For the patient handful that guessed at the author and films behind this statement...
Mr. President, in order that these incredible reviews may be seen in their full perversity, I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
...it's time for the big reveal. In truth, it was difficult to excerpt something provocative yet anonymous enough not to give the game away.
But, first, a little back story. On June 20, 1968, the New York Times published critic Renata Adler's review of the John Wayne movie The Green Berets. Here's the lede:
"THE GREEN BERETS" is a film so unspeakable, so stupid, so rotten and false in every detail that it passes through being fun, through being funny, through being camp, through everything and becomes an invitation to grieve, not for our soldiers or for Vietnam (the film could not be more false or do a greater disservice to either of them) but for what has happened to the fantasy-making apparatus in this country. Simplicities of the right, simplicities of the left, but this one is beyond the possible. It is vile and insane. On top of that, it is dull.
A mere six days later, on June 26, 1968, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) made a statement from the senate floor, essentially denouncing Adler and her review. It begins
Mr President: This afternoon the Town Theatre will present the Washington premiere of a new film called "The Green Berets." I have not yet had the opportunity to see this movie, but I am extremely anxious to do so. This is not only the first major studio movie about the Vietnam War, but also it portrays our American heroes in action. But if my admiration for John Wayne were not enough to make me want to see the movie, I became convinced that this must be one of the finest and most admirable movies of our generation, after reading the review which appeared last week in The New York Times when the movie opened there. The first paragraph of this review was enough to convince anyone that this was a good movie. Please listen carefully to what The New York Times reviewer had to say.
[He then reads the graf reproduced above.]
That last sentence is the tip-off since I find it hard to believe that John Wayne could ever be dull. But it did set me to wondering what on earth the standards of criticism are that are current in The New York Times that a film which is patriotic and pro-American should receive such treatment.
I got a small clue about The New York Times' standards when looking back over recent reviews on the entertainment page in The New York Times. I came across a review that begins in ecstatic terms of admiration. This is the review of the recent Broadway musical entitled "Hair."
[Read Clive Barnes' review here.]
So here we have a review that starts out just the opposite of the review of "The Green Berets." Whereas "The Green Berets" is unspeakable, stupid, rotten, false, vile and insane, "Hair" is likeable, new, fresh, unassuming.
<snip>
I think now we have a clear picture of the standards of criticism used by The New York Times reviewers. If The New York Times says a film is unspeakable, etc., it must be pretty good. And if The New York Times says a film about depravity is fresh and likeable, we know well enough to avoid it.
Mr. President, there is something utterly perverted with our society's standards of art and entertainment if these examples from The New York Times in any way actually reflect the temper of our time. We have come to the point described by Orwell in 1984, where he talks about newspeak. In newspeak, words are used to mean the opposite of the commonly accepted meaning. Love means hate, peace means war, and so forth. We are now at the point where depravity is fresh and likeable, whereas virtue is apparently false and insane. Despite the ecstatic review of "Hair" by The Times, I confess that I have no desire whatsoever to see it. Despite the incredible blast by The Times at "The Green Berets," I am eager to see the film. I trust John Wayne's judgment more that I would trust that of The Times movie critic.
Zing! The final paragraph was what you read last week.
So there you have it, kids: Strom Thurmond: cultural arbiter, close reader, reviewer denouncer. Tony, Manohla, Stephen--when you're stuck, ask yourself "What would Renata do?" and, you know, let the sunshine in.
The rest is silence.
[Cue reprise of "Flesh Failures (Let the Sunshine In)" and fade to black.]
