PLANK AUGUST 28, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
On Saturday night, in the heart of Obama’s America, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, I paid $10 to see 2016: Obama’s America, the anti-Obama documentary from Dinesh D’Souza that has been a sleeper summer hit, expanding from one screen in Houston on July 13th to wider release at more than a thousand theaters, finally cracking the box-office top ten this weekend. Though I’d read that the documentary was doing surprisingly well in New York City, even at the Union Square multiplex, I walked into the theater half-expecting it to be empty. Who in this quiet corner of bougie Brooklyn is going to see a movie that takes Obama’s multi-culti life story and uses it not as cause for celebration, but rather as evidence that he is working his way through an insidious agenda meant to level the global playing field until America is on a sad par with developing countries like, say, Kenya and Indonesia?
The theater, it turned out, was not empty: there were 20 or so attendees, about a third of whom were sitting alone. A plurality were elderly white men. Four were people of color. I might have been the only person under 40. One couple had driven in from Mill Basin, a suburban-like neighborhood in far south Brooklyn. Another was visiting from Pittsburgh, and was “surprised” to find the film playing here. In the ladies room after the movie, a pair of Russian immigrant women, one dressed in a T-shirt with the Fendi logo and painted-on eyebrows, told me that America was lately reminding them of the Soviet Union.
According to Noah Elgart, who was manning the box office and whose family owns the theater, this was a typical crowd—sparse, elderly. It’s been mostly older people seeing the show in Cobble Hill. They decided to screen the film after a customer inquired and Elgart—in his twenties, and a self-described “independent voter”—was intrigued enough to push his father on the issue. They’ve been getting angry phone calls and Facebook postings about showing it in Cobble Hill, but at the family’s other theater, in Kew Gardens, Queens (part of the congressional district where Republican Bob Turner pulled off his surprising special-election victory to replace former Congressman Anthony Weiner—a victory that was widely interpreted as a canary in the coal mines for Obama’s prospects with the Jewish vote), it’s been doing much better.
The success of the film (made for $2.5 million and funded by 25 or so private investors) probably has a lot to do with its widespread promotion on conservative talk radio, but on the phone, D’Souza told me that he thinks it’s striking a chord not for the policy, but for the plot. “[Moviegoers] find the story, particularly as occasionally told by Obama, to be riveting and really dramatic.” That story, as in the splashy 2010 Forbes article that inspired the film and his book The Roots of Obama's Rage is Obama’s own biography—indeed, D’Souza often uses the president’s own voice from his audiobook narration of Dreams From My Father. In this case, Obama’s polyglot background is read not as an extraordinary, only-in-America story, but as the reason for his deep “anticolonial” bias. In D’Souza’s version of the Obama presidency, small pieces of evidence (Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill that was in the White House back to the Brits; he doesn’t support Britain in the dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands) are marshaled in service of the larger argument that he wants to put the rest of the world on equal footing with the United States in a way that will inevitably mean a degradation of the American way of life.
What’s most troubling about the film is the relatively sophisticated way in which D’Souza manages to “other” Obama, even, or especially, while talking slowly and at about an eighth-grade reading level to his audience. He affects an air of puzzled investigatory journalism—“What is Obama’s dream?” he asks. To D’Souza, the president’s dream is nothing short of the death of the American one. We are told that Obama’s founding fathers are not Franklin and Jefferson, but rather (relatively marginal) figures in his life like Bill Ayers and Edward Said. There’s a reminder that Obama’s Hawaiian high school had a liberal curriculum that can be boiled down to, in D’Souza’s phrasing “oppression studies.” There’s a faux-measured conclusion that anti-colonialism can, occasionally, translate into “anti-white.” Images of squalor in the third-world countries Obama has personal ties to are juxtaposed with discussions of his current presidency and the sad state of our economy.
It’s a point of pride for D’Souza that he’s not a birther. He takes care to establish early on his belief in Obama’s Hawaiian birth. But the film’s goal doesn’t, in the end, seem all that different from what the birthers have pushed—only, anticipating criticism, he goes at it in a far more sophisticated, insidious way. D’Souza wants to make it clear that this isn’t about race, that it’s not about Obama as a black man. Nor is it about nativism. (Though that doesn’t stop him from liberally sprinkling in tribal drum sound effects.) He himself is an immigrant, D’Souza reminds us, and he loves America. His immigrant status, it would seem, safeguards him against accusations of bias, and lets him make the argument that someone who takes other cultures so seriously and with such particular psychological baggage couldn’t possibly have America’s true best interests at heart. “The idea that Obama is an Other is not an invention of the right but an invention of Obama supporters,” says D’Souza. “They said from the beginning: He is not like everybody else, look how multicultural he is, he is not your typical white male. And all I’m saying is, OK, let’s look at exactly how multicultural he is. Let’s look at how he really is different. In a way you could argue that our film takes multiculturalism seriously.”
Seriously as a threat, anyway. In our conversation, D’Souza kept mentioning that his film didn’t have the marketing budget of films it’s competing against, like Dark Knight. But what it does have is a villain (Obama) and a hero under duress (the American way of life). With this formula, is it any wonder it’s become a summer blockbuster?
19 comments
I see, Obama is The Dark Knight! Wunderbar. OK, so Batman was the good guy. Details, details. Anyway, yeah. The Politburo has spoken.
- Sophia
August 28, 2012 at 5:25pm
Did George W. Bush personify America? That worked out well. How about our having a President who makes sense when he speaks? Isn't that important? From Bush we got: "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." and "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein." From Romney we get: "Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment." That's our problem. People are just too discouraged to go out and work or save and invest. We're all napping instead of working, saving and investing.
- Nusholtz
August 28, 2012 at 7:50pm
I have to say that, even allowing for partisan bias (so please dismiss what I say, if you like), I find Obama a thoroughly American individual and D'Souza a rather foreign South Asian person who keeps wanting rather frantically to convince me of something. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- I grew up in Ireland myself -- but I don't see him as an objective judge of American political authenticity.
- ironyroad
August 28, 2012 at 9:45pm
I'm curious among people who comment here as to who's seen this movie or plans to and if the former what they thought of it. I haven't and won't. Stanley Fish has a better review of it than the foregoing one: namely, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/ which oddly elicited some heated controversy between a friend and me, odd because neither of us saw the movie.
- basman
August 29, 2012 at 12:23am
P.S. I see Obama, fwiiw, as quintessentially American too, no question about it, and think D'Souza's argument is off the wall.
- basman
August 29, 2012 at 12:27am
Where to start with Dinesh D’Souza. First of all, I find it mildly amusing that Conservatives, who have become so fond of wearing tricorn hats and invoking the Founding Fathers, think that being “anti-colonialism” is a bad thing. On a deeper note, I think it is very likely that D’Souza’s is projecting his own feelings onto Obama when he says that Obama’s psyche was shaped by a childhood reaction to colonialism and its after effects. That seems to be the most plausible explanation for why D’Souza would become convinced Obama’s psyche has been shaped by a childhood reaction to colonialism, despite the fact that Obama was born here is the good old USA. It was D’Souza that was born in a country, India, in which British colonialism was a recent and still relevant experience. Moreover, as a Goan Catholic, D’Souza was born to a minority group that often felt marginalized from the mainstream of the country. It is quite understandable that D’Souza reacted by rejecting his birth country, India, and came to identify with other countries and cultures. Moreover, D’Souza seems to have reacted to the alienation he felt from the Hindu/Muslim mainstream of his birth country by identifying with the former colonial masters, the British, with whom he shared the Christian religion that made him a minority in India. Hence D’Souza’s obsession with anti-colonialism. It’s not about Obama’s origins; it’s about D’Souza’s.
- NateG
August 29, 2012 at 12:59am
Where to start with Dinesh D’Souza. First of all, I find it mildly amusing that Conservatives, who have become so fond of wearing tricorn hats and invoking the Founding Fathers, think that being “anti-colonialism” is a bad thing. On a deeper note, I think it is very likely that D’Souza is projecting his own feelings onto Obama when he says that Obama’s psyche was shaped by a childhood reaction to colonialism and its after effects. That seems to be the most plausible explanation for why D’Souza would become convinced Obama’s psyche has been shaped by a childhood reaction to colonialism, despite the fact that Obama was born here is the good old USA. It was D’Souza that was born in a country, India, in which British colonialism was a recent and still relevant experience. Moreover, as a Goan Catholic, D’Souza was born to a minority group that often felt marginalized from the mainstream of the country. It is quite understandable that D’Souza reacted by rejecting his birth country, India, and came to identify with other countries and cultures. Moreover, D’Souza seems to have reacted to the alienation he felt from the Hindu/Muslim mainstream of his birth country by identifying with the former colonial masters, the British, with whom he shared the Christian religion that made him a minority in India. Hence D’Souza’s obsession with anti-colonialism. It’s not about Obama’s origins; it’s about D’Souza’s.
- NateG
August 29, 2012 at 1:01am
I am with Irony, if anything I am jealous of all the things that Obama is, his ease at which he connects to most people in one on one settings, his intellect, his charisma. As he has said where else but America could someone with the strange (to white Americans) name of Barack Hussein Obama ever be elected? Mitt Romney I find to be a strange, petty little man whom I can not remotely relate to.
- blackton
August 29, 2012 at 1:04am
I saw the movie. I also went to see Michael Moore's movies in the theater as I like these kinds of "documentaries" Of course, D'Souza borrowed the format heavily from Moore. Neither are really documentaries, as those things which they state as fact will be heavily contested by both sides. But they are entertaining for sure. Theater was full of old people, including a solid showing of middle eastern immigrants. The movie was technically quite good, and beautifully edited. The narration quality was very hit and miss. You could actually hear that sentences had been replaced because the noise floor and spectral quality of the punch-in was that different. I've heard that maybe once or twice in a regular movie before, but this one was full of them. The premise--anti-colonialism--is reasonable to explore. It becomes clear in the movie that there are a group of people that feel they are lacking things because they were taken from them by those with more. Of course, we are intimate with this group in the US. The readers of TNR largely fit here, in that they believe the middle class in this country have been exploited and taken advantage of by the wealthy, and that the wealthy have run away with all the gains. No surprise there. But what was very illuminating to me is that the world is full of people that believe the US has robbed their country of minerals, oil, chemicals and left their country with nothing. The movie surfaces this group quite effectively. And the epiphany to me was that this is just how certain humans are wired: If things aren't going well for them, then it's probably because those with more are responsible. And the movie makes it clear that Obama's father WAS one of those persons, and many in the president's life were of the same persuasion. Is it possible that Obama is one of these types? Seems plausible. The movie shares a large list of significant characters in the president's life that tend to believe those that are fat and rich got there at the expense of others. And of course, we have the "you didn't build it" comments, and the"spread the wealth around" and "I'll raise cap gains taxes even if it means less revenue for the government" (paraphrase) that also tend to indicate the man is punitive not practical. I still find it remarkable the statement the president made about cap gains: He would prefer to raise them, EVEN IF IT MEANS LESS REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, because it would be more fair. That is odd thinking personified. That says you care more about punishing the successful than you do helping the poor. That fits very well with D'Sousa's narrative, does it not?
- seattleeng
August 29, 2012 at 11:45am
But seattle, the comments you attribute to Obama (and let's leave the accuracy aside for a minute) with the implication that they are somehow foreign could have been heard at any time in the heyday of the American labor movement, during the Populist and Progressive era (e.g. from William Jennings Bryan, as American a politician as ever was), and other times of social and political volatility such as Eugene Debs's run for president as a member of the Socialist Party. They are all deeply embedded in populist and democratic socialist traditions in the United States, which were 95% home grown. That's not the case for the communist party in the 1920s and 1930s, which was largely foreign directed, so I wouldn't include them in the list. But that's the exception that proves the rule.
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 12:50pm
" If things aren't going well for them, then it's probably because those with more are responsible." But, seattle, you Objectivists say that those with less are responsible for the woes of those with more. Six of one, half a dozen of another. What's the diff? It's still somebody whining.
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 2:29pm
" Hence D’Souza’s obsession with anti-colonialism. It’s not about Obama’s origins; it’s about D’Souza’s." Perceptive point, NateG. More often than not, a person's supposedly objective ideas are rooted in his or her own past experiences. That goes for the collective ideas of a nation, too.
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 2:43pm
The author mentions the eighth-grade level of the narration in this movie. And seattle mentions Michael Moore's "documentaries." Yes, both D’Souza and Moore talk down to their audiences, a sign that they have a slight disdain for them. It's also a sign that they're trying to reduce something complicated to something simple--a formula for disaster in today's variegated, vastly-overpopulated world. Such an approach almost always gets things wrong. I can verify that in the case of Moore's movies, all of which I have seen.
- magboy47.
August 29, 2012 at 3:06pm
Irony writes: "But seattle, the comments you attribute to Obama (and let's leave the accuracy aside for a minute) with the implication that they are somehow foreign could have been heard at any time in the heyday of the American labor movement, during the Populist and Progressive era (e.g. from William Jennings Bryan, as American a politician as ever was), and other times of social and political volatility such as Eugene Debs's run for president as a member of the Socialist Party" yes indeed! There is nothing foreign about the sentiments. Take an anti-colonialist in Kenya or India, move him to the US, and his mindset readily maps him into a progressive with strong socialist leanings who dislikes the wealthy. In other words, there is a certain % of the population world wide that will always believe some have more due to manipulation of a zero-sum game. If they live in Kenya, then they blame the US. If they live in San Fran, then they blame the wealthy. PS. Questioning from Gibson below wrt raising cap gains due to "fairness" EVEN IF IT RESULTED IN LESS REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT. That is a staggering admission, is it not? Raising cap gains will certainly not make the economy better. 99% believe it will HURT the economy. And here's Obama is being asked to consider what if it will result in less revenue to the government. And his response? Do it. In other words, tank the economy AND live with less revenue. The only reason to do this is to hurt the rich while also hurting the middle class. How petty and punitive can you get? And yet we see this in his day-to-day execution. Pissing all over business won't make business stronger. it won't make the hire more. And it directly hurts the middle class. And yet he does it again and again. Why? His father argued for the very same, BTW. Which was the theme of the movie. His fathered argued for up to 100% tax on wealthy. Transcript below... GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free.
- seattleeng
August 29, 2012 at 3:47pm
Once again seattle, you somewhat irritatingly shift the grounds of the discussion in order to disprove an argument that hasn't been made. My point was that far from being a foreign import, redistributionist, social democratic, and cooperative ideas for social organization are as American as apple pie, so "D'Souza's narrative" as you term it would seem to be standing on very weak legs. Let's keep this straight: D'Souza one way or the other is trying to argue for the foreign-ness of Obama by suggesting that he has ideas from elsewhere that are peculiar or un-American. They aren't. That is an entirely separate debate from whether such ideas make sense as solutions to our economic crisis or not.
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 5:22pm
Or, as my mother used to call to us kids, "Come in, your dinesh is ready!"
- ironyroad
August 29, 2012 at 9:13pm
irony writes: "Let's keep this straight: D'Souza one way or the other is trying to argue for the foreign-ness of Obama by suggesting that he has ideas from elsewhere that are peculiar or un-American. They aren't." No, he's not trying to argue that. Did you see the movie? Obama, like a normal TNR reader and like his father, all tend to believe that the gains of the wealthy were mostly ill-gotten and came at the expense of others. That is not a foreign concept at all.
- seattleeng
August 29, 2012 at 9:19pm
"In his book Life After Death: The Evidence,, D'Souza revealed that Dixie had a near-death experience at the age of 19." (WikiP) There is no evidence for life after death. My aunt had a "near-death" experience in Taiwan. She was my favorite aunt, and she lived for a number of years, but she is now dead. I find it difficult to take anything seriously when offered by someone who believes such nonsense. Although it's probably not PC to refer to people as "poor white trash," I am tempted to describe an Indian Christian as a wannabee poor white trash. But I am not making such a reference. So as the old saying goes, "Don't think about a pink elephant."
- skahn
August 30, 2012 at 12:15am
I didn't see the movie, so I'm relying on Noreen Malone's review.
- ironyroad
August 30, 2012 at 1:14pm