I thank you for your reply to my review. I just want to mention that one of the goals of my essay was not to target you personally, but just to show that statements/slips of a tongue we make are unavoidably informed by dominant ideological cliches of current culture. That is how it is. At this stage of our history it is the "holy trinity" of class, race, and gender and this "theology" is currently taken for granted by many academics, media people, and movie critics, and they frequently screen surrounding life through the prism of these cliches. It is natural because it starts from school (for example, a Black History month in Alaska schools) and continues in colleges. In this situation, we frequently act as "Rorschach" men/women reproducing these cliches left and right. I am not saying that this particular angle should be totally phased out from our life. After all, class, racial and gender conflicts do exist and, I suspect, they will be with us forever. At the same time, I think that in that particular movie this "trinity" is not a dominant thread, although you think otherwise, which is fine. What I tried to demonstate is to show that your, in my view, strange "don't trust whitey" conclusion (which you probably wrote without even thinking too much about it) is not a strange but an interesting "Freudian" slip, which we need to study and analyze along with millions of similar "slips."
The HG movie struck me as a powerful metaphor of a rebellion of an individual against the omnipotent totalitarian state, which had little to do with a race. You could have made a better case by bringing class into the picture (which you tried to do in your comment). Yet in your review you easily slipped into the race discourse. That is why when I read that particular sentence of yours, it was like "Wow, this is unbelievable! I cannot pass this. I have to write a reply." Somehow I just could not get over this. I started thinking why we throw such phrases, where it comes from and so forth. So I basically "psychoanalyzed" your "Freudian" slips, which serve to me as a small window into our current culture. I suppose you can do the same with my text as well. Something along the following lines: a paranoid reactionary Andre infested with the spirit of bourgeoise individualism and latent homophibia. I am sure you did not think too much about that reveiw of yours. After all, you reminded to me in your comment that you are just an ordinary guy who wrote a review of that movie and nothing more. Precisely because you are just "one guy" writing an ordinary review is why I became interested in that sentence of yours and in your conclusion. See how important it became to me. It is just me, I am sorry. I just like to ponder on ideological cliches and words and how, why and when people use them. Remember George Orwell's Politics of English Language?
with best regards, Andre
Here we go again. Look what Akers wrote in one of his comments here on the comments' forum: "Reading the book, class seemed of more importance, but watching the movie the race issues came out more." As I wrote in my review, the guy has been literally trapped in the mainstream (race, class, and gender) ideology that currently dominates much of our education and media. Cannot even see anything else in the book/movie. Mr. George Orwell, we urgently need you back
please read my review of the Hunger Games http://dailycapitalist.com/
(a response to Akers' race-bating review of the same movie). When you read his "don't trust whitey" essay, you begin to realize how effectively mainstream Multikulti propaganda has distorted people's minds.
By Joe Boone
download this issue
click here to see more »