The marketing campaign certainly isn't painting this as an anti-gun movie.
That's because Democrats lost the election. Let's see...
-Newly elected female President Hillary
-Made gun control a central part of her platform
-Fourth anniversary of Newtown (which we're marking with half-mast flags years later for some reason)
-Core plot erected around easily disproven fun facts that are a staple of Bloomberg's organizations (gun show loophole, etc)
Pretty dang obvious this knock-off of
Erin Brockovich* was supposed to be the bugle call for the march into congress so Hillary had major gun control legislation ready for her triumphant signature shortly after taking office. Since that didn't end up working out all that well, all they can do is downplay the obvious propaganda angle and hope the 'strong woman' lead role convinces women to brow-beat their spouses & boyfriends to accompany them to the theater, and the producers stage their own reenactment of
The Producers and write the losses off against their taxes for a few years.
*This dumb movie 'based on a true story' (sort of) that was as heavily promoted by the usual suspects, directly preceded the drumbeat to have the EPA ban MTBE and force ethanol into our gas. It's really foolish to think
Miss Sloane could not have been a similar siren-song given the right circumstances.
That this movie is getting nominations is solely the result of Harvey Weinstein, who is notorious for lobbying the awards organizations (and/or outright bribing them) to ladel accolades on all his productions, often to the point of embarassment. The whole point of this production was for him to get brownie points with these self-righteous figures, after all, so he's going to pull out all the stops to ensure it is 'recognized' regardless how horrible it does in theaters or how worthless the story (let me guess; it's
Erin Brockovich Goes to Washington, only this time she's an even
more stacked blonde). Those failures will be laid at the feet of the NRA, no doubt.
Now I'll indulge an obvious thread-drift;
-1934 NFA was passed because Roosevelt & many others, having just witnessed an unprecedented Depression, the October Revolution, and the Bonus Army riots, were in fear of widespread domestic insurrection & assassinations. Not an unfounded worry, frankly. So, they endeavored to ban/tax-prohibitively every possible kind of firearm that could possibly represent a standing threat (everything but long rifles and shotguns, at that time almost exclusively manually-operated & with iron sights)
-In those days and earlier, yes, the Republican Party actually was the one promoting the most inclusive social policies where minority groups were concerned, but much like the Democrats of today, these efforts were waged from coastal ivory towers with little understanding of the actual issues and people they sought to help (so lots of patronizing or meaningless talk with little practical impact). The other party was busy enforcing Jim Crow or pursuing eugenics to rid society of inferior breeds. At any rate, it was a niche of a niche issue at the time, so not a winning topic for either party, nor as a good time to be a minority.
-Local-level gun codes existed prior to the turn of the century, but were typically not enforced aggressively, and were really just another tool to selective enforce against the poor and minorities in areas that did not want them armed. Many popped up during Reconstruction since the new amendments required communities to be a bit more clever in how they approached the oppression of blacks. The first truly broad sweeping gun control measure akin to those we suffer today was the Sullivan Act up in NY, which essentially disenfranchised almost the entire population of one of our largest cities. It was as much a safety measure as a mob-protection measure, named for a notorious Tamany Hall enforcer type who was insane with syphilis at the time. Having proved useful in disarming those who would speak about against corrupt political machines, it was eventually the inspiration for other state & federal measures.
-The 1968 GCA was passed on the heels of a number of high profile assassinations, domestic terrorism, and an unprecedented anti-war/anti-patriotic fervor that --as with the Bonus Army-- was percieved as an existential threat by our national leaders. Also the NFA was about to gutted by a SCOTUS case that mooted its tax-payment requirements. Having already banned the lionshare of weapons suited to military insurrection, these measures were aimed at controlling the economy of fireams (licensing dealers, interstate sale restrictions, serial numbering, registration, ammo regulation, etc)
-The 1994 AWB was also somewhat like the GCA in that it came in a time of high crime rates and recent assassination attempts, but obviously things were nowhere near as desperate as those previous eras of gun control advance, which is a reason why there was such a backlash. Had times been more desperate, there would be more appetite for quick solutions with unintended consequences.
It's pretty obvious the script was for the "Fergusson Effect" violence that's been demonstrably inflamed & encouraged by the Democrat party for going on 7-8 years ('member the Beer Summit?) was going to be used as justification for another gun control putsch by Hillary shortly after her inauguration. Propaganda movies like this one would be shown months in advance to 'prime' the public for action and frame the issue in a positive light. Propaganda is most effective when used
before the issue is pressing, when people are not really as focused on critically examining it, and are forming their opinions. It does no good to release this movie when the bill is being voted on, but the timing is perfect if that's a few months away. Probably in February when the Academy Awards are ramping up, at which point Hillary goes on a heroic tear against the evil NRA for background checks, just like Miss Sloane...
Consider how carefully and elaborately scripted
everything Clinton ever does is, and how many direct connections she has to the influential people who would be called upon to put on this farce.
Be honest, name three "pro-war" movies, NOT made during 1941 to 1945....
You're kidding, right? There's been a ton of war dramas that stress the 'duty' or 'importance' of the conflict portrayed. Just because they depict the horror of war has little bearing on the overall message. Now, they tend to be set in WWII, out of nostalgia for the days of 'American unity' when FDR was having all the dissenting voices jailed, but there are also movies like Black Hawk Down & American Sniper that protray the difficult work of American soldiers & military adventure in a positive light, not to mention countless (countless) action-film slugfests with idealized good guys facing off against cardboard baddies to defend American values and etc. Due to the Hollywood film censorship practices (read up on it) that persisted into the 70's, it was actually extremely uncommon to find
any film that honestly challenged our authority figures...but the Vietnam War opposition among a new generation of filmmakers ultimately broke the dam and dismantled that whole system of voluntary restraint. This later school is where the modern notion of "all war movies are anti-war" came from (Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, etc.). Ironically, or rather, predictably, these former free-spirits were the ones responsible for erecting our stifling modern system of politically correct censorship.
TCB
