If that’s “hate,” we’ve defined that word down quite a bit since I last used it.

I’m going to see it, definitely, but the idea that I should see it because “the message and topic are too important to miss…� is ludicrous. It’s a film, and more than that, it’s a film from the “political statement� portion of Hollywood (see: Traffic, Bowling For Columbine, Team America, etc.). As such, I should be prepared for an all-but-gussied-up lecture upon entering the theater. That’s hardly “can’t-miss� material.

Given we’re fighting a “War on Terror”, and we’re having a difficult time winning given our dependency on foreign oil, I’d consider the subject matter extremely “can’t miss.” Don’t let your hate for Hollywood blind you to that.

Hollywood is at its best when it is conveying the experiences of a single (or single group of) individual(s) – see: Jarhead, Hotel Rwanda, Platoon, Ray, Walk The Line, etc. But that’s a two-edged sword, for a single experience is by definition a biased point of view. It can only convey one side of an argument (and too often, it not only tries to make its case, but it also belittles or villifies opposing thought; see: The American President, JFK, etc.).

I’m going for the entertainment. Just as with this auteur’s previous Oscar-bait, the opinion’s portrayal will be slick and convincing, but that’s par for the course. In the end, it’s just an opinion, and it’s one I can get much more easily (and for a lot less money) here on the ‘Net. (see: Daily Kos). More interesting to me are the performances, and the artform. But just as I don’t consult Renoir pere or Vermeer when I look for answers to geopolitical problems, I won’t go looking to screenwriters and directors for the same (and don’t get me started on the parallels between actors and paint).