I liked John Hughes’s movies; love Ferris Bueller and the Breakfast Club, as well as 16 Candles. My wife looked like Molly Ringwald way back in the 80s….
I also like Ben Stein, though as insightful as he sometimes can be, he can also be analytically shallow. Curiously, this quality comes through in a tribute/obituary about John Hughes’s death: The American Spectator : John Hughes, RIP.
Stein makes a big deal about the fact that, apparently, Hughes was a Republican. According to Stein, this is partly what made his vision of the lives of upper-middle class white teens interesting. Hmmm… That’s all you got? There was no cinematic vision, clever replaying of classic American myths, or interesting writing of characters? All you got is that Hughes was a Republican … how utterly shallow.
You’d think a more fitting tribute would have been something about the movies themselves or Hughes’s vision. Simply to turn him into a caricature of an optimistic Republican seems insulting to me, but then I wasn’t his friend.
And, by the way Ben, where has all that Republican optimism gone, where has that celebration of the individual gone?
Aw, come on. Ben Stein’s article only briefly mentions Hughes’ party affiliation, and then moves on. The balance of his article is a touching tribute to a wonderful director.
“This insight [of Hughes] sized up teens perfectly but also ennobled them, which made them — and all of us — love him. In a way, he was describing modern man of any age. ”
Just when did the left become so sour?
Read the article, which (in fact) mentions Hughes being a Republican twice, including at a crucial point.
“John Hughes — Republican — saw that potential, saw that the individual still had the ability to transcend whatever was weighing him or her down and come out leading a parade down Michigan Avenue. This insight sized up teens perfectly but also ennobled them, which made them — and all of us — love him. In a way, he was describing modern man of any age. ”
That whole analysis hinges on the Republican attribution, set out by dashes and ties Hughes’s filmic vision to his political affiliation, and not to his replaying of the classic American outlaw myth into a teen coming-of-age narrative.
Rather than celebrate the cleverness of Hughes’s work, Stein’s appreciation of his friend’s legacy is, apparently, dependent on his being a Republican. Moreover, by choosing the American Spectator (as opposed to say the New York Times, where he also writes) as a venue, Stein is using his friend’s political affiliation to promote his own political views and that of a political party. Further, the comments to the piece pick up on this, praising Hughes for being a Republican. Amazing that such things matter to people.
Alas, these individuals (from Stein to his audience) cannot apparently transcend their narrow origins, with the heaviness of those Republican political affiliations weighing them down.
Call me sour if you will, but I find such blind fealty to politics (in which political affiliation trumps the possibility of individual expression and difference) to be pathetic, sad, and even tragic.