Barry Lane

I read Paul Mavis's DVD review of Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=29287 and...really insightful, fine writing. It's greatly appreciated.

GeorgeP

Fine writing? Yes.

Insightful? No.

As a native Arizonan, Mr. Mavis may dismiss my contrarian views to his if he wishes. I normally respect his DVD reviews and look forward to them, tailoring my DVD purchases and rentals to his critiques.

However, I think he missed the entire point of "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater," and I don't agree at all with his assessment that "the average viewer will no doubt skip" this portrait.

And considering that Mr. Mavis' review of the film's content is entirely based on that erroneous judgment of the film's goal, I flatly disagree with his foregone conclusion and heartily urge the average viewer to give this intimate portrait of Goldwater at least a rental.

I feel that the film's goal was not to re-cast Barry Goldwater as a closet liberal, but merely to set off the REAL Goldwater from the skewed public perception of him as a war hawk conservative. The film is not at all perfect--Al Franken's inclusion is a notable misfire--but it is much more worthwhile than the review would suggest.

This leads to repeated assumptions and suppositions about the intentions of the filmmakers which are wildly off-base and come dangerously close to exposing a possible bias of the reviewer.

"Goldwater, never afraid to speak his mind (which is about the last thing you should do in a presidential campaign if you want to win),"

An honest politician! Gads, what a concept! Could it be that perhaps Sen. Goldwater respected his voters enough not to lie to them, regardless of political campaign considerations?

"It's not surprising that such an attempt would be made in today's political atmosphere, with a looming presidential election where candidates on both sides seek to redefine themselves and their perceived ideologies, to maximize their electability."

Mr. Mavis is hopefully aware that Barry Goldwater has been dead for nine years and therefore poses no threat to run for political office.

"The very fact that the producers of the film felt the need to have that ridiculously skewed ratio of liberals to conservatives define Goldwater's legacy pretty much throws out any semblance of fairness the film may have claimed, while clearly indicating the biased intention of the filmmakers."

It is ironic that several of his political views might be considered by some as 'liberal' now, but that portrayal is merely part of a more holistic portrait of a man from a family member--which would explain why CC Goldwater seemed "selective" and "biased" to Mr. Mavis. Of course she's biased, she's his granddaughter!

This film is not posited as a documentary, nor as a political polemic. It makes no claim on being "fair." Therefore it can be as biased and selective in its portrayal of Goldwater as "Walk the Line" or "Ray" were. Perhaps Mr. Mavis would have received "Mr. Conservative" more warmly if it had been made as a Hollywood biopic?

"What the film doesn't do is make the case strongly enough, that Goldwater's positions on these issues were largely ones of constitutionality."

Again, for reasons cited above, it doesn't have to. This is CC Goldwater's project, not the work of some cinema-verite' professional filmmaker or journalist.

"Goldwater's political views could be summed up first, last and everything in-between as: hands off, government."

Wrong and contradictory. Considering Barry Goldwater's justified reputation as a presidential candidate who would escalate America's military presence in Vietnam, the above is an extreme generalization which is a gross distortion of the late senator's approach to politics.

"Knowing that, how can anyone watching Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater rationalize that long, long list of liberals speaking on behalf of Goldwater?"

Perhaps that Goldwater's views and/or accomplishments are respected on both sides of the fence? Think about it.

"There's no question that Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater has its own political agenda."

Oh, yes there is. Substantiate, please.

"However, the film's notion that somehow the conservatism of Goldwater was in any way better or more acceptable to today's liberals, is frankly nonsense."

That may be a notion of one or more of the participants interviewed (the Hillary Clinton interview comes to mind), but frankly, to construe this as a notion on the part of the filmmakers is, in my humble opinion, nonsense.

"Indeed, the film says nothing about Goldwater's conservative political efforts in his own state. If the filmmakers' (sic) had, their central thesis that Goldwater was a closet liberal would go right down the tubes."

I am curious as to how Mr. Mavis accomplished so many leaps of logic here as to come to such a conclusion. These points go unsubstantiated, though.

"CC Goldwater states at the beginning of the film that she wanted to understand why he gradually drifted away from the family. If true, I would think that was obvious to most viewers without explanation: being a leading United States Senator can be a time-consuming job, and as anyone knows who has climbed to the top of his or her profession, it takes a tremendous amount of work to get there, with families often suffering as a result."

And yet there are countless biographies, biopics and miniseries devoted to explanations of the private lives of political figures. Why, if such lives are "obvious to most viewers without explanation"? Obviously, there is SOME audience out there who wants such details explained to them.

"Listening to the Goldwater children discuss their supposedly distant dad, I have to admit that he didn't sound all that bad to me, quite frankly. I would suggest the Goldwater kids email me, and I can personally give them the low-down on what might constitute a truly "distant" father (and that's putting it kindly)."

I will be polite here and simply state that Mr. Mavis' personal opinion of the Goldwaters' family life as it relates to his own is irrelevant to any objective review of the film. I cannot speak for Mr. Mavis' state of mind or mood when formulating this review, but judging from the above paragraph, he took the film far more personally than he should have.

There are times when critics allow their perceptions of a film's politics to inflame them and cloud their judgment--to the point that they can't accept that a film may have no political intentions whatsoever, and merely be an intimate portrait of a political figure. This review was such an instance to me.

Paul Mavis

You state this, and yet later at the bottom, you state that there was a real threat of escalation in the Vietnam war, had he become President, so I'm confused there.

I think if you read the review more carefully, you'll see that I don't express an opinion one way or the other concerning Mr. Goldwater's politics. I'm merely discussing the filmmaker's intentions, as I should, considering the nature of the documentary. The DVD box clearly indicates this film is meant to convey how "far" conservatism has gone in the last 40 years; this may be about Goldwater, but it's meant to be a comment on today's times, too. And as such, its aims are fair game in my review.

I'm not sure what your point is, when answering that statement I made. No one argues that Goldwater didn't speak his mind. In fact, they all mention that he shouldn't have so often, and that's probably why he couldn't get elected in a general Presidential election. My above statement has nothing to do with Goldwater himself; it merely states the obvious in this country, unfortunately, that Presidential candidates aren't at liberty to really speak their minds, for fear of losing votes. It's regrettable, but that's politics. So again, I'm not sure why you're upset with my comment; it's not about Goldwater's worth or integrity.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than to throw out a not-so-subtle snide comment. My statement above merely points out that there's a Presidential election coming up -- some would say one that really started back in 2000, and is only now coming to fruition -- and that both sides wish to present themselves outside of their preconceived notions. And this documentary is trying to do the same thing to Goldwater: reclaim him as a liberal, to further discredit what is known as "conservative" today. So, again, I'm not sure why you think I was stating that Goldwater was running for office. That would be fairly silly on my part, don't you think?

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. The producers of the film did intend a biographical look at Goldwater, seen through the eyes of his granddaughter -- who was the co-producer of the film -- and through various interviewees, which she no doubt had a hand in selecting. The people they selected were overwhelmingly left-of-center liberals. I'm not the only critic to notice this deliberately lop-sided selection, and to question its intent.

Actually, it should, if it was willing to be fair in making its case that Goldwater was really a liberal in disguise. The fact that the film doesn't really address that issue clearly, again shows the producers intended a biased film. You say that's CC's right as his granddaughter. Fine; I agree. It's also my right as a critic to point it out to the reader, which you agreed with at the top of your response. You said you often base your viewing habits on my reviews -- well, I must be saying something you find valuable, and most if not all of my reviews have opinions in them.

The film itself, which you defend, states this clearly: Goldwater was a libertarian conservative, who wanted government out of people's lives. That's a fairly standard and accepted reading on Goldwater across the board, so I don't know what you mean when you say, "Wrong and contradictory." As for Vietnam, as I stated above, you originally said the point of the film was to change the picture of Goldwater as a military hawk. Now you say there was indeed a threat had he been elected, so again, I'm confused by what you're trying to say.

I would very much like to have thought about it, had I heard more than three conservatives echo that in the film. Instead, all I heard were left-of-center liberals state what a great guy Goldwater was -- something that everybody who knew him would state as fact -- but I didn't hear one single interviewee state that they admired his political views, because the film never really delved into that contradiction for the liberal interviewees. So again, I'm not sure what you're getting at, when you say his views were respected on both sides. They most certainly weren't, nor would they be today (again, as I stated in my review, look at conservative candidates running for President today, who share some of Goldwater's more "liberal" viewpoints -- they get no sympathy from Democrats or the mainstream press), but the film dodges that sticky posit in favor of generalizations.

I think I did, very clearly in the review; I just don't think you like hearing it. The back of the DVD cover says it all: the point of the film is to point out:
"Goldwater's support of issues like abortion and gay rights were diametrically opposed to those of the 'new conservative' leadership, underscoring the distance the country has traveled in the last 40 years...."

Having pointed that out -- which, as I argue in the review, is hardly conclusive evidence that Goldwater was a liberal, the film tries to hammer home this point by having an overwhelming number of left-of-center liberals declare Goldwater as one of their own -- Walter Cronkite even flat-out contends such is the case. The producers of the film aren't kites in the wind; they choose whom they choose to be in the film for effect; they overwhelmingly chose liberals. It's clear what their intention was.

Again, you seem to think that the filmmakers are somehow separated from the people interviewed in the film. They chose them to be in the film. And they did so overwhelmingly to favor one viewpoint -- and it's not just Hillary Rodham Clinton's. Film isn't just random; it's shaped by its makers.

Again, I'm confused by your logic (although I appreciate pointing out my typo; I'll fix that!). The film says nothing about Goldwater's politics in his own state; it merely focuses on the 1964 Presidential election, posing him as a maverick who frightened the liberal media, and as the supporter -- late in his last term, when he didn't have to face voters, don't forget -- of two issues that liberals claim as their own. If the film had given a more rounded view of Goldwater's political beliefs, the left-of-center liberals wouldn't have been so comfortable saying what a great guy he was.

Of course there is, and it's a pity that the film didn't really do justice to examine Goldwater's private life -- it certainly would have been more successful had it done so, rather than trying to prove its ridiculous theory that Goldwater was a closet liberal. Instead, we're presented with two of Goldwater's children, saying he was distant, and then giving evidence that maybe he wasn't, both contradicting themselves. The film, right at the front, states this is going to be a main concern of CC's: the film, however, doesn't really explore it at all.

Come on, George -- you know you don't really want to be polite here! Just joking, George. Actually, I didn't take the film personally at all; it's a rather cold film, which doesn't do justice to really looking at Goldwater. As for my personal comment, I think it's valid. The producers set up Goldwater as some kind of distant guy, baiting the viewer with promised revelations that will prove that. The next thing you know, the viewer is hearing two children of privilege, speaking about a father who didn't sound all that bad, actually. In fact, even by their own words, he came off as a dad who was busy at his work, yet still found time to camp with them, film all their birthdays and anniversaries, and appeared to be there for them even in their darkest hour -- tellingly, even after they had forgotten he had been there for them (the letter that his daughter forgot Goldwater wrote to her, supporting her during her decision to have an abortion). Since the point of the filmmakers was to bait the audience with revelations that Goldwater was "distant" and that maybe he didn't hug his kids enough -- certainly a trait not unknown to many fathers from that time period -- and then provides contradictory and largely unconvincing evidence to support that theory, it's valid for me to point it out. And I would suspect quite a few viewers out there with less-than-stellar fathers in their lives, might look upon the Goldwater children as not really knowing what a "distant" father truly is -- or even a worse kind of father.

Well, of course, my job as a reviewer is to gauge the point of a film. I can assure you, George, that my judgment wasn't "clouded" by anything in the film -- it's not that good a piece of propaganda. Any documentary that seeks to reinvent a political figure into a 180 degreee turnabout of his known and accepted political bent, has a political agenda. And all anyone has to do to understand that, is look at the list of people speaking in this film. One of the country's foremost conservative thinkers is discussed and analyzed and judged to be a liberal by a host of left-of-center liberals.

George, I appreciate you reading my reviews, and I'm glad you enjoy them -- for the most part! I hope you won't let my review for Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater keep you from reading more of my reviews.

Paul

GeorgeP

Mr. Mavis, first of all, I thank you for your in-depth and prompt response. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of a film, but normally it is substantiated with direct filmic evidence or, at the very least, reasonable interpretations of the content.

I found that not at all to be the case here, and therefore we'll have to agree to disagree. You continue to push the film as a political venture and refuse to even entertain the notion of the film being a personal portrait of a political figure, merely repeating, "Sorry, I fail to understand your logic."

I read the review very carefully--I wouldn't waste my time on a twenty-paragraph response otherwise. What the film sets out to do is state that there was MORE to Goldwater than that. Much more. And it's true.

My grandparents knew Barry Goldwater personally. I went to his funeral. And I have liberal and conservative friends alike who appreciated Mr. Conservative for what it was and saw no political aspirations in it.

The portrait of Barry Goldwater in Mr. Conservative is accurate and consistent with who he was as a public and private figure in Arizona.

Nobody's saying you shouldn't. Just keep an open mind and don't jump to conclusions about their intentions is all. Not having had a chance to view the DVD box, I am unclear as to what is on it.

But if indeed the film is conveying how "far" conservatism has gone in the last 40 years, then it is wretched marketing which completely misrepresents CC Goldwater's intentions IMHO. Certainly it was NOT how the film was marketed on HBO at all.

I saw no comment on the politics of today in the film--merely the respect for a bygone politician's ideas which many of those politically involved would like to express, but can't. But maybe that's just my reading.

That may be the political reality now, but it wasn't then. There was no reason to believe that a man who spoke his mind couldn't attain the highest office in the land, as Eisenhower and Kennedy both were allowed a degree of candor in their public pronouncements which would be inconceivable today.

Your pronouncement in the review makes the mistake of assuming what we know now should have been known then. This is what I took issue with--not what I was "upset" about. Don't confuse passion about a topic with anger, like you did here:

Not being snide at all. The notion that the filmmakers were out to "redefine" Goldwater and his perceived ideology in order to maximize his electability is the silly one, IMHO--since he has passed on--and yet this is the one that is advanced in your review.

I can understand how you might feel that the film was politically motivated, but I think you'll find if you view the film again and look at what content bookended the story, you'll understand that this portrait of Goldwater has no contemporary political agenda.

Now it is my turn not to understand your logic. There is a presidential election coming up, which "some would say really started back in 2000, but is only now coming to fruition"? You're attempting to make a connection between the '08 presidential election and the 2000 election which is muddled.

So which is it? You state earlier that the intentions of the filmmakers were to show how "far" conservatism has come in the last 40 years, and yet here you state that conservatism today is being "discredited" in this film. Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?

The only one I've read so far. Care to provide a link?

I'm not sure how you define "overwhelmingly left-of-center liberal," but that label certainly doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton, as 'moderate' a liberal as is active in contemporary American politics. Nor to Walter Cronkite, Bob Schieffer, Helen Thomas, Ben Bradlee or Andy Rooney.

Unless being a member of the national press is enough to qualify one as 'overwhelmingly left-of-center', perhaps? Even Al Franken is a joke who isn't taken seriously by anyone who doesn't listen to Air America religiously.

I don't want to get into a debate over a person's politics anyway, because it is irrelevant to what we're talking about.

"In disguise"? All the film presented was that he had ideas about government which would be considered 'liberal' today. How you make the stretch from that modest intention to an allegation that the film was calling Goldwater a liberal masquerading as a conservative, I have no idea. Frankly, the very notion is ridiculous.

In a film which is a PERSONAL portrait of a man from his granddaughter's point of view, why should she feel any obligation to explain Goldwater's politics were based on "constitutionality"?

First of all, CC Goldwater is not in the least bit qualified to put forth such an assertion (and she knows that), second of all, it would grind the narrative flow of the film to a halt, and thirdly, you start introducing such explanations, and Mr. Conservative goes from HBO to local PBS. And then I start clicking the remote.

Nobody I knew who watched the film honestly cared whether it was "biased and selective" or not. Because of who has authored the project, the film would be so by its very nature. So was JFK. Yet those factors didn't make the film any less compelling or watchable, did they?

I'm saying that "hands off, government" was in no way, shape or form the summation of Goldwater's political views "first, last and everything in-between." If it was, he would not have been in favor of increased military spending to bring more troops into Vietnam and escalate the arms race. Really, a surprisingly unfair oversimplification there.

Again, the film didn't address such a "contradiction" because it really wasn't concerned with it. That wasn't the focus, that wasn't the intention of the filmmakers.

I think that's where we see the film differently, and that's understandable. It's too bad that a behind-the-scenes doc wasn't included with this DVD that would resolve this. I'd be interested to know how the interview subjects were chosen, or if they simply came forward and expressed their interest in being involved with the project.

A great, GREAT documentary could be made about that, but it would probably last six hours.

Talk about generalizations! Wow.

Some candidates do share some of Goldwater's more "liberal" viewpoints, it's true. At least for certain audiences. However, while Goldwater spoke out on such viewpoints and didn't care who heard them, latter-day imitators in both parties pander and flip-flop shamelessly to voters.

More candidates would get sympathy from Democrats and the mainstream press if they were like Goldwater and had consistent, honest views. I think everyone interviewed for the film (with the possible exception of bozo Franken) either understands that or is guilty of falling short of it.

Look at Goldwater's successor: from the "Straight Talk Express" in 2000 to aligning himself with Bush now, John McCain has disappointed all of those who had faith in his integrity.

Strange that I don't recall the DVD cover being cited in the review at all. I see the only supporting evidence to this analysis of the film that there were many more "overwhelmingly left-of-center liberals" interviewed than conservatives.

To which I say, again: so what? All of their pronouncements don't make Barry Goldwater into someone other than he was. They simply express admiration for the man's integrity, from my view. Good to hear from them. He's still Mr. Conservative.

To make a compelling film. Anything beyond that, like what you're suggesting below...well, I'm afraid you're on your own.

They're not? There's this vast conspiracy in America to propagandize political figures which filmmakers and liberal politicians are complicit in?

Come on. It's simply a family portrait of a famous politician. Maybe you want to see a deeper agenda at work in the film, but it's really not there.

Why not? What do they have to lose? Did they get prior approval of the film?

Did you forget the story of the gay son? This was Goldwater, warts-and-all. He was contradictory, just like every other human being. The filmmakers were only given an hour, so it's not like they had all the time they wanted to flesh out the issue. Yes, CC could have done better, but this wasn't some hack job.

Now the final clause I agree with. As a portrait of Goldwater, it doesn't do the man full justice. It seemed circumscribed in several parts.

What I think you're saying here is that, as before, the film really didn't substantiate its claims fully. No argument there--I got that Goldwater was distant to his children, but the film does require a good deal of prior knowledge of the man from its audience to make any further, more in-depth conclusions.

But to suggest, as you did, that "the Goldwater kids email me, and I can personally give them the low-down on what might constitute a truly "distant" father (and that's putting it kindly)" translates into a peeved reviewer who insists on expressing that he suffered under his father more than the Goldwater sons did under theirs. I really thought it was out of place, sorry.

I can respect your take on Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater, even if we have vastly different interpretations of the film. I thank you again for your illuminating response, Mr. Mavis, and I look forward to purchasing this film on DVD for myself and my family in the near future.

Paul Mavis

Well, you made your points again, George. I don't think any of them hold water, particularly when you discuss my role as a critic and what you expect from my reviews (I can assure you I keep an open mind all the time when I review films -- check out my list of stuff; it's pretty varied). But l'm not going to go over it again; I think I made myself clear the first time. So, as you said: we'll agree to disagree. No big deal.

Here's an interesting review of the film, from Lee Edwards, who was the director of information for the Goldwater Presidential Committee in 1964. I think he probably would be a good source on what Goldwater was like:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17198

He liked the personal aspects of the film, but also noted the intention of the film to hijack Goldwater's politics.

GeorgeP

Sure sounds like it to me. I admitted that some of your points were valid, yet you maintain that none of my points "hold water." We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on that, then. Keep up the good work anyway.