A tale of two films

The NYT seems intent on promulgating a story about two movies, The Passion of the Christ, and Fahrenheit 911, that highlights the differences in their audiences in political terms. Today they even have a map that points to the geographic distribution of movie theaters that are having big runs with the two movies.

Now, I'm sure that there are distinct differences in the audiences for these two movies, but I'm also sure that there are distinct overlaps (I certainly can speak as someone who was deeply moved by both). Both filmmakers were in some deep sense inspired by their Catholic upbringing, for instance.

What I'm curious about is the "frame" the NYT is using to engage them. It seems to be the rather shopworn one of "a country divided" or "red state, blue state." Sure, you can tell that story with data from the movies. But why not also tell a story, or tell a story instead, about the clear hunger on the part of audiences for movies that strike a deep and resonant chord having to do with religion or politics? Both were once considered "taboo" topics, not appropriate for "polite" society.

Both films had to fight hard for distribution, against the typical Hollywood complex, and both were successful only when "alternative" groups when to bat for them. In our current "target market" "segmented audiences" world, it's probably inevitable that the initial advocates for both films were deeply rooted in cultural spaces that have a huge skepticism, if not downright distrust, for mass media, and thus were already capable of organizing "against" such media. In other words, if the hegemonic cultural spaces close you out, then you turn to alternative cultural spaces.

But both of these films were also hugely successful in commercial terms. There are mounds of wonderful films made each year that are only shown in "alternative" venues. These two managed to find audiences (indeed, global audiences) that had access to digital networks that were also rooted in actual living, breathing communities of people. I think the Net has been another interesting story in the development and distribution of cultural resistance, and I wish that story were being told more clearly.

Still, even more, I wish someone would get to work on the story of why it was THESE two films that had such success. Because one other thing that they share in common, and I've commented on this before, is that while both of the films support "authenticity and "authority" in powerful ways, neither is big on "agency." Neither film leaves you with much of a sense of what to "go out and do" right now. I can't help thinking that it is not a coincidence that of all the myriad alternative films out there right now, the two that should find commercial success did so based on the advocacy and agency of groups clearly moving in opposition to commercial culture. Yet neither movie provides a real entry point into building such alternative community. A gathering point, perhaps, that organized groups are trying to grab a hold of (evangelicals for Mel Gibson's film, and progressive advocates like Moveon.org for Michael Moore's), but not much support for how one goes about building such community for the long haul; not much representation of what such community looks like, of what its stories are.

Among other things, building such community requires respect for complex meaning-making, for providing multiple ways into a community, and multiple ways to make sense within it. Can we trust people enough to have complex responses? To find their way through complex issues? The NYT, I fear, is not very interested in supporting such community.