The Age of Commercialism

Fantastic!

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

This documentary actually turns out to be quite a lot more than a political polemic, and it's all the better for it. Naturally, extreme lovers of Bush will be put off immediately, but no surprise there. And, people looking for straight Bush bashing may be disappointed as well. This is not an expose into the darker side of the Retard King, and it purposely goes easy on the conspiratorial tone. There is a significant, though not entirely fleshed out, subtext about media control and the consequences of that, but mostly this is a story about some fascinating, driven, rather demented people and their travails amongst the big fish. In other words, it's most entertaining and enlightening on a human level, not a political one.I will say that the 'revelation' at the end is so extreme that it changes the perception of the entire narrative, and it's something which the movie itself never entirely comes to grips with. The way it's structured does give the momentum of the drama a naturalistic feel, but I wonder if there wasn't a better, more upfront way to rework it and maintain the impact.However, the sense of howling into the wind is subtle and well played, and the real human drama of people striving to be more than they actually are (even by duplicitous means) opens up a whole range of connections between GWB, the author and the publisher. The idea that the publisher and the author are to some extent frauds, or at the very least unabashed showmen, would call into question the validity of the whole documentary if the approach didn't feel genuinely vérité, which is why it works much better as a depiction of flawed humanity than as an investigation into the (also interesting) issues with the book, media, etc.

As most people know, when you dig up dirt on a major public figure, especially one who is running for president, many setbacks come with it. Horns and Halos is a film regarding a man, James Hatfield, who decided to venture down that path. He's responsible for the book "Fortunate Son" which is a pull no punches bio on the man who now occupies, for a second time, the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the book, mainly because of it's accusation that Mr. Bush was once arrested for cocaine possession in the 70's. In the film, we follow Hatfield, and his publisher, Soft Skull Press, as they struggle to get the book released. What happens is poignant and ultimately tragic.

The reviews spin this movie as a Bushies keeping the little man down documentary. It isn't. The movie never editorializes the way Michael Moore movies do. Heck, it didn't even have to be about politics at all as much as it attempts to explain why we are constantly reading how miserable the rich and famous are...The movie is about a little guy that wanted to play with the big kids. Unfortunately, he got what he wanted. After writing several small time bios of people like Star Trek's Captain Picard, James Hatfield decides to hit the big time by writing a bio of then Governor George W. Bush. It worked -- for four days. The movie is about how an average, everyday guy reacts when the microscope of fame is turned back on him. Will he rise to the occasion and become a hero or be beaten down like a dog? Better yet, how would you react if all of your secrets were bared for all to see and judge? That's the question this movie explored for me.

Watching this documentary isn't simply watching a film about someone writing something negative about George W. Bush. Bush takes a backseat to the story of the two individuals who believed in freedom of the press and freedom of attempting to find the truth. The question of how the PERCEIVED credibility of writers and publishers affects a written product is surfaced and the connection is (justifiably so) questioned. I thought the movie really showed how the written word is not judged by its content but rather by its environment, something that most people working in the literary profession would like to deny. And I wish Sanders Hicks all the best - he comes across as a very mature calm man despite his youthful antifa looks and behaviour.At some point in the movie, I could not help but shake the feeling that writing truthfully about Bush was like a mummy's curse - which is rather eery considering that these are based on ancient myths and legends.