Overlooked due to all the other chaos initiated by Donald Trump over the weekend was news that the first official movie screening in the White House theater since the inauguration was Finding Dory . This Pixar animated film, according to IMDB.com, is the story of a memory challenged blue tang who:
somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from her friends Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them.
It did not take long for social media to point out the disconnect between the movie’s plot and Trump’s executive order which attempted to block many such reunions in the United States.
The Hollywood Reporter made a second observation. Movie studios have always made their complete catalog of films available to the White House. Therefore, why Finding Dory when one has access to the plethora of engaging movies released in the past few month? Compare Trump’s choice to Michelle Obama’s choice for the family’s final screening: Hidden Figures.
The Reporter provided additional insight about the cinema tastes of the current White House occupant noting that Trump had also requested the Bryan Cranston/James Franco comedy Why Him?, which garnered a 39 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. One can imagine press secretary Sean Spicer justifying this selection by claiming it actually had the highest rating in the history of Rotten Tomatoes, PERIOD. Or maybe Trump just wanted a film whose approval rating mirrored his own.
For fear of seeming to be an elitist, I must admit I too enjoy an inane movie now and then. I cannot count how many times I have watched Animal House or Ghostbusters. Or reruns of Seinfeld to the point I can almost recite the dialog of entire episodes. But as a steady diet, it leaves me wanting. Cinema is a powerful medium through which visual storytelling enlightens us about who we are and the world we live in.
The occupant of the White House, especially if he chooses not to read books or listen to diverse opinions, would be well served to take advantage of films which bring perspective and context to the decisions he faces on a daily basis. The following is one example I would suggest as a good starting point.
Eye in the Sky (Entertainment One, 2015)
It’s too bad Trump did not watch this under-appreciated film before launching the raid on al Qaeda in Yemen last weekend. He would have heard General George Matherson (played by the late and sorely missed Alan Rickman) describe how success in the war against terrorism cannot be measured solely using body counts. Explaining how the United States and its allies must win the propaganda war as well as physical engagements, Matherson tells his colleagues, “If they kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one child, they do.”
According to medics on the ground in al Bayda province, the casualties from last weekend’s raid included “at least eight women and seven children aged between three and 13 years old.” (BBC News, February 2, 2017) The administration’s assessment of the raid?
Brave US forces were instrumental in killing an estimated 14 AQAP members and capturing important intelligence that will assist the US in preventing terrorism against its citizens and people around the world.
Matherson might have thought otherwise. I can imagine him saying, “The administration may view the civilian deaths as collateral damage. In truth, they are the new faces on al Qaeda recruitment posters.”
I certainly understand how Trump might want to escape the serious business of running a country by watching an animated film or the latest in a long string of James Franco mediocre comedies. But even with his reported short attention span (per Art of the Deal ghostwriter Tony Schwartz), two hours watching a movie which articulates the legal and moral issues a righteous nation must confront even when fighting terrorism seems like a much better investment than an Atlantic City casino.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP