The Anatomy of Hate
Phillip Hamilton
Issue date: 3/1/10 Section: Entertainment
When entering the McKinnon Theatre on Friday to view The Anatomy of Hate by Mike Ramsdell, I would have to admit I had very low expectations. An assignment for a class to publish in this print edition and some encouragement on the part of an instructor led me to believe that I could find conflict at this particular showing, since there was a tip off that the viewing would be protested by the Westboro Baptist Church and, looking for irony to appease my own sense of humor, I had arrived half an hour early.
Instead of protestors (only counter protestors had shown up), what I found was a compelling film that should be seen by all. Before the movie began, I had the privilege of speaking with Mr. Ramsdell. I had informed one of our faculty members that I was looking for the protestors and she introduced us, which left us in the awkward position of attempting dialogue on a movie one of us hadn't even seen yet. Despite this impasse, I was immediately struck by Mike's quiet, observational qualities; if I was disinterested in talking about a movie I hadn't seen, it was matched only by Mr. Ramsdell's disinterest in telling me about it. We chatted briefly about the protestors that weren't and then entered the viewing.
As to the movie itself, it was a brilliant juxtaposition of social groups in the world today; depicting stunning and startling imagery; from white supremacy groups to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the anti-homosexual protestors we were expecting to picket. There were, needless to say, many controversial representations in the film. As a conservative, I initially found it outright contentious to include President Bush and, specifically, the American nation alongside such themes; yet, without question that comparison must be included, if only for our unparalleled ability at acts of destruction. Yet, I'm concerned that this film will be labeled polarizing by the conservative ideologies and snuffed out of existence. This would be a grave error.
Instead of protestors (only counter protestors had shown up), what I found was a compelling film that should be seen by all. Before the movie began, I had the privilege of speaking with Mr. Ramsdell. I had informed one of our faculty members that I was looking for the protestors and she introduced us, which left us in the awkward position of attempting dialogue on a movie one of us hadn't even seen yet. Despite this impasse, I was immediately struck by Mike's quiet, observational qualities; if I was disinterested in talking about a movie I hadn't seen, it was matched only by Mr. Ramsdell's disinterest in telling me about it. We chatted briefly about the protestors that weren't and then entered the viewing.
As to the movie itself, it was a brilliant juxtaposition of social groups in the world today; depicting stunning and startling imagery; from white supremacy groups to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the anti-homosexual protestors we were expecting to picket. There were, needless to say, many controversial representations in the film. As a conservative, I initially found it outright contentious to include President Bush and, specifically, the American nation alongside such themes; yet, without question that comparison must be included, if only for our unparalleled ability at acts of destruction. Yet, I'm concerned that this film will be labeled polarizing by the conservative ideologies and snuffed out of existence. This would be a grave error.
Be the first to comment on this story