Speaking of negative movie portrayals of interracial couples (as per my Hit and Run review), now we get a “documentary” about Obama’s doomed childhood, heavily influenced by his white mother and African father’s tumultuous marriage, and his father’s belief system. This “documentary” (and, from what I understand, documentaries are supposed to be non-fiction films) is made up of exploring Obama’s early background through a very long, rambling interview with his half-brother (who has never been that close to Obama and didn’t share a childhood with him) and misquoting passages from Obama’s own book “Letters From My Father.” By taking out-of-context quotes from Obama’s book about his father, the people that already hate him can say “See! See! Even Obama is saying this! These are his own words!” Which amounts to a damning revelation for the tin-foil hat(e) set that already hate him and would believe anyone who badmouths the president. This isn’t a movie about his first term—–you know, that might have to have some basis in truth—–so much as a conspiracy thriller about the shadowy influences that have gripped the president’s mind…made by a guy who might have shadowy financing gripping the lens of his camera.
What Works: [Crickets]…
What Doesn’t Work: The film’s central premise is that Obama has been radicalized from birth by a socialist Muslim who really didn’t like colonialism all that much. Although I still have no clue how being “anti-colonial” is a bad thing, since America was revolutionized by anti-colonialists who told Britain to fuck off. Being a rebel makes you more American, not less.
And that conservative kaleidoscope makes it almost impossible to see Obama clearly. The conservative viewpoint is hopelessly confined to beliefs that liberals don’t share, so how could you really “get” Obama or his childhood or his own psychology? The film is basically saying that a man is his father’s son, a fairly conservative premise that liberals don’t ascribe to. Conservatives don’t get this (since they’re always trying to carry the past into future generations), and don’t share the liberal urge to strive into your own thing, not echo out your family history.
The film actually might have been stronger if it had just focused on Obama’s first term or his presidential campaign or his tenure in the senate, or, you know, those pesky things called “facts” that can be proven or disproven definitively. By trying to examine a psychological history of the Obama family, it winds up being hopelessly subjective and opinion based.
What I Would Have Done Differently: This isn’t a movie. This is a negative campaign ad. It would be very interesting to know exactly who’s paying for this film, and who’s promoting it, as the film has a wide distribution and healthy box office receipts. Because what isn’t interesting is the timing of this film’s release…a couple months before we vote in November. And as an actual film lover and someone who’s studied film, I don’t appreciate being manipulated into watching a “movie” that is so artificially manufactured…an extended attack ad posing as a psychologically deep documentary and cheapening the form.
When I saw the first commercial for this movie I thought that it was an ad for some book that your would only see aired at like 2 A.M. Was shocked to find this was an actual film with a huge release.
You’d be even more shocked if you saw it…since it’s pretty much exactly like a shoddy YouTube video that negatively reviews Obama’s book. If an entire documentary centered around reading excerpts of the president’s book doesn’t sound like riveting filmmaking, that’s because it isn’t.