 |
| Taken at a market in Xi'an, China (pic: Robert Barry Francos) |
Images from the Internet (unless indicated)
Highway 61 Entertainment
www.highway61ent.com
www.mvdvisual.com
Dreams From My Real Father: A Story of
Reds and Deception
Written, produced and directed by Joel
Gilbert95 minutes, 2012
Have
you ever seen a Joel Gilbert Film before? I’ve had the opportunity to
experience three of them: one is Elvis Found Alive (2012) [Reviewed HERE]
and another is Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George
Harrison (2010) [Reviewed HERE]. Needless to say, most of the time Gilbert is full of shit in an enjoyable way.
Now, these two fake documentaries are interesting and fun, especially if you
already know the history to pick out the mistakes (and some are doozies). He
also did a Dylan documentary with his own twist with Dylan Revealed (2010) [reviewed HERE].
Essentially,
Gilbert’s shtick is to have someone verbally impersonate the person who is the
subject of the film, and then tell the story as first person. Of course, what
the impersonator is saying is not the person of topic’s words, but Gilbert’s. This
could be amusing, and I have found it usually is. His Elvis impersonator was
right on, but his George Harrison was cartoonish. Honestly, I can’t even remember
how the Dylan sounded.
This
leads us to this so-called documentary of the early life of President Barak Hussein
Obama, who took over after the destruction of the economy by his predecessor. The
film plays into all the fears of the Republican non-think points, of how Obama
is associated with communists, home-grown terrorists, and socialists to bring
down the country. Okay, this doesn’t align with the “birther” twits, though it
does claim he was born in Washington State rather than Hawaii.
Using
his familiar style, Gilbert has the voice over, breaks the film into “chapters,”
and uses snippets (sometimes only playing the part of a sentence that furthers
his pre-fabricated case), newsreels and stock footage. He doesn’t, however,
actually interview anyone himself, but rather uses conjecture that furthers his
point. My issue is that he has the data to support his conclusion, rather than
arriving at the conclusion from the data. This can be foolhardy; FOXNews level dangerous,
as they use the same method.
Using
Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father
as a launch pad, the film posits that Obama’s real father was African-American
communist poet / journalist Frank Marshall Davis (d. 1987). We “hear” a
narrator that is supposed to be quoting Obama but sounds nothing like him (by Ed
Law) describe the political life of Marshall and his attraction to communism, and
attributes a large amount of the ‘50s “red scare” to Marshall’s group. We also
hear how Obama’s maternal grandfather worked for the CIA (in the real Obama
book, he says he was a furniture salesman), so when Mama Obama supposedly gets “in
that way” by Marshall, a Kenyan college student funded by the CIA to study in
Hawaii and fight communists agrees to marry Obama’s mother on the condition he
gets some moolah and has no responsibility. Of course, Obama grows up and hangs
out with Marshall, adopting his politics, according to this theory.
One
aspect the film focuses in on at this point is the “Red” part, but ignores the “Scare”
section. Driven by Republican paranoia (led by Senator Joe McCarthy and Richard
Nixon), people were seeing anything it imagines as communist or socialist
leanings as the destruction of the moral fabric of America (sound familiar?).
Let me state here that I am neither a communist nor a socialist, though I believe in many social programs. In the same
way black integration in schools and the introduction of rock and roll were vilified
by right wing pundits, they put the fear of change (or even the possibility of
a hint of it) as the destruction of
life as we knew it. I still remember drills in school where we had to hide
under our desks in case we in Brooklyn were bombed, or stand in the hallway for
the possibility it was a nuclear attack. Robert Klein has a funny routine about
his on his Child of the ‘50s album,
but I digress…
One
moment that made me laugh is Obama goes to Chicago, and is associated by locale
to Saul Alinsky’s (d. 1972; misspelled in the film as “Alinksy”) book, Rules for Radicals, where he connects “change”
with “socialism.” Of course, Obama’s theme for his first run at the presidency
was Change, so obviously he must have
meant socialism. Now look, when I was an undergrad, as well as being in the
Hillel club, a Jewish organization for which I barely attended, I also joined
the strongly Christian based Newman Club, because there were some very cute coeds
in it (not that it did me any good). Because of my dual affiliation, though not
based in any real devotion, the Jews for Jesus club hounded me to join. I
understand that just because you are around something does not mean you are
associated with that belief. The Blank Generation days were filled with
substance abuse, but I nursed a bottle of Bud from 10 pm to 3 am. There were
people who assumed I was on drugs because I was so thin, but again, that had
nothing to do with reality [HERE].
Similarly, whether or not people such as Bill Ayres, Alinsky or Reverend Wright
were around Obama, does not mean that he agrees with their philosophies. Or
maybe it does. I don’t know Obama personally to say.
One
of the points hammered home is Obama’s association with far left politicians, questionable
business people, and “patrons.” Try and find someone in politics that is not associated with those who are using
politicians for their own means (can you say Cheney and Halliburton?). Even
Republican shill and icon (who was a joke at the time but lauded now) Ronnie
Reagan was surrounded by those who were out to destroy democracy for their own
vision of capitalism. But because it’s “capitalism” and not “socialism,” it must
be for the good, right? Remember when the Reagan administration union busted
and fired the airport workers (and then, ironically, had an airport named after
him)? If you want to see how this all works, check out the Robert Redford film The Candidate (1972; trailer HERE).
This
film is obviously flawed because it comes from a conclusion of paranoia and
Republican wrongheadedness. Gilbert’s early films about music subjects were
harmless and amusing. I found this to be less so, because of the level of fear
mongering about Obama specifically and Democrats in general that make the
points made here less than benign. If this had come out after the next
presidential election when it had no bite, that would be fine, but I am not
impressed by the timing (cashing in?) of this.
What
amazes me (not in a good way) about this film is that everything they are
claiming about Obama – bankrupting the country, taking away retirement funds, making
the middle class disappear, etc. – has already been tried… by the Republicans
since Ronnie, and especially under
little Georgie W.
It’s
kind of devious and almost subliminal how every time Davis is mentioned, it is
emphasized not as “my father,” but “my real
father.” Also, even more subtly, very often when there is an image of Obama, it
is split-screened with Davis in a similar pose, as if to say, “see!?!?” No, I
don’t think he looks like Davis nor Obama Sr. He looks like his mother, with a
mixture of African-American features that could be either. For example, yes, he
has eyes that are similar to Davis, but he also has lips that are similar to
Obama Sr. But if you put his picture next to his mother, you can tell the
family resemblance.
With
the “immigrant” fear (Gilbert has them referred to as “illegals” here,
something Obama would never do), there is a strong level of racism here. “Obama”
even refers to himself as “the first Affirmative Action president.” Really,
Joel? That shows your true colors (pun intended) more than anything I can add.
So,
again, unlike the Harrison and Elvis predecessors, this film takes conjecture
for fact (as opposed to fantasy), which makes it an opinion piece rather than a
historical document. What makes it dangerous is that there are a host of people
who believe this crap. Did you know that most people in the South who were
polled said that Obama was to blame for the result of Katrina? FOXNews is out
to dupe the world into thinking Right wing ideology is the only belief system,
but ignorance is not bliss, it’s damaging.
Written, produced and directed by Joel Gilbert
110 minutes, 2014
www.theresnoplacelikeutopia.com
In his
latest film and slam-a at Obama,
director Joel Gilbert takes a different route for once, and does a Michael
Moore by making himself the central character of the piece. Well, perhaps a
reverse of Moore, since he is a renowned Leftie, and Gilbert shows himself on
the extreme Right.
Using
the framework of Oz being an Utopia, Gilbert fashions the charlatan Wizard of
Oz as Barak Obama, who promises us an impossible dream (i.e., philosophers say
there can be no such place as Utopia, literally translated as “no place”).
The
entire opening sequence, where Gilbert walks around the Hollywood and Vine area
asking star impersonators “Why did Dorothy go to Oz?” is, well, a waste. Okay,
we get the premise, so put your ego back in your pants, and get on with it,
dude. You don’t like Obama, you envision him as the Wiz and “his” America as a
Utopia much like Oz, we get it; now explain why. And what is this subtly equating
Michelle with the Wicked Witch of the West by juxtapositioning her with an
image of the 1961 television cartoon version of the Baum story, Tales of the Wizard of Oz?
One aspect that Gilbert seems blind to is that every leader, including Ronnie, promises a Utopia (“Tear down that wall!!”), not only for here, but for everywhere. Remember Georgie W.’s promise to bring “democracy” to Iraq? Why doesn’t Gilbert consider that a promise of Utopia? Oh, yeah, it’s not Obama.
What
most Republicans – especially the poor ones – don’t seem to understand is that so
many grew up within the Red Scare or influenced by those who were, that the
very thought of a socialistic program designed to help even them seems un-American
and anti-Capitalist. Well, here’s a shock for you: unabated capitalism is
potentially more dangerous to the average person than either socialism or
communism. Think monopolies and how unregulated corporations will do their best
to strip you of everything you own or are. Some of the richest corporations (e.g.,
Walmart, Best Buy) complain about paying a decent wage so many workers are still forced on social programs, but put
much of their money in off-shore accounts to keep from paying taxes. And those
who pulled the lever for the Red rather than the Blue in central areas of this fine
country are voting against their own self interests in their fear of America
possibly helping those who need it. Yes, there will always be those who abuse
the system, but the majority are desperate and cannot survive without some
assistance. There is a strong current of xenophobia also present, as “Hispanics”
= “illegals” who are supposedly paid off to vote for Obama. There is no
positive message here about African-Americans nor Latinos.
In a
move of complete hypocrisy, Gilbert goes to the Martin Luther King memorial, as
if to say, see, there are good Black people who have ideals. But if you do your
research, you will find that King was anti-capitalist, and was considered a
socialist in his day. No mention of that, just a way to say “some of my best
friends are…, so I’m not…”
When
interviewing Chinese college student near the White House, he mocks the name
Beijing Normal University. There are many Normal schools even in the United
States. If he had done his homework rather than jumping on something he doesn’t
understand, he would find out that a Normal school is where they instruct
people how to be teachers. It’s common term around the world. I had the
pleasure this past summer to teach a class in Media Theory (Gilbert would be
the perfect example of a Monopoly of Power as he only shows one side of any
argument) at Shaanxi Normal University, in Xi’an. Asking someone from China to
say something publicly against the government is just plain ridiculous. China,
Russia, and other countries that are “Socialist” or “Communist” play by their
own rules, and asking someone to go against that endangers them, which is
hardly fair to them to make your own point. For example, I would not ask a
Palestinian to make a comment against Gaza on the air, or someone who is
returning to Iran to comment on their leaders.
Gilbert
gleefully finds people who live here who are willing to speak out against the
governments of China and Russia, and even a dissident against Obama’s policies.
You can do that in America. Comparing us to anyone else, even Canada, is a big
mistake. Policy is another story. Obama is trying to get health care like
Canada, and meanwhile the Right leaning Canadian government is trying to
privatize their health care system like the Americans, so corporate health care
cannot just strive, but can afford to PAC their politicians.
Gilbert
comments how Mao let 50 million of his citizens die of starvation. Well, capitalist
America did the same thing to the American Indians/First Nations population. Of
course, he doesn’t mention this, making it seem like it happened in China and
Russia because they were communist. No, they were power mad (ego), not ideological.
And Gilbert talks about labor camps in those countries, but does he mention
about how the capitalist US starting with Tricky Dickey industrialized the
prison system to keep a cheap labor force, earning less than a dollar an hour?
No. Any mention of the Georgie W. led depression of 2008 where people lost both
jobs and homes? No. He shows the poverty of African-Americans in Detroit and
South Chicago. Does he mention that majority of people who are on welfare and
food stamps are actually white people below the Mason-Dixon? And that many
people who work for some of the richest companies of the world need to be on sustenance
to survive because their low wages are not enough, and this is pure capitalism?
No. He only interviews (or is interviewed by) people who are Tea Party leaners,
with no comment from anyone who might disagree with him. Did I mention
Monopolies of Power?
Gilbert
takes us to the slums of Detroit, which one pundit here calls “the perfect
Democrat city.” While interviewing a resident, the interviewee comments that it
was a vibrant area until the factories closed down. Gilbert fails to mention
that part of the reason they closed down was because unregulated capitalism
(aka free capitalism) sent the factories overseas to find cheaper labor, giving
a larger profit to the rich and taking the neighborhood away from the working
class. Even so, did you know that if you earn more than $20,000 a year, in the
rest of the world you are part of the
1%? Scary. Gilbert does not mention that.
Here
it is in a nutshell that I have been aware of since I was a teen: capitalism,
socialism and communism all have one aspect in common, and that is there is no
such thing as a perfect system, and the larger the population, the more this is
true.
Meanwhile,
while Gilbert is talking about how “Socialistic” Obama is out to destroy
America, the stock market is better than ever and continually breaking records,
unemployment is way down, people have health care, and the country is better
off than it even was for Clinton. Damn that America-destroying Obama for
getting us out of the hole the Republicans put us into! He’s not a capitalist?
Explain the “don’t touch Monsanto” rulings, dude.
Towards
the end of the film, one ex-business owner from Detroit says the reason for the
problems there is due to the EPA changing the regulations so “what was legal
became illegal.” Excuse me, but lowering emissions was the right way to go.
Have you ever been to New Delhi? Beijing? You can’t see more than a few years
ahead because, in part, of poor emissions standards. I don’t need to see my
air, thank you. And some Russian émigré claims that socialists are less
productive than capitalists, while images of the Obamas on the cover of
magazines and golfing are splayed. Now remind me again of how many days Barak
took vacation vs. his predecessor? Who’s not productive again?
At a
visit at a Newark public city council meeting, it is posited that if you have a
dissenting voice, you are silenced. The film makes it seem like this is an
Obama-ism. Actually, Obama takes questions from any- and everyone. To interview
George W., you had to be invited, and he only let in those who agreed with him.
As for Newark, well, it’s Newark. Talk to Gov. Christie about that, if you can.
Also, I love that they talk about Obama’s “voting fraud” by getting people
registered to vote. Georgie Bush stole an election by rigging it and denying
many voters at the polls, and Obama is wrong for getting people to the polls. Unbelievable.
The
second biggest problem with this film (the first being its misguided message,
of course), and this would be true no matter what Gilbert’s leaning, is that as
much as he’s trying to be a response to Michael Moore, he just can’t cut it. He
does not have the – er – large personality of Moore, nor the balls to stand up
to those who disagree with him, something present in all Moore’s releases. With
the exception of going to the Ayres house and leaving a DVD by the door when no
one answers the bell, and giving Michelle’s mom a copy at well at her modest
home in Chicago (we never actually see her), Gilbert mostly gravitates towards
those who agree with his rhetoric. This is by no means fair and balanced.
One
impressive thing Gilbert has done was to find a woman who famously enthused
about Obama on a newscast at an Obama speech, and asked her opinions now, which
have obviously changed (why else would she be here?).
My
big question that one that no one can truthfully answer because it is
impossible: “Do you honestly believe it would have been better under Romney?!”
My answer is hell, no.
I’m
hoping he has this out of his system now, and will go back to music
mockumentaries. To use Joel Gilbert’s own analogy, this film was a Toto.
Posts
