Gabriel Giffords, was
> nearly shot to death. Rallies of protest are frequent and the
> rhetoric is often hate-filled and vicious. Denver-based
> statement of the problem and one is of Malone's approaches to a
> on it.) One is to get people to "forfeit party allegiance." (How
> hard can that be?) And so forth.
>
> The approach used in the film is one of even-handedness. The film
> sides neither with the rightists or the leftists. That would be a
> quick way to alienate half of the audience. But Malone does get
> his point across. The United States political system is not yet
> irreparably broken, but it definitely needs some maintenance to get
> it working again. I am not greatly optimistic about Brian Malone's
>
> The approach used in the film is one of even-handedness. The film
> sides neither with the rightists or the leftists. That would be a
> quick way to alienate half of the audience. But Malone does get
> his point across. The United States political system is not yet
> irreparably broken, but it definitely needs some maintenance to get
> solutions or that enough people have the will and power to correct
> what is going wrong. But Malone makes a convincing case, if one is
> needed, that things that are wrong are going very wrong. I rate
> PATRIOCRACY a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. PATRIOCRACY
> will be available on DVD and digital download on July 17, 2012
>
> Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1916719/>
> what is going wrong. But Malone makes a convincing case, if one is
> needed, that things that are wrong are going very wrong. I rate
> PATRIOCRACY a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. PATRIOCRACY
> will be available on DVD and digital download on July 17, 2012
>
>
> What others are saying:
> <http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/patriocracy/>
PATRIOCRACY gets a miserable 3.7 from it's few IMDb users. That's so low for a documentary as to nearly guarantee a noteworthy inflammation quotient...
Ed Stasiak
Jul 10, 2012, 9:56:42 PM7/10/12
to
> Mark Leeper
>
> Murdoch
> Murdoch
> Murdoch
As I suspected, (and the same goes for the film maker) this
isn't about exposure to other viewpoints, it's about suppressing
speech you don't agree with.
>
> Murdoch
> Murdoch
> Murdoch
As I suspected, (and the same goes for the film maker) this
isn't about exposure to other viewpoints, it's about suppressing
speech you don't agree with.
moviePig
Jul 10, 2012, 11:16:55 PM7/10/12
to
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:56:42 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > Mark Leeper
> >
> > Murdoch
> > Murdoch
> > Murdoch
> speech you don't agree with.
Since were pursuing this point, let me observe that PATRIOCRACY's poster (http://tinyurl.com/72lu6jc) hardly suggests a one-sided movie (which may help explain its low IMDb score). Also, let me note that, while 'freedom of speech' is usually taken to mean 'freedom of ideas', readily defensible as a near-universal good ...'speech' itself is seldom free, for either the speaker or the listener. Just try buying some from Murdoch Murdoch Murdoch.
> > Mark Leeper
> >
> > Murdoch
> > Murdoch
> > Murdoch
>
> As I suspected, (and the same goes for the film maker) this
> isn't about exposure to other viewpoints, it's about suppressing
> As I suspected, (and the same goes for the film maker) this
> speech you don't agree with.
Since were pursuing this point, let me observe that PATRIOCRACY's poster (http://tinyurl.com/72lu6jc) hardly suggests a one-sided movie (which may help explain its low IMDb score). Also, let me note that, while 'freedom of speech' is usually taken to mean 'freedom of ideas', readily defensible as a near-universal good ...'speech' itself is seldom free, for either the speaker or the listener. Just try buying some from Murdoch Murdoch Murdoch.
0 new messages