I’m surprised this hasn’t been brought up before. I just got finished watching Jay and Silent Bob and there’s a particular nod to this scene midway through. And I thought it’d be a good subject to get perspectives here on.
I haven’t read the works of Wood, Lemon or Vickers and as far as I can tell, Pete Garrison is a made up character. But the subject matter is still pretty interesting andI was wondering if anyone had read up on the subject otherwise.
During his first meeting with Robin Williams’ character he recommends A People’s History of the United States stating “that book’ll knock your fuckin socks off” or something to that effect. In return, the washed-up shrink offers up Manufacturing Consent.
I think that says all you need to know about the Academy Award-winning ghostwriters behind that film.
That wasn’t the bar scene, but on that off-topic I saw that scene differently, properly I presume… Granted, it’s an establishment production, but I saw the hero of the movie—the whole point is that he’s a brilliant genius hero—telling his mentor that the mentor had it wrong. I think Will says something to the effect of “you’ve got the right idea, but you’re reading all the wrong books” and then recommends A People’s History.
That said, all I have to say of the bar scene was that it could have been better if the hero was an anarchist…
EDIT: Also, this was meant to be a reply, not as a “suggested answer” but I just went for the big green button and didn’t notice until after.
I cannot testify as to intent, but it still is effective as propaganda. Like when star trek names a ship the Pasteur so now instead of associating louis pasteur with the disgusting industrial foods industry of the 19th they think of him as one of the great scientists of humanity and put pasteurization alongside agriculture and the state as one of the great inventions of all time.
I take a gestalt view of the products of the human mind.
Uh. I’m aware of that. The bar scene is linked in the OP. None of that dialog appears in that scene. Not even Robin Williams appears in that scene. Hence my introduction of “During his first meeting with Robin Williams’ character”.
False. You evidently don’t remember that scene correctly, nor did you even read the chronology of what I said. The “hero” recommends A People’s History of the United States and the Robin Williams character “the washed-up shrink” offers up Manufacturing Consent in return. As in, after.
How in the world could the “hero” be telling his mentor he “had it wrong” if the mentor’s suggestion came after the hero’s? I recommend you find the scene and watch it again.
Yes, the Matt Damon character says “you spend all your money of these fucking fancy books and surround yourself with em and they’re the wrong fucking books.” But again, this is after he makes his recommendation of A People’s History and after Robin Williams asks what he thinks about Manufacturing Consent. The Damon character ignores the question as if it was never asked and continues on his train of thought while looking at the bookshelf.
The point of the matter is those titles were recommended for a reason. If nothing else, they are supposed to represent “the right books”…the books a genius would recommend.
And my entire point was, that scene and the fact that those are the titles that are mentioned by name, offers a glimpse into the ideology (or at least the mentality) behind the authors of the script. And I think anyone who recommends Zinn and Chomsky (in back to back lines, no less) can be pretty easily read from there on. So, even if one knows nothing about Wood, Lemon or Vickers, one can have a decent guess as to what their history might look like…hence “I think that says all you need to know about the Academy Award-winning ghostwriters behind that film.”
However, those authors were named in a different context…one that was suggesting those were the typical authors that would get assigned in grad school. But this could just be a bad assessment on the scriptwriter’s part, because I know for a fact both Wood and Zinn appear on undergrad syllabi.
Haha. I did notice them name-dropping Zinn and Chompsky and was still left waiting for the “right fucking books”. Because those sure as Hell aren’t 'em.
The affiliation of the writers is pretty obvious even to the layman, me thinks. The scene where he turns down the job proposal is a good demonstration of that. But interestingly enough, Damon’s character seems to deride “Marxian historians” (“Pete Garrison, probably”) during the bar scene and there doesn’t seem to be as much of a political bent in this particular scene.
In fact, it kind of struck me how he doesn’t quite go out on a limb at all during the scene; it was probably a literary technique to absolve the possibility of someone proving the boy genius wrong after watching the movie. But what’s so striking is that he never quite lets on what he thinks is wrong with any of the premises; he simply cites the dictum as a problem.
I found of bit of writing of Gordon Wood’s on the internet, so I’m starting to inch my way into his works. I’m not too impressed.
How the heck do you know that “Pete Garrison” is supposed to be a “Marxian historian” if he’s a made up character mentioned in that one line in the whole movie?
Both these two books come highly recommended by LewRockwell.com.
Personally I have a lot of respect for the work of Edward S. Herman, Chomsky’s co-author in writing Manufacturing Consent, specifically his work in destroying the propaganda and the childish narratives humanitarian interventionist create about the conflicts (Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan…) they are drawn to.
Also I recall in days before the internet how good and refreshing it felt to stumble upon and read a Chomsky book (didn’t know who that was, it was just a random book I picked up in the library) and get the confirmation there were Americans who saw through their establishment’s propaganda and disagreed with what it was doing around the world. So I am grateful for that even if I have since come to view him as a softy.
The phrase “highly recommended” intrigued me. I was able to find a couple of lukewarm blogentries from one Anthony Gregory, and a youtube clip from Rockwell, but not much else. This seems to capture the Zinn sentiment:
While he was a bit of a pinko on labor issues, he was courageous and consistent in his condemnation of the worst thing the state does: murder innocent people in large numbers. His A People’s History of the United States is thus a refreshing alternative to the nationalist supremacism that dominates the conventional left and right historical narratives. […] He’s also a pacifist anarchist, so he’s not by any means the worst kind of socialist.
“Not the worst kind of socialist.” Great. Kind of like Bernie Madoff wasn’t the “worst kind” of thief. I will grant that Zinn “taught a couple generations of young people to question their history teachers and the civic religion of US governmental supremacy”…but I wouldn’t be surprised if any positive effect he had was negated by the other notions he put in the impressionable minds of young people. And Kinsella reposts something of a different sentiment.
Endorsement of one man’s book is not the same as endorsement of the man. Other notions he put in minds of people are irrelevant as to the merits of People’s History and to the question if the latter is the right type of book.
Thank you for the Kinsella link, mining its links leads to good places.
A letter scolding Chomsky for not being more open to 911 truth?
