A Barack-baiting documentary won't do much for Mitt, writes DONALD CLARKE
NEWS REPORTS from American cinemas indicate that President Obama will lose spectacularly in November. The sensation of the late summer in that country is a Barack-baiting documentary entitled 2016: Obama’s America. We haven’t been able to obtain a print on this side of the Atlantic, but, by all accounts, the picture lays out many of the same accusations that added such colour to the 2008 campaign. Directed by Dinesh D’Souza, author of a nifty little tome entitled The Roots of Obama’s Rage, 2016 has been packing theatres throughout states both red and blue. If I were Michelle I’d start saving cardboard boxes. She might be back in Chicago by February.
This is all nonsense, of course. True, 2016 is the most successful non-nature documentary released in the United States this year. Yes, it somehow secured a spot in the week’s top 10. Keep in mind, however, that, now the salad days of Michael Moore have passed, documentaries make a pittance in the US and that last weekend was the weakest at the American box office so far in 2012.
If, as a panicked liberal, you require further reassurance, remember also that, like the films of Mr Moore, 2016 appears to be playing almost exclusively to the already converted. Such skewed movies act as a kind of comfort food for the politically aggrieved. Fret not. Others think as you do. The opposing side only won because of lies and manipulation.
Still, the news of D’Souza’s relative triumph does summon up some interesting questions. The intelligence emerges just a few days after Amazon confirmed that right-wing books outsell left-wing texts in virtually every state in the Union. Only a few People’s Republics in the north- east of the country managed to hold out against the advancing tide of reactionary screeds such as Hilary Clinton: Lesbian Antichrist and When Did Obama Stop Torturing His Dog?
There may well be flaws in Amazon’s classification procedures. But, again, this news demonstrates that there is
very definitely some demand for right-wing material. Yet, when Hollywood gets explicit about politics, it almost never inclines itself in that direction. You could, quite reasonably, read all kinds of reactionary messages into, say, Black Hawk Down, The Expendables or Act of Valour. But the unambiguous propaganda – the stuff that directly addresses issues – is generally hewn by pinkos such as Robert Redford (the awful Lions for Lambs), George Clooney (the pious The Ides of March) and Brian de Palma (the muddled Redacted). These films rarely make any money. But Hollywood keeps churning them out.
What on earth is going on? Well, it is hard to overestimate the cynicism of the Hollywood machine. If dog juggling became the latest craze, the moguls of Bel Air would, most likely, immediately begin plotting schemes to film Fido in mid-air.
But the fact remains that – for all the 2016 hoopla – political cinema remains a niche market. Nobody expects such films to drag in any serious dosh.
So, when making such a beast, you may as well keep hold of your conscience and speak sincerely.
In other words, Hollywood makes liberal films because Hollywood is liberal. Tell Warren Beatty the news.
