Newsletter subscribe

Entertainment, Features, Liberty Shop, Politics, Sections, Top Stories

The Greatest Conservative Films: Disclosure (1994)

Posted: August 24, 2017 at 4:24 pm   /   by

“‘No’ means ‘no’.  Isn’t that what we tell women?  Do men deserve less?”

 

Most great films end up remembered—many deservedly cherished as the classics they are.  Some great films, however, end up for the most part forgotten—underrated gems, waiting to be rediscovered.  We scour though yard sales and flea markets, and stumble on movies we may have seen and liked, but forgot about until seeing an old VHS or DVD (usually the former) for sale: “Oh, yeah…!  I remember that one!”

Ten years ago, people like me would’ve enjoyed moments like that in our local Blockbuster.  But you can’t preserve everything, I guess.  Netflix just isn’t the same.  I mean, really…what are the odds they’d put a film like Disclosure on there?

Maybe I’m wrong.  Someone with Netflix please correct me in the comments section.

Anyway…it’s amazing how many underrated gems come from the 1990s in particular.  A lot are from the ‘80s, but mostly—at least from my experience—it’s the ‘90s that takes the prize, on this.  Understandably so—following the resounding success of Pulp Fiction, indie films enjoyed a golden age—supported by the big studios, each with their own “indie” branch.

Of course, it isn’t just indies.  “Mid-budget” films had a surge, as well.  And frankly, I’ve often argued since my USF days that Hollywood has enjoyed three “Great Decades” of the silver screen—the 1940s (counting the Golden Year of 1939), the 1970s (the “Hollywood Renaissance”)…and the 1990s.

Those old enough to have been “grown-ups” in that decade know exactly what I’m talking about.  Rom-coms, powered by Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan—with leading men ranging from Richard Gere to Tom Hanks to Billy Crystal.  The “maturing” of the crazy-fun action flicks of the ‘80s into full-blown thrillers again.  Westerns enjoying a comeback.  Courtroom dramas by the bucket-load.  Pierce Brosnan seamlessly bringing James Bond into the post-Cold-War world.  The Disney Renaissance—Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame…and Beauty & The Beast, the first animated film ever to get a Best Picture nod.

Pixar’s monumental game-changer, Toy Story.  Steven Spielberg’s heyday, with Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park, and Saving Private Ryan.  Martin Scorsese’s gangster classics, Goodfellas and Casino.  Robert De Niro and Al Pacino sharing a scene for the first time, in Heat.  And the Golden Year of 1994, when three movies came out, destined to be nominated for Best Picture…and to be ranked among “the greatest movies ever made”: Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and The Shawshank Redemption.

I grew up in that decade.  Part of me wishes I was older, so I could’ve savored it when it happened.  Ah, well…maybe there’s a Fourth Great Decade on the horizon.  I certainly hope so.

But as I said, with all that greatness overflowing the silver screen, inevitably a lot would get forgotten—except by those who preserved their VHS tapes, and maybe eventually sold them to young cinephiles like me.

In case you’re wondering, my copy of Disclosure is on VHS.  Yes, some Millennials can appreciate those things.  Especially when the DVD doesn’t have any bonus features to speak of—in which case, you go for the cheaper option.  And I’m told videos last longer.  Faded color palate or no.

All right, enough nostalgia.  Time for the movie.  There are some twists to this one, so SPOILER ALERT—and I’m willing to bet you don’t know this one, yet….

WHY IT’S A CONSERVATIVE FILM:

One of the things to be nostalgic about in the 1990s was how Hollywood hadn’t become so hyper-partisan just yet.  Gerald Molen—producer of Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List, and Hollywood Conservative who’s worked with Glenn Beck on some things—has noted how, in that latest Golden Decade, people didn’t care about your politics so much—just so long as you were good.  There was no New Blacklist, then—that arguably came out of all the Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Perhaps it was the Clintonian Consensus—Bubba and Newt Gingrich’s uneasy alliance to balance the budget, reform welfare, and resume the Reagan prosperity.  Perhaps that sense of “Hey, maybe we can get along” got Hollywood on board, too….

For a while, at least.

Another thing we look back at and miss was how Political Correctness had not taken hold of our culture, just yet.  Well, yes, there were stirrings, but…really!

Nowadays, a flipside’s crept up to the whole concern about the explicit/“gratuitous” content of “today”*.  Namely…all the times we look at an older film and go, “Oh, that film could not be made today!”

Steven Crowder’s done a video on that.  Leaving aside the Dirty Harry series, and the intensely anti-PC Blazing Saddles…just imagine how badly the Left would trash Mrs. Doubtfire, were it released today: “Transphobic!”  Or Animal House: “RAPE CULTURE!!!”

In this case…

“Harassment”:

Disclosure came out a mere few years after the Clarence Thomas hearings.  To most of America, it was “he-said, she-said” at best—and at worse, Anita Hill was an opportunistic fraud.  (Really: The “Coke can” thing was her worst memory?  Cue all of America letting out a great big “That’s IT?!?”)

To the pseudo-feminist matriarchy, though, it would forever be remembered as a “monumental event”, beginning a “national conversation” about sexual harassment in the workplace.  (Unless, of course, the guy’s name is Bill Clinton.)  The end result: Today, even simple compliments about a female co-worker’s dress get deemed “sexual harassment”, because Objectification.

No such thing as an “innocent office flirtation”, now.  Congratulations, Lefties.  You’ve ruined Sam & Diane.

Well, the specter of Anita Hill returned with the Duke Lacrosse case—and later, the Herman Cain smear.  And then, all the “rape culture” stuff: inflated stats based on overly-broad definitions of “harassment”, absorbed into “assault”.    And along with that, ladies and gentlemen…more and more fictional stories, from Lena Dunham to “Mattress Girl” to the recent Bill O’Reilly scandal—none of which got the smackdowns they deserved, because the facts mattered less than the issue that had to be brought up, see.

It all culminated with Hillary Rodham Clinton saying that women have “a right to be believed”, on sexual harassment—no need for evidence, no “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”, just believed, without question.  Because questioning is “patriarchal”, see.

Leaving aside Hillary’s abject hypocrisy on “believing women” (gee, Hillary…do Jones, Broderick, Flowers, and Lewinsky ring a bell?), the main issue is the notion of “Always assume the woman’s telling the truth, on the issue of sexual harassment.”

And all the dangers of this were foreseen by a novelist named Michael Crichton, and a director named Barry Levinson.

“I’m With Her”:

Really, it’s eerie how well Disclosure conveys some all-too-legitimate fears men just may have in the workplace, today—even more so than back in the ‘90s.  Back then, some critics—including legends Siskel & Ebert—flat-out scoffed at and dismissed the film’s premises as absurd and nonsensical.  Maybe, back then, that was understandable.

My, how things have changed.

There’s a movement making the rounds on the Internet, nowadays, called MGTOW—“Men Going Their Own Way”.  It’s a response to all the dark effects that the worst elements of feminism has brought to our society—a “men’s rights movement” in direct protest to, among other things, divorce laws heavily slanted towards the woman AND—more importantly—all the “rape culture” stuff.

Basically, in the absence of Dave Chappelle’s “Love Contract”, the MGTOW guys have reached the breaking point where they feel they just plain can’t trust women—pretty much any woman…beyond maybe hookers.  Basically, the MGTOW crew fear any romantic relationship is just a potential rape accusation in the making—a lawsuit waiting to happen, to destroy the man’s life and livelihood.

It’s an overreaction, of course—forget the NAWALT (“Not All Women Are Like That”) thing the movement’s rather back-and-forth about; most women aren’t like that.  Nonetheless, the overreaction’s a sadly understandable one—considering the sheer number of terrible stories of false accusations.  And really…it seems so much easier, culturally, to trust the “she-said” than the “he-said”.  And even if people know the story’s false…well, there’s The Issue, after all.

An “issue” built upon a foundation of dishonesty and paranoia.  Welcome to Third-Wave Feminism—stemming from the roots of the darker, all-out misandrist elements of Second-Wave.

And those darker elements are explored, deconstructed, and called out in this film, as we see a man struggling against a terrible double-standard.

Harassment Of…A Man?

So much of pop culture invokes the idea of women having to face an uphill societal battle, to bring actual assailants and rapists to justice—that the “patriarchal” cops, for example, “just blame the victim.”  Rarely, if ever, does anyone acknowledge, let alone emphasize, the reverse sort of injustice.  Rarely are men shown as victims of sexual crimes—and even then, rarely at the hands of women.  After all…who would believe that?

Disclosure‘s a vital exception to the rule—especially considering how powerfully it invokes that double-standard.

The film follows Tom Sanders, an ambitious executive at a computer tech company, gunning for the VP slot…only to lose it to an old flame, Meredith Johnson.  In addition, he’s concerned he might be out of a job, period, with the new shakeup.

After being sort-of reassured about job security, Tom’s summoned to Meredith’s office for a report.  A nighttime report with everyone gone.  She forces herself on him.  Though for a moment he relents to her, he snaps out at the last second, staying true to his wife.  Meredith’s enraged, threatening him as he rushes out.

Cue the next morning, when Tom finds his position severely compromised by Meredith.  Then, he’s informed of something far worse (warning: language):

Meredith has accused him of sexual harassment.  And he’s automatically assumed to be guilty, despite his insistence that the reverse happened.  As far as everyone around him is concerned, the idea of a woman harassing a man is absurd.  It had to be him that’s the guilty one, and “with these things, the man always denies it.”

After all, “Why would a woman lie about this…?”

A mysterious “friend” sends Tom an anonymous tip pointing him to Catherine Alvarez, hardcore attorney known for fighting “sexual harassment” fraud—Gloria Allred’s worst nightmare.

Game on.

Gotta Know His Limitations:

With all this, mind you, Tom does share some responsibility for everyone’s suspicion of his guilt.  A small part of the responsibility, but still…

We see him, upon first arriving at the office in the film, giving a leer or two to attractive pairs of legs walking up staircases.  Nothing bad, aside from him being a married man.  But then, he seems to belittle his secretary just a bit—and then, giving her a light swat on the behind (with some papers, don’t worry) as he heads off.

While none of that’s any “evidence” in the slightest, it speaks to something about Tom’s basic “air” about the office.  He’s not a squeaky-clean type…and to the film’s credit, it makes sure to emphasize that fact—calling attention to the swat through a quick cut, for example.

The film doesn’t justify it—it doesn’t shrug it off.  (There’s even some “payoff”, later….)

Such makes the injustice all the more harrowing.  We see all those slip-ups of character, on Tom’s part—all those things that get pointed to in real life as “proof” of harassment—and as the film progresses, we think, “Gee…he’s not as respectful towards women as he should be, absolutely!—but that far from justifies what happens to him.”

The film makes it clear: Are there real issues with some guys in positions of authority lording it over women subordinates like that—sometimes in a boorish sort of manner?  Absolutely.

Does that need to be dealt with?  Darn right it does.  There are in fact ways of teaching chivalry without all the “sensitivity training” overreach that makes guys walk on eggshells, afraid to ever ask a female co-worker out on a date!

Does any of that justify suing such guys for “effective” sexual assault?  No—it—doesn’t.

“No Means No” & Pseudo-Feminist Hypocrisy:

With all the above, it’s a little bitterly amusing how the same pseudo-feminists seeking to “train” out of men any kind of aggressiveness—particularly regarding women—will at the same time glorify and deify, lo and behold, “aggressive” qualities in women.  As the great Carlin put it:

“Putting on a “man”-tailored suit with shoulder pads, and imitating all the worst behavior of men?  This is the noblest thing that women can think of?”

And yes, that includes “sexual”—at least as far as the Second-Wave was concerned.  The Third-Wavers seem to want to androgynize everybody—including Wonder Woman, because Objectification.  But I digress.

Nowadays, pseudo-feminists don’t seem to know what they want, as far as sexuality’s concerned.  Frankly, it makes the anti-hypocrisy theme of this film more…interesting.  At any rate, Heaven knows how many times I’ve found myself in online arguments where Conservative guys like myself are accused of not being able to stomach “liberated”, “empowered”, and yes, “aggressive” women.  Even off the Net, remember the whole anti-“Bossy” thing, a few years ago?  Apparently “bossy” is sexist against liberated/empowered/aggressive women…or something.  (Really: Who says “bossy” over the age of fourteen?!)

Again…coupled with the whole “rape culture” and “harassment” narrative, it’s a pervasive hypocrisy that the self-appointed matriarchy can’t ever bring themselves to acknowledge.  Leave it to Catherine Alvarez, esq., to finally hold a pseudo-feminist’s feet to the fire on it—in the central sequence of the entire film (LANGUAGE!):

Pushed to the breaking point, her lies exposed and her case destroyed, Meredith snaps, and lets out some very telling things that a man would’ve been annihilated for saying—the very things pseudo-feminists self-righteously point to as powering “rape culture”.

To wit, “Hey…he was asking for it.”

Emphasis On The “Pseudo”:

There’s a reason I keep attaching “pseudo-” to the feminism I critique.  Because let’s be honest, folks: Feminism as such is fully compatible with Conservatism—at least, the basic tenets and principles of Feminism as constantly explained to us.  (“Woman-splained”…?)

Women being allowed to seek out any career they like?  Absolutely—to the Right, “the free market” actually means something.

Allowing said women to rise up the ranks (and the pay grades) as far as their respective skills and ambitions will carry them?  Absolutely—that’s the meritocracy of Capitalism.  And free competition, as has been explained to death by others more capable than me, cancels out any sexist “pay gap”.  Except in Washington and maybe Hollywood…when the bosses are Democrats.  But I digress.

Legal protection from, and restitution for, getting harmed by others, sexually or otherwise?  Darn right—“equal protection under the law.”

To paraphrase Ghandi, we Conservatives are perfectly fine with true, actual, honest Feminism.  It’s feminists we can’t stand—the pseudo-feminists who don’t practice what they preach, who seek to emasculate men while guilting women into choosing certain career paths while shunning others.

And the film makes it a point to emphasize the value of true feminists, and how such women can’t stand the hypocrisy.  Aside from Ms. Alvarez calling Meredith out point-by-point, there’s also a golden scene where a female co-worker makes it a point to tell Tom she supports his side of the story—and why:

“I studied engineering for eight years.  I was the only woman in that department.  You know what I did?  I worked.  You think I’m on Meredith’s side?”

In The End:

Certain critics blasted Disclosure when it came out, for “sexism”—for “anti-feminism”.  But as I’ve laid out, that is clearly not the case, except for those who’ve fallen prey to the pseudo-feminist matriarchy.

To the contrary—through the character of Ms. Alvarez in particular, it holds feminists’ feet to the proverbial fire, demanding that whenever they proclaim “equality”, in the workforce and under the law…they’d better darn well mean it.

And of course…there’s Stephanie Kaplan, the high-ranking executive who, while seeming for most of the film to be strictly neutral on the whole affair…turns out to be Tom’s greatest ally within the company.  In the end, she gets the VP job Tom was eager for in the beginning.  But Tom’s good with that.

He’s learned some lessons, too.

For Bonus Points:

CEO Bob Garvin’s set up as a major virtue-signaler, with his announcement appointing Meredith to the VP slot.  He talks about specifically breaking a glass ceiling, for the sake of it.  Make of that what you will.

In the vital scene in Meredith’s office, that fateful night, she belittles the idea of domesticity—frankly dismissing Tom’s wife and family.  Such is pseudo-feminism, dismissing marriage and family as a legitimate career for a woman.

For Tom’s part, after telling his wife about the situation, he snaps and goes on about the societal suspicions against The Evil White Patriarchal Male.

During the first hearing, an exchange between Meredith’s lawyer and Tom brings up, in effect, “locker-room talk”.  Meaningfully, Tom is shown as in the right on this one, but the lawyer behaves as though it’s more proof of Tom’s guilt.

Finally, Ms. Alvarez notes to Tom’s wife that she’s married—to her boss at her firm.  And as she puts it:

“Classic case of ‘sexual harassment’—he asked me out five times before I said ‘yes’.  Today, if I would’ve said ‘no’ once, he would’ve been afraid to ask again.

WHY IT’S A GREAT FILM:

Barry Levinson’s one of those great filmmakers, like Howard Hawks, you’ve probably never heard of.  Those “in the know” recognize him rather easily, but his “name brand” isn’t quite on the level of Ron Howard or Zack Snyder…let alone Spielberg or Nolan.

Still, you probably know some of his biggest hits—Rain Man, Wag The Dog, Diner, and Good Morning, Vietnam!

He’s also a screenwriter—his casual style of dialogue at times compared to Quentin Tarantino’s (or vice-versa, as Barry came first).  He didn’t write this one.  Maybe it would’ve helped a little, as the film’s opening admittedly has some forced lines, to “establish” some things—including the ever-cringeworthy trope of a character repeating what the person over the phone’s just said to them.

Still, that’s an all-too-common “Cinema-Sin”, in movies.  We more-or-less know to shrug it off, I guess.  Besides, that “sin”—along with a couple of contrivances, later on—far from overshadows the great qualities of Disclosure.

Noir!

As you probably know by now, I deeply love Film Noir.  And anything that reminds me of that classic style earns points in my book.

The classic kind of Film Noir—the First Wave of the ‘40s and ‘50s—essentially died out when people really became conscious of exactly what this was.  See, at the time, it wasn’t a deliberate “style”, with a specific name—it was just, “This is how crime films are made, nowadays.”  But when the French pointed out the unique patterns in these things, laying out exactly what Noir was…well, something changed.

Now, the style became “conscious”—people deliberately invoking the air-and-feel.  That’s what we call “neo-Noir”—the Second Wave.

While deliberately invoking the classic Noir idea, what makes a neo-Noir, essentially, is the experimentation—delivering the goods, but in more “modern” ways.  You may get a jazzy score (to my endless delight)…but rarely do neo-noirs have fedoras and old-time Packards.  There are period pieces (Chinatown, L.A. Confidential, The Black Dahlia)…but most of the time, we get a modern setting—and modern problems along with it.

In Disclosure’s case, there’s no murder, or heist (per se).  Beyond the near-rape and harassment fraud, the “crimes” involve corporate intrigue and maneuverings—and ultimately, the possibilities of technological innovation.  (This was a Michael Crichton novel, after all.)

Overlapping with neo-Noir is the Erotic Thriller—the kind of film, like Disclosure, that’s frankly all about a femme fatale, or her male counterpart, doing her/his “thing”**.  It isn’t always “super-sexy”, per se—Disclosure’s got the one scene, and that’s pretty much it.  Still…

From the moment Demi Moore’s leg fills the shot—the film’s introduction to one Meredith Johnson…we know darn well what sort of film we’re getting.  And we love it.

Michael Douglas as Tom Sanders:

Poor Michael Douglas!  First Fatal Attraction, then Basic Instinct, and now Disclosure—why all this trouble with women, Mike?!  When they’re not trying to kill him, they’re trying to sue and humiliate him.  What’s a fella to do?

Well, he plays it well.  Everyone knows Douglas as that charismatic, clever, cold-hearted raider Gordon Gekko…but there’s a vulnerable everyman side to him too, and when he lets it out, even that frankly nasal, “snarky” voice doesn’t change that.  When Tom hears a “rumor” that he might be out of a job (and this is before Meredith’s in the picture)…we feel his sense of loss.  And we feel for him.

The character’s a loving family man, and we somehow believe it…and we also believe his brief spurts of “bad boy”, just as readily.  After all, this is Michael Douglas.

“I can’t do this.”

We see there’s something boyish about him—excitable, something that doesn’t allow him to suppress what he’s feeling.  He’s intense—and yet there’s something so slick about it, as only Michael Douglas can give us.

Maybe it’s the voice.  Nasal, yet “cool”, somehow…confident.  Maybe that’s what makes the situation so effective—after all, if even Gordon Gekko can feel threatened by all this…brother, we’re so dead.

Demi Moore as Meredith Johnson:

There’s something about the fact that it’s Demi Moore in particular, playing this cruel and sadistic femme fatale.  I think perhaps it’s the eyes.

See, Demi’s certainly great at playing “tough”—or “aggressive”, if you like:

“I am a sexually aggressive woman.  I like it.”

And we believe it.  She voiced the unforgettably confident Esmerelda in Disney’s epic and powerful take on The Hunchback of Notre Dame.  And of course, she was Ridley Scott’s G.I. Jane.

She can be tough.  Real tough.

But at the same time…there’s something vulnerable about her face.  Something sweet, and “soft”.  Almost…innocent.  Not nearly as overt as, say, Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan in their heydays—or the angelic Amy Adams, today.  But Demi gives such a subtext of vulnerability, in spades.

That’s what makes Demi such an effective femme.  It reminds me of Jane Greer in that classic Noir Out Of The Past—no matter how many times she double-crosses Robert Mitchum, one look at her wide, moistening eyes as she pleads she did have a good reason, and…“Baby, I don’t care….”

Here, it doesn’t quite go that far.  We know darn well Meredith’s playing everyone in the company, and we’re with Tom every step of the way.  But those vulnerable eyes and that voice…!

Well, amid everything, we can fully understand why everyone else falls for her lies.

Besides, that conviction in that speech of hers!  Out of context, it’s a real “You go, girl!”

(With that in mind, just imagine Julia or Meg or Amy playing a Meredith-like villainess!  Absolutely…terrifying.  But I digress.)

Demi’s last major role happened three years after Disclosure—the aforementioned GI Jane.  Since then, she’s dialed things back, with supporting roles in various things.

Shame, really.  We could’ve used some more ‘90s stars sticking around….

More About The Cast:

Donald Sutherland plays Bob Garvin—the calculating CEO who’s perfectly willing to tug Tom around like a puppet, Meredith or no Meredith.  And we wonder just what his game is…and just how much of a villain he really is.  Or is he as much a sap of Meredith as everyone else?

None other than Dennis Miller—one of the few openly-Conservative big-name comedians out there—plays Mark, a member of Tom’s inner circle at the office.  And he’s at his snarky best.

Veteran actress Rosemary Forsyth plays Stephanie Kaplan—and we see a cool head and the constant air that she may or may not know more than she’s letting on….

The rest of the cast isn’t anyone we’d know—but they all do their part, and three in particular do it well.

Roma Maffia plays Catherine Alvarez—tough, solid, devoted to what she does, and passionate to cut through the fraud.

Dylan Baker plays Phi Blackburn, the company hatchet-man—instilling him with slimy shadiness expected of such a role.

Pat Asanti plays John Levin, a friend of Tom’s who’s been laid off from his job.  With what little screen time he has, he perfectly captures our sympathy.  And it’s a nice touch that he provides the key to bailing Tom out of Meredith’s trap.

The Twists:

Throughout the film—and even before Meredith shows up—there’s a curious focus on the tech the company’s developing, and complications therein.  We don’t give it much thought—we’re sure it’s padding.  Besides, we’re here for the harassment case.

And then Tom wins.  We think it’s all over.  And then…Meredith has a quick moment with Phil—revealed to be her accomplice:

“You know, I almost feel sorry for him.  He has no idea, does he?”

Well, in the meantime, Tom can’t shake the feeling that there’s more to this.  It may be because “A Friend” keeps pushing him to “solve the problem”.

And then he finds out that there’s a plot behind all this—to make him a scapegoat for “incompetence”.  As it turns out, that virtual reality technology we saw being tested earlier has a payoff—one that makes a bad situation worse.

But there’s more payoff, to come.  And of all things, it involves a friend he’s been getting some Disneyland tickets for.

It all leads to a truly rewarding resolution—where it’s Meredith that’s broken, and humiliated.  Tom’s triumphant.  With a little help from “A Friend”.

By The Way…

There’s a common trend in legal thrillers and dramas, where the lawyers ask leading questions, and it’s treated as perfectly fine.  Alas, this film is no exception.  But then, Michael Crichton wasn’t a lawyer.

Speaking of Crichton, we all know him for his masterwork Jurassic Park—which, of course, became the classic Spielberg film.  Charlton Heston once called Rush to read an excerpt from the book on The Godfather’s show.  It’s a lecture that Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum’s character) gives to John Hammond about how man is incapable of “destroying the planet”—because, after all, “Life will find a way.”

Crichton later expanded that idea in State Of Fear, the story of which is centered on the notion that Global Warming, aka “Climate Change”, is a hoax.

No one’s made a movie based on that one, yet.

 

*(Frankly, that’s been a “problem” since the ‘70s—and was arguably worse in some ways, back then.  Certain “R” rated films at the time had male full frontal nudity, for example.)

**(A case could be made that all Erotic Thrillers are neo-Noirs, but it’s not so iron-tight.  Many of them are more “cheap” exploitation flicks than anything else.  But then, even Noir itself isn’t so clear-cut on exactly where its “borders” should be drawn.)

 

Buy the movie here.   And stay film-friendly, my friends.

 

THE SERIES SO FAR:

Rio Bravo (1959)

Man of Steel (2013)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Fight Club (1999)

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Jackie Brown (1997)

Shaft (1971)

Apocalypse Now (1979/2001)

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Dirty Harry (1971)

Magnum Force (1973)

The Enforcer (1976)

Bridge Of Spies (2015)

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice ULTIMATE EDITION (2016)

 

Any recommendations for films to make this series?  Read the rules, here, and let us know!

Eric Blake

Eric Blake

Team Writer at Western Free Press
Eric M. Blake is a recent graduate of the University of South Florida, with a Bachelor's in Political Science and a Master's in Film Studies.  As that implies, he is very passionate about political theory and filmmaking--and the connections between the two.  Inspired by Andrew Breitbart's axiom that "Politics is downstream from culture", he is deeply fascinated by the great influence that popular culture has on public opinion, and is a firm believer in the power of storytelling.  He proudly owns his second copy of Ben Shapiro's Primetime Propaganda...his first copy having been worn out though intense re-reading.

Eric was raised by Conservative Christian parents, but first became especially passionate about politics in high school, through reading up on economic theory.  He also first read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged around this time, for the ARI's essay contests.  He now owns a great deal of Ayn Rand's work.  Also included in his library are the collected works of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, etc.

Eric is no stranger to writing commentary, as the writer of the Conservative Considerations column on CampCampaign.com, and as a film critic and commentator on FlickRev.com.  He has also carried on the Conservative tradition of talk radio commentary, as the host of "Avengers of America" for the USF student radio station, Bulls Radio.  In the meantime, he is practicing what he preaches: Striving to enter the professional realm of Hollywood, he has already written and directed short films for the Campus MovieFest, which can be found on his YouTube channel, Hard Boiled Entertainment.
Eric Blake

Leave a comment

The Greatest Conservative Films: Disclosure (1994)