Today was the first I heard of this movie and, as soon as I finished the trailer, I called my friend up to see if she wanted to go. Sadly, this movie most definitely wont be playing in my podunk lil’ town, so we’ll be going to LA for an evening of country music and 1st Amendment rights :p.
The film is from a two-time Academy Award winning documentarian and shows the after math of the comments made by the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, Natalie Maines.
Has anyone else heard anything about this movie? Any interest in it at all?
I hadn’t heard of it before now, but thanks for putting it on my list.
I went out and bought “Taking the Long Way” in no small part because I was proud to see that the Dixie Chicks have responded to the bullshit flung at them for three years with class and wit. I’m going to see this for the same reason.
Thanks for the head’s up. I wonder if I can find it within a reasonable driving distance so my friends, husband and I could go see it? I liked the Dixie Chicks before the debacle, and am very impressed with how they are staying true to themselves, even under such open hostility and rabble rousing hate campaigns.
Well, they themselves aren’t particularly special one way or another (well, I do like their music), but the entire situation is quite interesting. A perfect example of the 1st Amendment in all its glory, really.
Plus, everything involved is pretty interesting. She had every right to say what she said, regardless of whether or not it was right, wrong, stupid, or smart. And in the last three years, she’s experiences the backlash that can come with exercising that right. Even the President has had something (something quite snarky) to say about it.
It’s just an interesting display of the 1st Amendment. Wouldn’t be any different if it were someone besides the Dixie Chicks.
You try standing up on stage, (or, living a public life) in front of a large amount of people who once adored you, but who now wish you no good at all, and see if you stay true to yourself, or if you turn tail, back down, and make nice to make the aggressive displays and hate campaign end.
Zabali_Clawbane actually has another great point. It isn’t just the clinical and cold Amendment issue of it all, but rather the more moral/philosophical point.
They have faced the repercussions what Natalie said- not only Natalie has suffered, but the other two members as well. It would have been tremendously easy for Natalie to say she was wrong, to say she was sorry, to take back every word she said, to personally apologize to the President. It would have been even easier for her group members to effectively shun her and denounce any relation to her. Instead they stuck together. And not just together, but they maintained their beliefs. There’s something to be said to that.
In the face of a huge backlash- a violent one at that, it’s hard to believe that many people would stand their ground. It’s hard enough to stay true to what you believe in without facing mobs. Then again, all this might just stem from my absolute belief in a quote from Dante: “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”(The Divine Comedy) Maybe that’s it
It’s just another one of those factors that makes this seem like a very interesting film to lil ol me.
Why would (or should) they expect NOT to have backlash for expressing an unpopular opinion?
If I light a firecracker and close it in my fist, am I a hero when I learn to get by with my shiny new artificial hand?
I agree that she had the right to say what she said, and I’ll add that (most of) the people protesting the group have the right to do their thing too. I’m sure they didn’t know thier comments would be so inflammatory, and as long as they aren’t hypocritical about it (expressing opinions about someone else and getting upset when people express opinions about you) then sure it’s an interesting look at the power of speech. The thing is, it IS different that it’s them – someone’s making a movie about it because it’s them.
First, I honestly don’t think that they were so stupid to think that there would be no backlash. I would hypothesize that they probably just had no idea it would be such a big deal. I’m all about people demonstrating their 1st Amendment rights responsibly and understanding the repercussions of saying certain things. That said, I would have never guessed that her saying what she said would have had the effect that it did. I live in a big country music city and we have 5 or 6 country stations, one or two of which I listen to while at work each day. You should have heard the call ins they got after Natalie made her comments. People saying she was going to burn in hell, people saying they wanted to hunt her down and murder her, people saying she deserved to be sent to prison for life for saying what she said. And throughout it all, the DJs were agreeing. It’s one thing to say you don’t like a political official, it’s quite another for oodles of people to actively wish death on someone and to have such wishes affirmed by people in some form of authority (not that DJs are authority, but you know what I mean).
That said, I agree that those speaking against her had a right to say what they said. Of course, that doesn’t make their reaction any more reasonable or expected.
Of course it is different from them because they are celebrities. Of course it got more publicity because they are celebrities. Of course it was a bigger deal because they are celebrities. That said, Larry Flynt’s 1st Amendment case was a particularly big deal because it was a famous pronographer on trial- the fact that he was well known doesn’t take away from the validity of what was said or done. Whether it was Larry Flynt or Joe Shmoe doesn’t take away from the principal, it just sells more tickets.
For me, I love films like this. The movie is that much more interesting because it is about someone famous and the circumstances around that. It’d still be interesting if it was you or me. Ok, that might be a bit more interesting.
It’s 93% on the Tomatometer and it hasn’t even opened yet. In the “oh the irony” (or the “unclear on the concept”) department, one of the two “rotten” blurbs says:
“this thing needs more music and less politics”
I don’t know if anyone that stupid would have anything worthwhile to say, so I haven’t read the whole review.
I can’t wait to see it. It played at the Chicago Film Festival but I was flat broke the whole two weeks the Fest was going on, so I missed it and lots of other good movies.
Oh my, I couldn’t help myself, I left here and went back to click on it. Yes, he really is that stupid and there was nothing worthwhile there, except an amused sneer at his uncaught typo of “Untied States.”
Why should anyone disregard the death threats they received? They got DEATH THREATS for voicing an opinion! I didn’t hear anyone threatening death to anyone who burned a Dixie Chicks’ CD, called a right-wing talk show to rant about them, or boycott their shows.
It’s not what makes them so special. It’s what makes the First Amendment being pushed to the Fringe so special. They’re just the actors. The story is that one of the most fundamentally guaranteed rights to an American citizen would result in loss of material good and threat of loss of life because other Americans set a precedent that nobody else should exercise such a basic right upon threat of the same vigilante punishment. The story is ignorance and hatred over something that should not only be accepted as tolerable in American society, but embraced as an integral part of it.
The First Amendment should be Evelyn Beatrice Hall “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” not this case’s reactionary “I disapprove of what you say, and want to kill you for saying it.”
They are hardly unique in that, are they? ANYONE who makes a controversial stance gets death threats from kooks. That’s why they call them “kooks.”
This movie is more like a Shakespeare play: “Much Ado About Nothing.”
For those who didn’t follow the story from the beginning–or those pretending ignorance of the facts–the response to Natalie’s remark was more than the people making their voices heard. Two media groups, Cumulus Media & Cox Radio, banned Dixie Chicks music & staged demonstrations so “fans” could drop by & destroy their CD’s. Clear Channel, responsible for so much bland radio programming nationwide, claims they did NOT encourage anti-Chicks activity, but their role remains controversial. Last I heard, Cafe Society was not a Political forum–so I won’t name the political party that gets most Clear Channel contributions. (Oh, NBC has refused to run ads for the film.)
I’ll definitely catch the film when it opens in Houston. Apparently it’s doing well.
RikWriter and Garfield, you both perfectly illustrate another problem in this. Deprivation of a fundamental Constitutional right is not “Much Ado About Nothing.” It’s Deprivation of a fundamental Constitutional right. Whether it’s the Dixie Chicks or my 80 year old grandmother, it’s important. The fact that trampling over the First Amendment has become so commonplace that it would register “so what?” from multiple people on this board, and fervent support when applied to Dixie Chicks protestors is far more than “nothing.”
And as to “kooks.” The American Red Cross allegedly declined a $1M donation from the Dixie Chicks. Shows have been cancelled due to poor ticket sales for isolated “kooks” by the stadium-full, and some entire radio markets (particularly Houston TX) outright refused to advertise tour dates. Just a few isolated kooks.
