MovieChat Forums > Berkeley in the Sixties (1991) Discussion > Incredibly narrow-minded movie

Incredibly narrow-minded movie

posted 16 years ago by Lino_Ventura
2 replies | jump to latest

This movie is entirely devoted to praising the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, overprivileged, fascist young idiots of the 1960's, which is perfectly acceptable and the right of every Americans.

There is one moment, however, where this movie reveals an incredible degree of narrow-mindedness and intellectual dishonesty. During one of the rare times they mention Ronald Reagan (who, once again, is revealed to be the best politician ever), they strongly implied that his actions were motivated by ulterior, selfish motives (he criticized the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, overprivileged, fascist young idiots purely "to please the crow to be elected Governor", according to the narrator).

How come the idea that MAYBE, SOME of the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, overprivileged, fascist young idiots MIGHT have been, at least PARTIALLY, motivated by ulterior, selfish, or hypocritical motives is NOT ONCE proposed ? How come the fascist authors of this movie are immediately prone to arrogantly decree that anyone who disagrees with them can not sincerely believe in what he or she says ?

"People will never learn... DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK !" Homer Simpson
"I hate hippies" Eric Cartman

[–] Aeneas21 14 years ago

Your signature suggests that you are looking for confrontation. That is counter-productive, as is calling the film producers "fascists" which does not even make sense, given what the film is projecting.

[–] tplast 8 years ago

Not to mention that no reporter/journalist in 1964 every asked Mario Savio, the speaker who sort of led the "I demand to be listened to" movement at Berkeley, was born in 1942. So, he was only 22 years old when he made that impassioned (supposedly) speech about the "operation of the machine becomes so odius" and "makes you so sick at heart".

Excuse me. What experience in life in general and in that college in particular did he (could he) have that would result in such passion? Implying that he thought things through and there was no other way to see/feel about the topic other than to make that ridiculous rant of his? He could NOT possibly have any experiences in life that make him so wise, so incisive, so "above it all", so "into it" to be able to characterize that college and academia in general the way that he did.

What a flaming crock of BS. He was obviously put up to that speech by someone else. Someone who prepped him. Someone who trained him to deliver it that way.

Besides, he didn't look like a 22 yr old in that black/white film of him. He looked like someone in their 30s. That whole counter culture "movement" was an undisputed load of HS. It was people in their 30s/40s using college punks to deliver their Marxist nonsense. To make their numbers look greater than what they really were. Otherwise they would have looked like the insignificant percentage they really were.