RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://clarionproject.org/amazon-pushes-white-slaves-in-new-show/?utm_source=

The history of black slavery is a horrendous part of the American narrative, but does it help to heal the wounds by normalizing the concept of whites being enslaved by blacks? That’s what director Dale Resteghini envisions with his series Cracka.

Slated for a fall 2020 release, the series asks, “What if the roles were reversed?”

‘You took our breath away, what if we took yours? You raped our daughters, what if we raped yours? You stole our freedom, now we steal yours.’ — Title Card for the upcoming TV show Cracka

But it’s more than just reversing the roles. While the series “boasts” of reliving all the horrors of slavery, including the rapes, beatings and lynchings, it also takes a very disoriented approach toward history, as All Hip Hop describes,

The movie offers a present-day so-called white supremacist who is magically thrust back in time to an alternate past where Africans enslave whites and rule the land known as America. … the protagonist – tatted with racist Nazi symbols – begins to harass an African American motorist. It is at that point that the violence starts. After the lead character rains down blows on the motorist, the pseudo-Nazi returns to his home. He then finds himself staring at the barrel of a shotgun and enslaved.
In Cracka, it’s not “enough” that whites are the slaves in this alternative world, rather all whites must be depicted as Nazis (which, intentional or not, gives off a message that, unlike the blacks who were enslaved in the American South, the whites in this alternative universe are racists and deserve such punishment).

A show like Cracka might look like it’s aligned with pro-black, anti-racist narratives, i.e., by allowing whites to really feel what blacks went through. In actuality, it promotes a distorted vision of that reality, similar to what is being advanced by the woke movement of today, where perverse new strains of reverse racism are being embraced as social justice:

By reversing slave roles and making whites look like beasts and savages, the show plays into exactly the same racist narratives that advocates of slavery used to justify the torture and bondage of African Americans.
The show essentially functions as a free marketing campaign for the real (and violent) neo-Nazis of today — a kind of “call to action” in the war of extremes, giving them good visuals for the propaganda they use to increase their ranks.
The show ensures race tensions will be emboldened by pushing into the public consciousness more crude imagery and rhetoric similar to that of snuff films. It is a scientific fact that the human subconscious (with child-like innocence) completely accepts as reality whatever it sees, even if it rationally disagrees with it or rejects it. To have this type of content normalized by a major distributor is genuinely worrisome for the mental and spiritual health of the human race.
Let’s be crystal clear on one thing: Cracka is not just “entertainment.” It is extremist propaganda, whether or not it is intended to be.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/hollywood_is_falling_victim_to_its_relentless_virtue_signaling.html

During the 1930s and 1940s, there were many genuine communists, as well as fellow travelers, working in Hollywood. Once the Cold War began, Hollywood turned against those people and instituted its blacklist, which made it impossible for anyone with communist sympathies to work openly in Hollywood.

Of late, the further left you lean in Hollywood, the more you are to be applauded. That’s why it’s incredibly ironic to realize that Hollywood is once again blacklisting people – only this time, blacklisting means that the only people listed for employment have to be black.

That at least is the story that Caroline Graham tells in the Daily Mail. According to Graham, the message has gone out in Hollywood that, if you want to work, you had better not be white:

A revolution is under way. White actors are being fired. Edicts from studio bosses make it clear that only minorities – racial and sexual – can be given jobs.

A new wave of what has been termed by some as anti-white prejudice is causing writers, directors and producers to fear they will never work again. One described the current atmosphere as ‘more toxic than Chernobyl’, with leading actors afraid to speak out amid concern they will be labelled racist.

The first sign came with one of the most powerful black directors in Hollywood, Oscar-winning Jordan Peele – the man behind box office hits such as Get Out and Us – stated in public that he did not want to hire a leading man who was white. 

‘I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie,’ Peele said. ‘Not that I don’t like white dudes. But I’ve seen that movie before.’

As one studio executive responded privately: ‘If a white director said that about hiring a black actor, their career would be over in a heartbeat.’ Few doubt it.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/ed-driscoll/2020/06/26/mr-jones-walter-duranty-n580824

Having linked at Instapundit to a couple of reviews of the new film about the journalist who first went on the record about the Soviet Union’s terror famine in Ukraine in 1933, titled Mr. Jones, I bit the bullet and purchased it from Amazon Prime Video. I wanted to like this film so, so much, given that it focuses on a subject that Hollywood moviemakers have avoided for decades. And while Mr. Jones has many excellent moments, it also has several scenes that ultimately work against it as a film.

But it’s a very noble failure. The man in the title is real-life Welsh journalist Gareth Jones (1905-1935), played by James Norton. But he’s really not what makes Mr. Jones so important a film. That person is the now infamous Walter Duranty, the New York Times’ man in Moscow, Stalin’s stenographer, played by Peter Sarsgaard. Previously, Sarsgaard co-starred in another film about a leftwing fabulist run amok, Shattered Glass, playing the editor of the New Republic’s Stephen Glass.

In 1932, Duranty won a Pulitzer for his lies that, as Lincoln Steffens wrote in 1919, the Soviet Union and its capital-C-Communism was “the future, and it worked.”

It didn’t. And the Times, which apparently now sees the Soviet Union as some sort of extended experiment in free love under Premier Austin Powers, has yet to return the Pulitzer.

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/topic/politics/

This is a film based on a novel by Susan Scarf Merrell based on Shirley Jackson and Stanley Edgar Hyman, two famous American writers who were married to each other. The key word here is ‘novel’ but the viewer doesn’t know that this is not biographical and this presents serious ethical questions with the liberties taken as various behaviors are ascribed to these individuals without our ability to distinguish between authorial fantasy from reality.

The film hits many current popular marks: male philandering, abusiveness, narcissism along with female insecurity, emotional distress, lesbianism and dependency on drugs and alcohol. The plot concerns a young couple coming to Bennington College for the husband to assist Professor Hyman. They agree to have his pregnant wife do the cooking and housework for the Hymans in exchange for their room and board. At first, this seems like a doubly good idea, allowing the husband to try for a job in the English department the following semester by impressing Hyman and for the couple to save their money for their expected child. They are both unaware of how psychologically damaged Shirley is, spending all her time indoors, drinking, sleeping and writing. Her mood swings are so wide that she seems tri-polar and as abusive as her husband. Of course this becomes apparent as soon as they move in yet the young wife is willing to put up with the situation and becomes infatuated by Shirley, eventually in a sexual manner.

An additional plot point is Shirley’s novel in progress about a young woman who disappeared from the town without being found. This offers more nuances concerning the perils of marriage, friendship and extra-curricular relationships. One of the pivotal scenes recalls Thelma and Louise as Shirley and Rose (the young wife and mother) stand at the edge of a precipice – a device too corny and contrived to be effective. The main reason to see this movie is the performance of Elizabeth Moss, an actress who is capable of making you read her most subtle thoughts without histrionics – a true artist or perhaps magician. The second reason is to remind you to re-read “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, one of the great short stories of the 20th century

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/remembering_the_hillthomas_story.html

On Monday night, our local PBS station showed “Created Equal…..Clarence Thomas in his own words.”    

It was a great documentary and I learned a few things about his early days and marriage.  

Like some of you, I recall the day that President Bush nominated him.  I happened to be with my father that day and he seemed very happy with the choice.  He told me that Thomas would make a great justice because he faced a lot of adverisity coming up in life.  (On a personal note, “overcoming adversity” was a theme that my late father would always go back to. It made people tougher and better, he would say)

Then came Anita Hill and the documentary became very intense.  It was interesting to watch then Senator Joe Biden and the late Senator Ted Kennedy sitting next to him.  Am I the only person watching who thought that Biden made a fool of himself talking about “natural law”?  Clarence Thomas couldn’t understand what he was saying either.

Two things really struck me about the documentary:

First, Justice Thomas reminded his opponents that the “Tarring and feathering” would eventually come back to get them.  He must have been thinking about now candidate for president Joe Biden who faces a 1993 sexual misconduct allegation a lot more credible than Anita Hill’s.  I wonder if Mrs. Biden understands the pain that Mrs. Thomas went through?  

Second, the media and the Democrats had no trouble believing Hill.  You can see in the documentary how they all lined up to support a woman who had absolutely no proof of anything.  It all looked so eerily similar to the effort to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  

The film Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words will be broadcast nationally on PBS on Monday, May 18 at 9 PM ET (check local listings). I was Associate Producer and Consulting Editor on this engrossing, two-hour documentary.
 
Few know much more about Justice Thomas than a few headlines and the recollections of his contentious confirmation battle with Anita Hill. In the film, Justice Thomas tells his entire life’s story, looking directly at the camera, speaking frankly to the audience. Unscripted and without narration, the documentary takes the viewer through this complex and often painful life, dealing with race, faith, power, jurisprudence, and personal resilience.
 
To see the trailer go to my website lisashreve.com and scroll down to the lower right. Lisa Shreve

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/television-review-becoming-what-does-michelle-obama-have-to-complain-about/

Michelle Obama has had a blessed American life, but she’s all about her grievances in her Netflix documentary.

There’s a curious joy deficit in Michelle Obama’s video memoir Becoming, the Netflix documentary produced by her and her husband. As she glides from one beautiful space to another, surrounded by beautiful and famous people, with beautiful daughters and a beautiful bank account and much else to be grateful for, the viewer keeps waiting for her Flounder moment: Oh, boy, is this great!

Instead, the tone is mostly dour, pained, even somber. I suspect (and hope!) that, off-camera, the Obamas are a bit more full of joie de vivre than Michelle Obama is in this film, which is largely a litany of complaint. She says she felt so much pressure to be perfect for eight years in the White House that when it was over she let the dam burst by crying for half an hour (half an hour?) when she and her husband departed on Air Force One. She talks about the various times she feels she was targeted by racism, exaggerating what actually happened. She walks us through her press coverage, which she finds indescribably unfair and hurtful.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/05/hillary-on-hulu/

It is ironic that the former secretary of state fought for much of her life trying to prove that being a woman didn’t hold her back, but when it came to running for president she couldn’t forget the fact herself.

After two failed presidential runs, many Americans might expect Hillary Clinton to fade gracefully into the background, her political life now history. With her recent public endorsement of Joe Biden and the release of a highly glamorized documentary series, however, Hillary is trying to claw her way back into the limelight. For what ends, we don’t yet know.

“Hillary,” the four-part documentary created by Nanette Burstein and aired on Hulu attempts to put Hillary Clinton into context for a generation that did not grow up with her as their First Lady. Collective memories are short—when many today think of Hillary Clinton they picture her 2016 run for president, her time as Secretary of State, or maybe her 2008 run for the Democratic nomination, but the documentary puts Hillary in the context of over 50 years of cultural transformation. Each episode pivots back and forth from the presumed end of Hillary Clinton’s political career to the beginning. It weaves a narrative of a woman who was “too right too soon,” and who stood up for women’s rights when most women saw their options as limited.

The documentary features segments of more than 2,000 hours of behind-the-scenes campaign footage, some of the 35 hours Burstein spent interviewing Hillary, as well as interviews from Hillary’s friends, family, supporters, friendly journalists, and campaign staff. Missing are interviews of any Hillary opponents or critics.