National Review wrote and shared a review about the movie, ‘If Beale Street Could Talk’.
— National Review (@NRO) October 2, 2018
The point seems elementary: Don’t build a drama around passive, hapless characters who amount to feathers on the winds of fate. Yet when it comes to portraying black folks, especially in movies aimed at the white art-house audience, the principle is often forgotten. Barry Jenkins, the director of one such film, Moonlight, has to be pleased with how that one turned out, given that it won him an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay while the movie itself won Best Picture. He takes the same tack in his follow-up, If Beale Street Could Talk.
Even if your view of the criminal justice system (in New York City, in the 1970s) is that it’s hopelessly poisoned by racism, the movie’s portrayal of how it works doesn’t carry much depth: The cops are wolves on the prowl, while the black people are wide-eyed lambs. America is portrayed as effectively an apartheid regime in which blacks have no chance. The problem with such a take in dramatic terms is that it strips black Americans of their agency and dynamism, reduces them to pity receptacles. It’s not a sophisticated view but a reductionist one.
If you read the review it seems the writer was less than impressed.
Except that wasn’t the end because apparently John Harwood only reads headlines before he reacts on Twitter. Cue the pearl-clutching:
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 2, 2018
Read the story.
Charles C.W. Cooke responded perfectly.
It’s a movie review. Do you ever stop for one moment?
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 2, 2018
And no, like other progressives in the media, he doesn’t stop. None of them do. They have a narrative to push and they’re going to push it, even if it ultimately proves all they do is read the headline and react.
Oh, and the other people on his thread … OMG, how these people are able to tie their own shoes every day is a mystery.
Shocked that the magazine that backed apartheid in South Africa would continue its racist legacy?
— Matt Ortega (@MattOrtega) October 2, 2018
Nothing to see here. By the book conservative racism.
— Keith (@keith_d_m_g) October 2, 2018
See? We weren’t kidding about that shoe thing …
This piece is actually textbook in terms of why it’s so hard to talk about systemic racism. Holding up “agency” as an absolute value resists any attempts to talk frankly about social systems that actually do circumscribe what agency can accomplish.
— Dan Hauge (@danhauge) October 2, 2018
It’s. A. Move. Review.
Consider the source 🙄
— Dennis Walker (@DennisWalker) October 2, 2018
Consider it’s a movie review.
— ron insana (@rinsana) October 2, 2018
Another one who didn’t read the article.
John, one recurring theme from the right is based on psychological warfare—same scam abusive men do to women—make target feel like VICTIM! They’re easily manipulated when they’re isolated & feel unsure & sorry for themselves. Easier to brainwash! FOX TV does it daily! Trump too!
— JustChasingTruth (@KogerView) October 2, 2018
None of these people read past the headline.
Oh, and the little dig at Fox is adorable.
If there is a responsible publication that others should read for access to valuable conservative opinion, it isn't the @NRO, which apparently has devoted itself to owning the libs.
— Bob Brussack (@ambime) October 2, 2018
You know that face you make when the person in front of you is driving with their left turn signal on and they never actually turn left? Yup, just made that face.
Thank you for being a real journalist and TRUTH teller. We need a 1,000 more John Harwoods!
— Raymond Murray jr (@MurrayRmjr2654) October 2, 2018
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Good to see National Review keeping William F. Buckley’s proud tradition of overt racism alive.
— Ramar (@Duvisited) October 2, 2018
You know what, we can’t even.