Reporters taunt two progressive icons in ways conservatives have doing for years.
When Al Gore has a new product to plug reporters do all they can to spread the news.
Fawning profiles. Softball questions. Story after story meant to let people know Gore is back, baby.
You can literally watch reporters swoon over the former Vice President in his new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Democracy Dies in Darkness? Hardly.
The same typically holds true for Michael Moore, the far-left filmmaker who once pretended Cuba had a wonderful health care system via his documentary “Sicko.”
That was then.
Now? Several major media outlets have noticed something unsightly about the progressive icons. They may love Big Government, but they love themselves more.
Liberal reviewers are no long giving Gore and Moore’s egos a pass. In fact, the duo’s newest efforts are getting hammered by the outlets which normally capitulate to their every whim.
Let’s start with Gore’s “Sequel.” The new film, part of the former politician’s GSU (Gore Shared Universe) is under-performing the 2006 original at the box office. Reviews still have been mostly positive, but the pans are instructive.
No, reviewers aren’t bothering to fact check the film’s claims. That’s not how the media treat progressive talking points.
Instead, they’re railing against “Sequel’s” obsession with the film’s leading man.
However, the filmmakers behind An Inconvenient Sequel seem more concerned with working up a rosy glow in which to depict Gore’s grueling year-round schedule of stirring stump speeches, slideshows and sound bites.
It’s a rare moment of transparency in a film that is heavily one-sided. “Inconvenient Sequel” is a piece of unabashed propaganda, complete with a social media recruitment pitch over the closing credits. It’s an effective articulation of Gore’s perspective, but little more.
An Inconvenient Sequel bends uncomfortably toward solipsistic portraiture as it invites us to both pity and be in awe of Gore. To be fair, Gore is working tirelessly in pursuit of a worthy cause, but an uncomfortable amount of the film’s time and efforts appear to be in service of Gore’s still-delicate ego rather than extrapolating on the many ideas and barriers to change it touches on….
These perpetual attempts to humanize Gore are built in to foster trust in his beliefs but are usually transparent in their unbridled and excessive adulation of the man.
The film’s presentation of him as the savior behind the agreement is at best contrived and at worst quite offensive to the thousands of other attendees from 196 countries who worked to forge the deal.
The reaction to Moore’s new Broadway show, “The Terms of My Surrender,” is limited so far. Early indicators suggest critics aren’t falling for the director’s “everyman” shtick as they once did. Could it be the number of homes he once owned (hint: It’s more than Bernie Sanders currently has)?
The show itself is a nonstop assault on President Donald Trump.
The New York Times noticed something else about the presentation, though. The newspaper’s critic explains how much he loves Moore and what the propagandist has done thus far in his career.
“…you don’t have to disagree with Mr. Moore’s politics to find that his shtick has become disagreeable with age. “The Terms of My Surrender,” which opened on Thursday at the Belasco, is a bit like being stuck at Thanksgiving dinner with a garrulous, self-regarding, time-sucking uncle.”
Audiences hoping for a bit of feel-good liberal therapy, let alone a good show, may be disappointed to find that Mr. Moore isn’t very interested in them. He’s not preaching to the choir: He’s bragging to it.
The L.A. Times couldn’t help but lavish praise on Moore before calling his ego out.
Every story ends in the glorification of Michael Moore. The lesson he wants us to take home is a noble one: Innocent idealism can only prevail if it holds to what is true and doesn’t succumb to despair. But these plucky narratives, largely recycled from his writings and talks, have the monotonous ring of an infomercial for his brand.
It almost makes you wonder if these same critics might revisit Gore and Moore’s past works and realize those egos were on full display back then, too.