Guardian Stupidity: David Mamet's Rightward Drift Precludes Him from Appreciating the Rich Gray Nuances of Moral Ambiguity, so That's Why I Hate Him and He Should Die In a Fire

It's not that leftists are stupid per se. They're self-stupid, so absurdly lacking in self-awareness, self-criticism, or a sense of ego-puncturing irony as to be diagnosable retards in this area of cognitive development.

As they say: A gallon of irony spilled and not a drop splashed on The Guardian.

So, Mamet, having drifted rightward, can no longer write "morally ambiguous" scripts like Glengarry Glen Ross.

He's lost the ability, you see, to craft highly nuanced films such as produced by Michael Moore, Al Gore, or Robert Redford.

And he's lost this ability, it is feared, because he... changed his political beliefs. Thus becoming Lawful Evil as opposed to the Guardian's preferred alignment of Chaotic Good.

Well, there's some rich moral ambiguity on display right there, huh?

Incidentally, Glengarry Glen Ross is not morally ambiguous. It is morally bleak. It is a moral wasteland swept clean of any life by constant storm and drought.

There is not a single appealing or noble character in the film. One can argue that Shelly Levine is somewhat selfless, but he's not, not entirely, and further he's as pathetic and morally cretinous as the rest of them. Ricky Roma at first seems to be, at least, a normal human being, but that's entirely because he's just making a lot of money at the moment and so can afford to seem, outwardly, human. When push comes to shove, he'll screw over anyone to make his commission, too.

This isn't a major point, but morally ambiguous has a meaning. Juno is morally ambiguous. Glengarry Gleln Ross is morally quite clear: we're all monsters, or at least are capable of becoming monsters when under stress or when offered some nice leads and a Cadillac. There is little "ambiguity" about the moral universe described by GGR.

I have trouble recalling a single action taken in GGR that was "morally ambiguous." I'm pretty sure almost every single action and word was bad. No one, as far as I know, ever asks himself "What Would Ed Moss Do?"

Shouldn't a highly-nuanced art-beat writer at a pretentious British paper know the proper words for things?

Or is that just the nit-picking of a stupid troglodytic right-winger who can't appreciate films more complex or morally dark than Larry the Cable Guy?

Wait... Did this moron think GGR was "morally ambiguous" because it had some revolutionary message in it? Robbing the real estate office was striking a blow against the capitalist oppressors?

I have a feeling he might have.

In which case: Dude. Talk about tainting every goddamned work of art with a kneejerk political reading. I'm fairly confident that GGR was not written as a metaphor for Marxist direct action.

What an imbecile. Feeeeeel the nuance, baby.

posted by Ace at 02:56 PM

| Access Comments