advertisement

Dann defends review of 'Hillary's America'

<b>Dann's email bag's full</b>

I dunno Dann. Did we watch the same movie "Hillary's America"? Your review, which was lathered in unspeakable political bias, was not respectful of your post-WWII audience nor did it take into consideration anyone who doesn't share a narrow opinion of our Park Ridge alumna. The facts are simply there to see and hear.

Does this mean if Hillary made the same movie about Donald Trump that you would have awarded it an Oscar? By exposing your thick-as-cement slant I can't see any usefulness in perusing your reviews on any movie. - Don Whitlock, Elk Grove Village

Dear Don: Trust me. You're not the only person who thinks that. Please keep in mind that critics generally evaluate a movie based on the quality of storytelling, not its subject matter. As the late Roger Ebert explained it, "It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it." On that basis, "Hillary's America" is no "Triumph of the Will."

Dann: I needed to read that page of the movie review ("Hillary's America") twice. One for the article and two to make sure the date was not April Fools' Day. You have a documentary exposing the history of the Democratic Party and you say it is all conspiracy theory.

Spare me. One-half star. Why so generous? I just happened to look up some of your past Michael Moore film reviews and they pretty much average 3 stars each. No conspiracy theory found in his films. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Moore's films have been widely disputed on the facts. Not so sure you can find as many glaring discrepancies on Mr. (Dinesh) D'Souza's current and past productions.

Maybe you really need to go to your local library and spend 10 minutes and do some research on any one of the points you observed in that presentation. You may be surprised at what you find. Then again, you probably don't want facts to interfere with your feelings. - Joe Pawlak, Hampshire

Dear Joe: I said that fried thoughts and lapses in journalistic practices camouflage whatever valid information the movie might contain. For example:

True: Democratic President Andrew Jackson was a racist who treated Native Americans terribly, as evidenced by the infamous Trail of Tears when he ordered the Cherokee nation to migrate to present-day Oklahoma from their home east of the Mississippi. Many died along the way.

False: While it's true that John Wilkes Booth hated Lincoln for freeing the slaves and did indeed assassinate him, no proof exists that the Democratic Party supported or participated in the killing. (Although it makes sense that those who sympathized with Booth's motives would be Democrats of that era, as some say Booth was.)

Most if not all of the movie's accurate information seems to be all over the internet and available at most public libraries. So why does the movie call it the "Secret" history of the Democratic Party?

Dann: Are you trying to deny the facts of recorded history?

Can you disprove the documents, photos, recordings, videos used in the film? Are you saying Woodrow Wilson didn't show the movie "Birth of a Nation" in the White House?

Are you saying Andrew Jackson did not own slaves? Did not write what he wrote? Did not do what he did and say what he did in official forums that were recorded for all time? Are you saying the NRA never existed or never worked to help free blacks protect themselves?

Are you saying the legislation passed by states and the nation recorded for all to see was never passed? Are you saying Lyndon Johnson never said what witnesses have testified he said?

Are you saying the recorded votes on the floors of the various state and national legislatures never took place? Are you saying FBI Director Comey lied under oath? Are you saying Hillary is not on video praising Margaret Sanger?

Are you saying the video, audio recordings and documentation of Margaret Sanger's words, teachings, acts and life were forged and never happened?

Exactly which of the undeniable facts presented in "Hillary's America" are you prepared to prove are untrue? Maybe it is you who perpetuates the conspiracy theories and lies of the Democrat party. - Dale Swanson, Las Vegas, Nevada

Dear Dale: As I said earlier, there are truths in the film. But the film also throws out unproven accusations.

My review said that if you're going to make a propaganda movie, make a good one and do it right, the way the masterful "Merchants of Doubt" did it.

Most viewers didn't even realize "Merchants" was an anti-global-warming recruiting film until the ending. The message had been so well crafted that it reached out far beyond core believers to lure global warming skeptics into the fold.

Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America," like Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911," is a messy mix of fact and supposition that relies heavily on innuendo to convict its political targets. Cheesy dramatic re-enactments and conspiracy-theory ramblings may appeal to audiences already in the anti-Clinton camp, but they don't pull new members into the fold.

For that reason - and D'Souza's strange and distracting re-enactment of his eight-month prison sentence on charges of illegal campaign donations - "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" really is an embarrassment to propaganda movies.

Dear Dann: As a longtime Trek-American, I enjoyed your review (of "Star Trek Beyond"). One thing: Starfleet is one word, not two. Even the best can commit a few faux pas here and there.

What's fascinating is that a straight man (John Cho) plays a character who turns out to be gay, who apparently was straight in the "other" universe, and played by a gay man.

Meanwhile, a gay man (Zachary Quinto) plays a "straight" Vulcan who is looking to "reproduce" but apparently Abrams and Co. forgot that Vulcans must go into heat first (pon farr) before that can happen.

I'm disappointed that they decided to destroy the Enterprise yet again. The "Star Trek" films have done that more to their beloved iconic ship than "The Dukes of Hazzard," "Batman," "The Green Hornet," "Knight Rider," etc., ever did it to their vehicles in the same number of episodes.

Let's hope the Abrams universe Enterprise-A, B or whatever he decides to call the next incarnation looks less like an Apple Store and more like Peter Weller's Vengeance ship. - Rick Barlow, Schaumburg

Dear Rick: Thanks for the catch on Starfleet. I agree that the reboot should be respectful to the history of Gene Roddenberry's classic TV show. Now that I think about it, the Vulcan pon farr recalls Woody Allen's view of romance in "Cafe Society." - Dann

Mr. Gire: History has shown - and it appears it will be true this year as well - that in every year in which a "Ghostbusters" movie has been released, the Cubs won the division that year. So, I don't care how poor the movies become, I just want them to keep cranking them out! - Mike Goba, Lombard

Mike: Cubs also won the division in 2003, 2007 and 2008, so clearly no direct connection between a "Ghostbusters" movie release and a division clinch can be established. If the Cubbies triumph, perhaps we should add "A New Hope" as the subtitle to Melissa McCarthy's "Ghostbusters." - Dann

Filmmaker juggles mind-boggling conspiracy theories in 'Hillary's America'

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.