jeanedouardpouliot
Joined Jul 2006
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews2
jeanedouardpouliot's rating
In "2016: Obama's America," Dinesh D'Souza makes the case that President Barack Obama is trying to fulfill his father's anti-colonial dream of destroying America and allowing the rise of the "United States of Islam." The film is a curious mix. It includes dramatic recreations of past events (notably and repeatedly, a young Obama grieving at his father's grave), interviews (including some with friends of Obama's father), graphics (the Statute of Liberty drowning in a sea of red ink!), guest narration (by Barack Obama himself) and some of the most audacious jumps of logic this side of the Olympics.
D'Souza starts by dramatizing a conversation with a naïve white college kid who tries to ingratiate himself with D'Souza by telling him how blown away he was by the awesomeness of India, D'Souza's home country. D'Souza cuts him off, citing his country's poverty, caste system and bride burning tradition. Having thus defeating the mighty, liberal college student, he claims to have bested Jesse Jackson in a debate, when (he claims) Jackson could not name a single instance of overt racism in the US. Whether true or not, by this encounter D'Souza shows that racism is no longer a potent force in the country. He illustrates America's color-blindness with a staged scene in barroom full of blacks and whites, celebrating happily together. One of the white kids even bakes a cake for a black friend!
D'Souza then roles out a clever technique: make a true claim, but one that the audience will think is false, thus communicating the opposite of what is overtly stated. This happens at least twice in the film. Once, D'Souza states that anti-colonialists and their white liberal allies believe that western nations colonized African countries to get their wealth. Then, on a visit to Hawaii, he meets with a historian who claims that missionaries, merchants and politicians overthrew the government of Hawaii in the 19th century to allow the US to annex the islands and grab their wealth. To anyone with a modicum of education, these two claims are utterly true. D'Souza is either ignorant of these facts, or assumes that his audience will be unaware that their country participated in such skullduggery.
Early on, D'Souza claims that Obama has shut own oil drilling of US shores, but is subsidizing oil drilling in Brazil and elsewhere. He spins the short moratorium on drilling after the Deep Sea Horizons explosion as a permanent ban. The claim that the US wants Britain to give the Falklands back to Argentina is also nonsense. And claiming that Obama has "done nothing" to constrain a nuclear Iran is an outright lie.
D'Souza claims that in 2008, no one knew who Obama was. He was the great Black Messiah, embraced by whites who only wanted to participate in a historic election to raise a black man to the presidency. But Obama had already written two probing and intelligent book about himself that laid out his intellectual development and influences. His 2004 speech to the Democratic Convention brought him to the attention of a wide segment of American voters. Barack Obama was hardly unknown in 2008, especially after a grueling primary in which he and Hillary Clinton campaigned in all 50 states and debated 28 times.
The interviews with friends of Obama's father are amateurish and slanted. D'Souza wants desperately to tie the father's supposed anti-colonial rage to his son. He finds one old friend, a man whose grasp if English is rudimentary, to state that the Obama senior and junior "are one." But the man was saying only that the son was a chip off the old block – not a nuanced conclusion that the president shares his father's politics and outlook. In an interview with Obama's half-brother George, D'Souza tries to show that Obama has not done enough or his on family. But the canny Obama refuses to take the bait to denigrate his own brother. Barack has his own family to support, he says. By helping the world, he says, he helps me. Bravo!
Large sections of the movie feature Barack Obama himself, reading from his books "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father." This gives the impression that Obama is hanging himself with his own words. But while the words are Obama's, the wild conclusions are all D'Souza's. Obama, says D'Souza, has anti-colonial rage, somehow inherited from a man he hardly knew, to diminish America and put it at the mercy of foreigners. He wants to create a "United States of Islam" that will be a threat to the United States. This is proved because Obama supported attacks on Libya to protect its citizens, while refusing to attack Syria which is also attacking its citizens. That the geopolitics around each country are radically different matters little to D'Souza.
Nearly every one of the film's statements and conclusions is open to challenge. By the end of the film, I was dazed by its inanity and begging for it to end. It's hard to know whether D'Souza is merely partisan, or dishonest or just not very bright. His premises are shaky or wrong. His conclusions do not flow from them. "2016" is a mess of lies, half-truths, and truths presented as lies. Frankly, it says more about the author than about its subject. And it says a great deal about a citizenry that is willing to swallow whole, and without evidence, paranoid and baseless conclusions about the inner workings of the mind of what, to all outward appearances, is a man who loves his country and wants it to prosper.
D'Souza starts by dramatizing a conversation with a naïve white college kid who tries to ingratiate himself with D'Souza by telling him how blown away he was by the awesomeness of India, D'Souza's home country. D'Souza cuts him off, citing his country's poverty, caste system and bride burning tradition. Having thus defeating the mighty, liberal college student, he claims to have bested Jesse Jackson in a debate, when (he claims) Jackson could not name a single instance of overt racism in the US. Whether true or not, by this encounter D'Souza shows that racism is no longer a potent force in the country. He illustrates America's color-blindness with a staged scene in barroom full of blacks and whites, celebrating happily together. One of the white kids even bakes a cake for a black friend!
D'Souza then roles out a clever technique: make a true claim, but one that the audience will think is false, thus communicating the opposite of what is overtly stated. This happens at least twice in the film. Once, D'Souza states that anti-colonialists and their white liberal allies believe that western nations colonized African countries to get their wealth. Then, on a visit to Hawaii, he meets with a historian who claims that missionaries, merchants and politicians overthrew the government of Hawaii in the 19th century to allow the US to annex the islands and grab their wealth. To anyone with a modicum of education, these two claims are utterly true. D'Souza is either ignorant of these facts, or assumes that his audience will be unaware that their country participated in such skullduggery.
Early on, D'Souza claims that Obama has shut own oil drilling of US shores, but is subsidizing oil drilling in Brazil and elsewhere. He spins the short moratorium on drilling after the Deep Sea Horizons explosion as a permanent ban. The claim that the US wants Britain to give the Falklands back to Argentina is also nonsense. And claiming that Obama has "done nothing" to constrain a nuclear Iran is an outright lie.
D'Souza claims that in 2008, no one knew who Obama was. He was the great Black Messiah, embraced by whites who only wanted to participate in a historic election to raise a black man to the presidency. But Obama had already written two probing and intelligent book about himself that laid out his intellectual development and influences. His 2004 speech to the Democratic Convention brought him to the attention of a wide segment of American voters. Barack Obama was hardly unknown in 2008, especially after a grueling primary in which he and Hillary Clinton campaigned in all 50 states and debated 28 times.
The interviews with friends of Obama's father are amateurish and slanted. D'Souza wants desperately to tie the father's supposed anti-colonial rage to his son. He finds one old friend, a man whose grasp if English is rudimentary, to state that the Obama senior and junior "are one." But the man was saying only that the son was a chip off the old block – not a nuanced conclusion that the president shares his father's politics and outlook. In an interview with Obama's half-brother George, D'Souza tries to show that Obama has not done enough or his on family. But the canny Obama refuses to take the bait to denigrate his own brother. Barack has his own family to support, he says. By helping the world, he says, he helps me. Bravo!
Large sections of the movie feature Barack Obama himself, reading from his books "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father." This gives the impression that Obama is hanging himself with his own words. But while the words are Obama's, the wild conclusions are all D'Souza's. Obama, says D'Souza, has anti-colonial rage, somehow inherited from a man he hardly knew, to diminish America and put it at the mercy of foreigners. He wants to create a "United States of Islam" that will be a threat to the United States. This is proved because Obama supported attacks on Libya to protect its citizens, while refusing to attack Syria which is also attacking its citizens. That the geopolitics around each country are radically different matters little to D'Souza.
Nearly every one of the film's statements and conclusions is open to challenge. By the end of the film, I was dazed by its inanity and begging for it to end. It's hard to know whether D'Souza is merely partisan, or dishonest or just not very bright. His premises are shaky or wrong. His conclusions do not flow from them. "2016" is a mess of lies, half-truths, and truths presented as lies. Frankly, it says more about the author than about its subject. And it says a great deal about a citizenry that is willing to swallow whole, and without evidence, paranoid and baseless conclusions about the inner workings of the mind of what, to all outward appearances, is a man who loves his country and wants it to prosper.
From a study of the movie poster, you might be tempted to think this is another pointless romantic movie about two lovers in France. "Oui," they will fight, love, eat croissants and find meaning. How drearily cliché.
But, surprise of surprises, "Two Days in Paris" is a very funny, very soulful and very interesting look at a slice of the life of two quite interesting characters. On the surface, Marion (Julie Delpy) and Jack (Adam Goldberg) are two irritatingly pretentious neurotics. Both 35 and childless, they have been traveling Europe for 2 weeks, deciding to stop in Paris for a couple days to drop in on Marion's family and friends before flying home to New York. Marion is French, the child of left-wing French artists. Jack is a New Yorker, a political lefty whose shallow grasp of culture (he speaks only English, for instance) is purely American. She had aspirations to be a photographer, though (for reasons the film will make clear) her work is strictly third-class. He takes pictures of everything, but has no eye for form, color or composition.
What's fun about the film is the complexity of the relationships. To Jack's annoyance, Marion keeps bumping into her old boyfriends. And her father seems intent on humiliating or offending him and his American tastes. A dinner scene in which he is offered a rabbit's head is just hilarious. When offered carrots, he says, "So, we're going to eat the bunny's food, too?" For her part, Marion cannot understand why Jack finds her continued casual friendships with exes to be so extraordinary. And Jack, utterly clueless about the nuances (or even the surface content) of Marion's conversations, is getting paranoid that he is not being told everything. At one point, Marion is holding a violent argument with a racist cabdriver. Jack knows something is going on, but can't get past Marion's insistence that everything is fine.
I realize as I write this that I am doing no justice to the joyful sense of voyeurism that the film affords.The film is so smartly written and fast-paced that sometimes you forget you are watching a film and think you are watching dinner with Julie's real family or attending parties with her smug and artsy friends. The film is completely convincing and has a depth of heart I didn't expect. It deal with secrets and the frustration that comes from knowing another person. The language and culture barriers then act as metaphors for the inability of two people, even lovers, to inhabit another's life and experience.
"Two Days in Paris" is not for all. Marion and Jack are exemplars of the worst aspects of US and European artistic classes. Their treatment of a group of Americans on a "Da Vinci Code" tour tells you more than you want to know about the antagonisms between right and left. But their smug, knowing put downs of Bush and Cheney supporters are less political messages by the movie makers than markers of the characters' personalities. This movie about liberals does not necessarily espouse their world view. But, at heart, this is a love story, not a political drama. Secondly, since we are talking about shallow artists, there is an enormous amount of politico-sexual "art" on display in the film. While this may be offensive to the audience, its presence helps to define the characters themselves. It's not there to titillate the viewer, but to describe the actors.
Delpy, who wrote, directed, produced and acted in the movie, has made a master work that is complex, evocative, real and quite beautiful. She has captured aspects of the French national character that seem quite convincing. She has also aptly captured the emotions and dilemmas of 30-something adults who, under it all, are still looking for meaning, belonging and peace. Goldberg gave a powerful and hilarious performance. He's Ben Stiller with a soul.
If you can put up with the film's politics, you will be amply rewarded. Magnifique!
But, surprise of surprises, "Two Days in Paris" is a very funny, very soulful and very interesting look at a slice of the life of two quite interesting characters. On the surface, Marion (Julie Delpy) and Jack (Adam Goldberg) are two irritatingly pretentious neurotics. Both 35 and childless, they have been traveling Europe for 2 weeks, deciding to stop in Paris for a couple days to drop in on Marion's family and friends before flying home to New York. Marion is French, the child of left-wing French artists. Jack is a New Yorker, a political lefty whose shallow grasp of culture (he speaks only English, for instance) is purely American. She had aspirations to be a photographer, though (for reasons the film will make clear) her work is strictly third-class. He takes pictures of everything, but has no eye for form, color or composition.
What's fun about the film is the complexity of the relationships. To Jack's annoyance, Marion keeps bumping into her old boyfriends. And her father seems intent on humiliating or offending him and his American tastes. A dinner scene in which he is offered a rabbit's head is just hilarious. When offered carrots, he says, "So, we're going to eat the bunny's food, too?" For her part, Marion cannot understand why Jack finds her continued casual friendships with exes to be so extraordinary. And Jack, utterly clueless about the nuances (or even the surface content) of Marion's conversations, is getting paranoid that he is not being told everything. At one point, Marion is holding a violent argument with a racist cabdriver. Jack knows something is going on, but can't get past Marion's insistence that everything is fine.
I realize as I write this that I am doing no justice to the joyful sense of voyeurism that the film affords.The film is so smartly written and fast-paced that sometimes you forget you are watching a film and think you are watching dinner with Julie's real family or attending parties with her smug and artsy friends. The film is completely convincing and has a depth of heart I didn't expect. It deal with secrets and the frustration that comes from knowing another person. The language and culture barriers then act as metaphors for the inability of two people, even lovers, to inhabit another's life and experience.
"Two Days in Paris" is not for all. Marion and Jack are exemplars of the worst aspects of US and European artistic classes. Their treatment of a group of Americans on a "Da Vinci Code" tour tells you more than you want to know about the antagonisms between right and left. But their smug, knowing put downs of Bush and Cheney supporters are less political messages by the movie makers than markers of the characters' personalities. This movie about liberals does not necessarily espouse their world view. But, at heart, this is a love story, not a political drama. Secondly, since we are talking about shallow artists, there is an enormous amount of politico-sexual "art" on display in the film. While this may be offensive to the audience, its presence helps to define the characters themselves. It's not there to titillate the viewer, but to describe the actors.
Delpy, who wrote, directed, produced and acted in the movie, has made a master work that is complex, evocative, real and quite beautiful. She has captured aspects of the French national character that seem quite convincing. She has also aptly captured the emotions and dilemmas of 30-something adults who, under it all, are still looking for meaning, belonging and peace. Goldberg gave a powerful and hilarious performance. He's Ben Stiller with a soul.
If you can put up with the film's politics, you will be amply rewarded. Magnifique!