2016: Obama's America

While it's highly unlikely that anyone predisposed to championing Obama would be won over by the sound and fury here, there's no gainsaying the value of "2016" as a sort of Cliffs Notes precis of the conservative case against the re-election of our current U.S. president.

With the out-of-nowhere success of 2016: Obama's America, the nation could finally have a conservative counterpart to Michael Moore. I say the nation rather than the Republicans, because a balanced box office is good for us all, at least as a reminder of our right to oppose the current government and make a profit in doing so.

Mr. D'Souza stumbles when interviewing George Obama, the president's half-brother, an activist who voluntarily lives amid squalor in Nairobi, Kenya. "Obama has not done anything to help you," Mr. D'Souza says. "He's taking care of me; I'm part of the world," George Obama replies.

Many of D’Souza’s charges in his movie are either piffling (Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British Embassy), wrong (the U.S. is drilling for at least as much oil now as in the George W. Bush) or murky.

No one doubts that the country faces major challenges in the next four years, but there is one safe bet: The future is unlikely to be affected by this simplistic documentary.

The only true surprise here is D'Souza's haplessness in constructing both film and argument.

One could and perhaps should use scare quotes around "intellectual" when it comes to someone who would crank out a piece of campaign-season partisan hackwork this crude and sloppy. (By this standard, James Carville looks like Immanuel Kant.)

CAUTION* IF you have a closed-minded, preconceived politically biased viewpoint for or against B.Obama.. loose it, and watch this movie with an open mind. Take in the facts with an open mind and you will be enlightened, no matter what your vantage point. However, if you feel the need to stand up or put down the president blindly, covering your ears and eyes like a child in denial to the facts, then you probably aren't brave enough to handle the facts and enormous volumes of research, history, data, and first-hand interviews. Did you ever hear the president's brother interviewed ? .. have you heard about Obama's father's primary objective ? And actually once you see this, you need to look at the predictions and how all of them have come true, then watch part 2.. much more of a neutral review of America in decline.. the new "America" movie that is coming out this week, which I just saw and is even better than this volume of information that the media is afraid to circulate.

As an aspiring documentary filmmaker I have seen lots of docs over the last 8 years and this one, like lots of others, takes too long to get to the point - Dinesh D'Souza gave me way more info than I needed to know about both Obama's past and his - of course because this was based on a book of his, I'm sure from his perspective he was leaving a lot out to condense it all into a 1.5 hour film. There were parts where I was bored and parts where I had to close my eyes to pay attention to what was being said due to the trendy film techniques (when someone is talking do I really need to see shots of their elbow?). That being said as the film finally reaches its conclusions and finally focuses in on its premise - it becomes clear why Obama does not deserve a second term - and maybe shouldn't have had a first. It sad because I did put my hope in him, that he would bring change. I voted for him. I hope that before the election they will make the last 1/2 hour freely available through the web because there are facts here that people should consider. If half of what this film purports is true, it becomes clear why when i look back at the past 4 years I can't see a single thing that has improved in this country.

This movie makes the same mistake every political doc makes, in that it forces you into one corner with a bias and/or propaganda message. Moore has done it and D'souza does it too; it is even evident in the trailer that depicts a dystopian nation of Africa with images of rioting and marching with strong overtones in the music. The indian-inspired music, for the average american, translates into images of terrorism and evil; That alone impacts how the viewer feels once the films starts. On the other hand, D'souza does try to meet someone in the middle with the occupy wallstreet, but it's no saving grace for how he constantly presents us with bits and pieces of audio clips. Once he gets the bit he wants to get his message across you can tell when he cuts it off. Stuff like that can easily be labeled as "taking out of context." To make matters worse, he does the same narcissistic move that Moore does, but talking about himself and his life about as much as he does his subject matter. This is a movie that does well with presenting a message, but does a horrible job by picking how you're suppose to exit the theater feeling the way you will for you. I have no respect for propaganda like that from neither the right or left because when you exit that theater, it will either solidify what the media is already telling you or reinforce what you already believe.

Less documentary than rhetoric. If it truly wanted to be a ducumentary of the President's life, it wouldn't have been made in this term of his Presidency or even this early in his life suggesting that it's purpose ( if not evident by its title) was to gain support for the opposition. Because of this, it's difficult to take seriously due to the inherent bias. As a dramatic propaganda piece, it does serve to bolster supporters of an anti-Obama second term. For undecided voters, it may induce further research or scare a slide to the right. And of course the left will be outraged. From an entertainment standpoint (which is the only tacit I grade on), it's sub-par to most serious documentaries. The attempts to innervate me with fear or rage fell flat.

This movie is the opposite of open-minded, and I think Dinesh D'Souza knows this, and his fans try to convince themselves otherwise.