As a daily reader of Powerline, I am sometimes amazed at the shear level of willful ignorance which is perpetuated at times. At times, Powerline does bring a good (read: different) perspective on the world. However, in Hinderaker's latest foray into film has me completely baffled and amazed at the same time.
Warning: possible spoilers or plot details for the film North Country to follow
Firstly, without even watching the film North Country and forming an opinion based on his own interpretations he not only dismissed the movie based on what he presumed to be liberal bias, Hinderaker went a step further in making a 300 plus word review on his web page denouncing the film as being a product of liberal Hollywood, part of his justification was of course the shifted timeline to coincide with Anita Hill.
Secondly, with blatant (although, not unusual for Hinderaker) disregard to the facts he made the allegation that the sole purpose of the timeline being shifted was to coincide with the then confirmation hearings of Thomas and the corresponding Anita Hill testimony. His claim for this timeline shift is to set up a parallel with current events since the Supreme Court is in the news. Here Hinderaker's argument is on shaky grounds. Had Hinderaker taken the few minutes to do a Google search he would have found out, the same as I did, that the film North Country began principle filming in February of 05 and details of the Screenplay can be found as far back as mid-2004. While, it's true Screenplays often change, Hinderaker's theory revolves around the timeline. Possibly, he could make the argument that the Supreme Court is always an issue or that he didn't specify a time, however, he would need to prove why his timeframe in particular is so important and he would need to explain why he was trying to mislead his audience into thinking he was talking about today's events.
Hinderaker's post is amazing on several levels. While watching the movie I noticed at least two major conservative themes throughout the movie. One is abortion, there is an oblique but very clear reference to abortion by Theron's character and there is a direct reference to adoption; I would consider both of these comments to be conservative friendly. If this truly is such a liberal film as Hinderaker claims, these two lines could have been left out of the movie without compromising the films integrity. Two, is this theme of family, family unity, and family values. The film can not go more then five minutes without making some sort of commentary about family values to the point where it can seem a little overwhelming to the viewer. Some examples are at the union hall meeting where the protagonists father lectured the other union workers on ungentlemanly behavior (he refers to it as "unspeakables") while they would normally be gentlemen (my words) at the company picnic with their wives; when the mother of the protagonist leaves the father in a statement about "family"; when the mother says "you're never to young for God" the only verbal reference to God but extremely direct and clearly was a point of the writer. Those few examples are just a small sampling among many.
Very briefly, to wrap this thing up: The reason I believe the timeline was shifted was to make a parallel with themes that people knew and where aware of. A major theme, if not the overriding theme of the movie, is "those who have power and those who don't". One of the final lines of the movie by Harrelson's character nailed it. Also, a quick examination of the character relationships will show this also. If you think about it this theme is a libertarian issue if it could be categorized anywhere. The film is not advocating Equal Opportunity but rather equal rights.
Overall, I didn't think the movie was monumental or ground breaking in any way. It probably is Oscar bait. I preferred Wallace & Grommet myself.
Every few months we see a post by one of the extremists bewildered why there are so few in academe who are conservative. One thing academics, in general, share universally is the exploration of knowledge. When individuals like Hinderaker and other leaders of the conservative movement claim X when clearly X is wrong it damages their argument and turns people off. Granted, I believe there is some good information coming from the conservative movement, but, if he gets it totally wrong on something easy like a film, how can we expect him to get it right on more complex issues? This coming from a person who reads Powerline daily.
Edit- added links
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012028.php
http://www.compleatseanbean.com/classaction-press13.html
http://www.compleatseanbean.com/classaction.html