Weekend Economists Give Two Thumbs Up for Roger April 5-7, 2013

[bread_and_roses]

53. Oh, I'm not condemning him wholesale -

as I said I did sometimes read his reviews to check out a movie - knew he was well-regarded and in general I found his reviews approachable and - importantly - unpretentious, which I value.

In the instance of these two movies - Seabiscuit and Secretariat - he was treading on two - actually three - of my passions: the place of women, horses and especially TBs, and how we as a culture hagiography the rich. So - he was on dangerous ground with me on these two.

I honestly think in the case of "Secretariat" he was blinded by his regard for Bill Nack. Nack may have acted as consultant on the film but, believe me, the two are qualitatively miles apart. (And in fairness I will admit that I read the book years ago, and was so interested in Secretariat, and so little interested in Chenery, that I may well have missed any hagiography-ing he had going on.) It is just a bad, cornball film and does neither the magnificent horse nor the excellent book justice.

I thank you for the reply - not least because it sent me out searching for a little more, and I came across this gem:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/secretariat_was_not_a_christia.html in which Ebert takes to task another reviewer who did, in fact, excoriate some of the things I found so objectionable in the film. That reviewer responded in the comments, quote:

Now, clearly I could have written a more "normal" review, in which I said something like: "Secretariat" was kind of fun to watch, but it bugged me. It presents a prettied-up, phony-baloney vision of America in the early '70s, in a transparent effort to appeal to the "family-values" crowd who ate up "The Blind Side" -- people who want a comforting and unchallenging movie without any sex or swearing. There's nothing wrong with that as a way to make a buck, but this example is ultra-tame, scrubbed clean of any genuine conflict or drama, and I pretty much think it's crap.

... The most effective kind of propaganda depicts normal life, or rather an idealized vision of normal life, one that (as one of my readers put it) "makes a particular worldview seem natural, right and appealing." Viewed that way, of course, a very large proportion of Hollywood movies could be considered propaganda, which is a subject for another time. (The shoe may fit.)

... As I think I make clear, I was struck by the oddness of the film's idealized, "Ozzie and Harriet" portrait of American life

... On the film's racial issues: You suggest that I am demeaning the real-life Eddie Sweat, Secretariat's groom. I say nothing about Eddie Sweat. I am discussing a fictional character, the only black person ever seen in the film, who is presented as subordinate, unreflective, constantly cheerful and uniquely well equipped to communicate with an animal. Could there be such a person? Of course. But in the context of my perception of the film's total universe, this feels like an unwholesome and old-fashioned stereotype (for which there is a borderline-offensive name I will not use).

Nack also responded in the comments section and the negative reviewer does seem to have gotten it wrong on Pancho Martin, who evidently was more like the character in the movie than I knew - but I agree with the comments I quoted above. But even without the subtext I say again it was simply a bad, soppy, sentimental and trite movie.

We all have blind spots. Even my hero, Noam, has probably gotten something or another wrong over the years.

on edit: but I would also note that I don't think any "cultural" commentator attains the position Ebert did unless s/he adheres pretty closely to the preferred world-view of TPTB. That doesn't make Ebert a demon - it's just the way it is, and I think important to recognize.