Bene Diction has a longish post on the mess over Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled and the controversial screening which saw biologist P.Z. Myers tossed out (though Richard Dawkins was let in!). It appears that the producer of Expelled is a bit of an interesting case himself, says Bene D:
“Expelled producer Mark Mathis, a former broadcaster and owner of Mathis Media (check out his client list!) is willing to lie, play people for fools, play the fool, spin, trash and do whatever he needs to do to get this movie into the public spotlight and get this paid for. He is quite open about his rules of engagement.”
Go read the original post, it expounds much more on this aspect of Mathis. I know that if these are his rules of engagement, then Mathis certainly fits into an established mold as a documentarian-propagandist unafraid to let boring facts ruin compelling footage, a good score and an authoritative narrator’s baritone voice. In this he goes along with the likes of Aaron Russo who claimed Americans don’t have to pay income tax, or the people who say that the same group who botched Iraq so badly somehow carried off 9/11 as a top-secret inside job.
As an aside, this is not to say that documentaries are awful things, there are some rather good ones out there. It’s just that film (or, more likely, DVD) is an excellent format in which to propagandize people. The pictures, the music, everything moves you along to the inevitable conclusions that the filmmakers have laid out carefully from the first pre-production meeting to the final cut.
What’s more frustrating is that documentaries often do not need to resort to the sorts of hysterics that have become their hallmarks. As an example, the premise of, say, Fahrenheit 911 (that the war in Iraq was driven by misinformation peddled by powerful interests – with horrific consequences) is perfectly defensible without resorting to Michael Moore’s level of theatrics.
What is troubling about a film like Expelled is that it is so clearly aimed at a Christian audience. It’s no secret that the producers are courting faith-based private schools, home-schoolers, and others who they figure are sympathetic to the film’s message. What kind of reputation will Christians get for buying into something that’s been produced by people who quite openly admit that they are propagandists and who filmed many of their subjects under false pretenses? I suppose for someone like Mathis, this all just the same as business and politics, or maybe it’s okay because everyone does it. That troubles me.
Frankly, I have to confess, I’m looking forward to seeing this one, and especially seeing Dawkins get a taste of his own medicine (after seeing his crap in “The Root of All Evil”).
As you know, I made a comment on my own blog before about this, and I agree with you that documentaries in general are probably not helpful. However, I’d also like to point out that people don’t tend to criticize documentary producers with whom they share ideological commitment: i.e., how many left-leaning people will criticize Michael Moore outside of a context where they are criticizing right-wing documentary producers, as a sort of “I’m not trying to pretend we’re perfect or anything, but still…” ?
If Christians get a poor reputation for buying into this propaganda, it’s probably undeserved. Would those same people who scorn Christians for liking Expelled scorn liberal high school teachers who show Far. 9/11 in the classroom? Some might, but most probably wouldn’t.
Hmmm … I just made the same point Andrew did.
I’m left-leaning and I just criticized Moore in the post above, does that count for something?
Dan:
It does, of course, but it also falls into the tendency I described: you only did it in the context of criticizing a right-wing documentary.
Andrew,
I suppose that some people might look at the propagandists on their political “side” and say something to the effect of, “frankly, he’s a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonaofbitch.” Nonetheless, this is something that is going to be marketed quite directly at churches, churches are going to get associated with this film. That it appears to be deceptive in how it treats people, that the man producing appears to be a spin doctor-huckster makes this, along with Benny Hinn or Jack van Impe, one more cringe-worthy piece of Christian culture that I know someone will call on me to explain/defend.
Why was Richard Dawkins let in if the other chap was excluded?
Dan:
I guess I’d like to see the responses from people like Mathis before I make a judgment on whether it is actually a problem. I know Stein responded to allegations that he duped Dawkins into an interview, its on the Expelled website.
“I guess I’d like to see the responses from people like Mathis before I make a judgment on whether it is actually a problem. ”
Well, the man’s produced a film promoting ID.
There’s a big, fat problem right there.
As to Mathis responding to the situation, well, they just can’t seem to get their story straight.
Somebody needs to send out a memo and get the party line in order.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/lying_by_press_release.php
This is irrelevant to this post (which is shameful if true). For the next week or so I’m going to be insanely busy and won’t be able to post – I haven’t ditched!
Please pray for me. I have a thesis to write, a defense, a presentation on my research, an apologetics paper and exam due, a Greek exegetical paper due, a systematics paper and book review due, a Latin reading seminar to finish and an Augustine reading seminar to finish.
Kill me.
Cedric:
Unfortunately, not everyone thinks that supporting ID is a problem; at least not on this blog.
Will do Ian.
We should all grab a pint when it’s over.
Totally. Maybe two.