Alan Hogue has an enjoyable screed up at Vox Clamantis reviewing the 1984 film Red Dawn.
I'm more charitably disposed to the movie than Alan seems to be, and confess that the last time I saw it I teared up a bit at the end (though I'm sentimental enough to have done the same over far worse). Alan's committing a bit of presentism when he describes the backdrop to 1983/84 with "the old familiar cold war threatened to go away and leave half the world wondering what to do next." That, however, is a mere quibble compared with his description of Red Dawn as marketed to "paranoid, gun hoarding militia members everywhere."
No, Alan, that movie has not yet been made. But there is a screenplay by a guy so far out there that he actually spells his name with a comma.
Posted by Ben Brumfield at November 4, 2005 01:46 PMThanks for the bit of advertising, Ben. I'm glad you liked the review.
I have to disagree with you, though. I think Red Dawn did indeed have paranoid types in mind. I know from my "research" that plenty of people I'd consider to fall in that category have praised the film. But it was not marketed to them, and I didn't say it was. This paragraph which appears shortly after your quotation puts it well enough:
But of course a film really aimed straight at such people would alienate most of the rest of America. In that case the movie would not only flop, it would be ineffective propaganda as well. And though it might already sound beyond salvage, what's really interesting about this film is how Milius tries to modulate his message for general consumption. The most interesting thing about a movie like Red Dawn is that it looks two ways, trying to satisfy two separate audiences without offending either.
Not to say that you can conclude much from the people who like a given movie, etc. After all, some pretty radical right wingers have tried to coopt old George "Rent is theft" Orwell. But Red Dawn makes its intentions pretty clear.
As for the charge of presentism, you may have a point. Although you could certainly argue that in 1984 there was plenty of evidence that the USSR was not the coiled monster the CIA told us it was, and certainly there were people saying so at the time.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at November 4, 2005 02:32 PMBy the way, have you seen Left Behind? If so I'd be curious to know what you think of it.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at November 4, 2005 02:36 PMWasn't there a mini-series TV version called Amerika back in the 80s?
Posted by: Alan Allport at November 4, 2005 03:00 PMYou mean this? Looks interesting; can't believe I missed it.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at November 4, 2005 03:21 PMI think Red Dawn did indeed have paranoid types in mind.
Well, I was ten when it came out, and only saw it in its runs on HBO a year or so later, so I was certainly one of those paranoid types — hard to imagine any twelve year old boy being anything different.
This adolescent perspective — coupled with my environment in small-town Texas — makes your dichotomy between "paranoid types" and "the rest of America" seem entirely false to me. Aside from my own environment, however, I still think you're projecting the present into the past with this division: remember that the "militia movement" as we think of it was still a decade in the future, and that the US Army wasn't viewed as the enemy by anyone[*] on the Right. In fact, your review skips over the role of the fighter pilot shot down in the "Austin/Houston" scene who provides the second round of exposition — which, incidentally exculpates the US military from any responsibility for the plight of our partisan protagonists.
I actually have recommended that foreigners view Red Dawn if they want to understand the Reagan Administration. I suspect that someone whose politics were very different from mine might do the same.
[*] With the exception of splinter groups of white supremacists like The Order.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at November 4, 2005 07:46 PMBy the way, have you seen Left Behind?
No, but it looks like the sort of thing that would have gone well with the End-of-the-World series of movies I watched with my Evangelical friend. We did see The Omega Code, which was dreadful. I may try to catch it next week, and will send you a review if I do.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at November 4, 2005 07:49 PMThis adolescent perspective — coupled with my environment in small-town Texas — makes your dichotomy between "paranoid types" and "the rest of America" seem entirely false to me.
I think my dichotomy is valid. Of course this kind of paranoia is something most people are susceptible to, otherwise Red Dawn could not have been popular, no matter how carefully modulated it was. But there is a difference between indulging in this kind of anxiety and filling your basement full of weapons and waiting for the government to come knocking. The main thesis of my review is that the movie is designed to appeal to both, which I think makes it very interesting.
remember that the "militia movement" as we think of it was still a decade in the future, and that the US Army wasn't viewed as the enemy by anyone[*] on the Right.
You certainly know more about this than I do, Ben, and I appreciate the feedback. But one of the main points of the second half of the review is that the excessive paranoia which Red Dawn directs toward the Cuban army (of all things) looks a lot like the paranoia later directed toward the US government. It is interesting, after all, that this didn't happen for another decade, isn't it? Perhaps it's because the soviets were no longer a suitable object of this paranoia. I think this point is also pretty clear in the review.
I actually have recommended that foreigners view Red Dawn if they want to understand the Reagan Administration.
Can you think of any other movies that would be good for this?
Posted by: Alan Hogue at November 5, 2005 12:48 PMI may try to catch it next week, and will send you a review if I do.
I will try to watch it as well. I've only managed to get through half of it so far.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at November 5, 2005 12:55 PMBut one of the main points of the second half of the review is that the excessive paranoia which Red Dawn directs toward the Cuban army (of all things) looks a lot like the paranoia later directed toward the US government.
That's a very good point, and somehow I missed it in your review. (Incidentally, voxclamantis.org seems to be down, so the review is inaccessible.) Perhaps because my own studies of these groups was separated by a decade, I never spotted the theme. But then the actual content of the Clinton-era ravings generally involved the Communist peril in some way or another.
The scenarios I remember hearing about via Mark Pitcavadge or shortwave radio generally involved a fear of multi-national organizations (and the neoliberal federal government's collaboration) as a socialist threat. Russia had dropped off the map as an enemy of American freedoms, replaced by the architects of the EU and NAFTA. This framekwork seems very different from Cold War dread of the USSR, and a lot closer to the fear of "ZOG" found among racial extremists in the 1980s, even though the politics of the 90's movement were closer to Perot's than to Duke's.
All this reminds me of one of my favorite Charlie Daniels lyrics, from What This World Needs Is A Few More Rednecks":
And I don't care what nobody says
I don't trust ole Gorbachev
And I don't know who turned him on
But it's time to turn him off
Nowadays they're replacing this verse with some product placement about NFL and NASCAR. sic transit...
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at November 9, 2005 08:44 PM