Starting a Conversation
Hello Everybody and Welcome to our website. Presumably you’ve found your way here because you have some interest in our movie, Red State. A quick perusal of the buttons at the top of the page will give you plenty of information about the film including the opportunity to purchase it.
But the point of this site, and the film, is hopefully more than commercial. The film was created with a simple premise; knowing what was known in 2004 why would anybody vote for George W. Bush? And while the movie gives us some insight into this question it was never intended to be an end in itself but a beginning.
A beginning of a conversation.
A conversation that will take us away from objectifying and demonizing others so that we may see our problems and differences clearly. A conversation that acknowledges the humanity of “the other side” and hopes to find compromises and solutions, where possible. But a conversation that does indeed see the threat to liberty that some among us present and has as it’s ultimate goal the eradication of this threat.
So, we’ve made this film as the beginning of our contribution to this conversation. If you like what you see stick around, leave a comment, watch the clips, spread the word. And if you wish to host a screening we’d be happy to oblige.
Thanks for stopping by.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:41 am
This is just another way to demonize 90 pct of the country that believes in God.
Any educated person without a hate agenda and morals, can see that this country stands for religous freedom and that God plays an important part in many people’s lives.
Being a born-again Christian is not against the law. The way you are twisting a manipulating Christianity is truly embarassing to anyone that believes the way you do. All you are doing is making clear your obvious agenda to eliminate God and live where no morals exist.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:43 am
How do you know any of that, Mark?
December 8th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
They are sure scared by this, huh? It is sad that they don’t recognize that their Christianity has already been taken over and twisted by very evil men. As a Christian myself, I pray that people like Mark will realize that they were lied to by people who never had any intention of fulfilling the promises they made. I hope they will understand in time.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:48 am
I’m very involved in the Southern Partisan movement and I’m not at all offended by what I’ve seen of this film, although all I’ve seen of it are the youtube clips. To me, it seems as if Michael is making an honest attempt to at least understand us, and if this is true, I have nothing but respect for him.
We simply have no choice over where we are born or the culture that influences us as we mature through life, and in that respect I have no problems with his peculiar accent or mannerisms or beliefs ; ) I only hope that he feels the same towards me.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Sheesh, we’re all *just* monkeys anyway. Honestly.
December 9th, 2006 at 6:22 am
Micheal Shea,
Did you edit out interviews that didn’t conform to the overall message you wished to convey?
I like to see clips that ended up on the cutting room floor.
Did you travel with California license plates, and identify yourselves as Californians? Your accents surely gave your blue statedness away.
Don’t you think the red staters have canned speeches for you blue staters that they mutter to themselves every day and that you finally gave an outlet to. In other words, couldn’t it be that the redstate interviews were merely the boiler plate rant that they all someday hoped to give to some Yankee?
Do you think a better perspective may have been achieved if the film crew was from Georgia with their southern accents and were enthusiastic Bush supporters who wanted to know why their fellow southerns voted for Bush, and were honest with the findings they put on film?
Just saying, the confrontational nature of blue stater interviewing red stater after the latter whupped our butt may factor into the lecturing you got.
December 9th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Hi Henry,
I’m not sure I can answer all of your questions, or the underlying theme, but I will try. Of course I edited the film to conform to the story I was telling. I had 300 hours of footage.
Not only did I identify myself as a “blue-stater from Hollywood” but I also was unabashed in calling myself a LIBERAL. It’s a label of which I am proud.
It never occurred to me that I was hearing any “canned” speeches. It still hasn’t.
I do indeed think a very interesting film could be made in the way you suggest. I would like to see that movie.
As for confrontation all I can say is that I truly attempted to avoid confrontation. I have received quite a bit of criticism for this from some on the left. I’ve been called Idiot and worse. But for me the honest intention to listen was the only way I could see the project having any real value.
At least for me.
Thanks
December 10th, 2006 at 12:27 am
“But for me the honest intention to listen was the only way I could see the project having any real value. ”
I absolutely respect that.
But I also think that the “real” value lies with who you choose listen to. It’s one thing traveling around from trailer park to trailer park, listening to only the under-educated…it’s quite another to listen to pro-Southern intellectuals themselves. Have you interviewed university professors identified as “neo-Confederate”? There are plenty of them in the Deep South, from psychologists to economists to journalists to mathematicians…even a few historians. I’m talking about Southern Partisans with PhD’s.
I’ve had the privilege of taking university courses with them ; )
December 10th, 2006 at 7:07 am
Truly Amazed
That you so openly profess your bigotry. Perhaps you should really read that book you are so fond of and take to heart what it says…. rather than blindly follow the hateful interpretations of those who Jesus himself would shun.
btw
After the last election, I think you need to redraw your map.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Who are you talking to Iconoclast?
And if you’re talking to me, why do you assume that I’m fond of some particular book and take to heart what it says? Why do you project “ignorance” on all of us who vote Red? Maybe we know a few things that you don’t? Oh but of course, you already have all the facts (you are obviously more enlightened because you vote blue after all), so you couldn’t possibly be wrong ; )
I know I know…we in the red states just like to lynch people and oppress those who aren’t like us. Of course! That’s what makes the red states red, right? It’s the entire basis for our culture, right? Forget about Charles Dickens and Edgar Allen Poe! Religious fundamentalism began in the Deep South, obviously. We went to war to defend slavery, after all!!
Lynching people started here; burning people at the stake started here too, quite obviously. And above all else slavery started here. We’re all just evil capitalist, industrialist bastards — unless we consider Lincoln analogous to Christ and vote blue, right?
I should have paid more attention in high school.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:30 am
I guess I’ll just have to post this…too bad you weren’t enlightened enough to have already found it on your own (I’ll graciously give you the benefit of the doubt).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html
Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of “preserve the Union” and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:
“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”
Karl Marx seconded this view:
“The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.”
December 18th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Michael,
Excuse my new nom de plume…
http://transcendentalfloss.com/2006/12/goin-gonzo.html
.., but I think you’ll figure out who I am, though you’ll probably be surprised to hear from me considering our last interactions.
I just want you to know that, despite everything, I’m thrilled for you and wish you much success with your film.
I enjoyed reading the discussion at Crooks&Liars, and will definitely check out your movie when I can.
Contrary to some of the comments above, I admire the premise of your film. You did not say that you sought out to expose people for how stupid they were, but rather to simply understand their world better. No way you can do that isolated in Los Angeles, and so you do more than most on the left take the time to really reach out and listen. The clips I’ve seen really capture that you were listening in a non-judgmental manner, and I don’t think you’d have captured the level of candor that you did had you not been clear about your motives.
Congrats!
December 19th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Gonzo! Have we met before? I think we have!
Anyhoo, as always, I appreciate your openess and honesty. We in the poor/red states have been seeking this form of representation for a very long time!
Viva la revolución!
December 27th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Ryan, have you seen the film yet?
I saw it last night and I thought Michael did an excellent job in interviewing and keeping his composure. Though he did pose some questions that came across as bait for a rant, we all understood as did the people he interviewed, that those questions would be posed.
To give a bit of insight, into where I’m coming from, I was born in Texas and have lived here most of my life. I’ve attended a few churches in Texas and am well acquainted wth bigotry that is far worse than anything presented in Michael’s film.
What I think troubled a few folks in the film and may trouble you is that many people have a thin veneer of civility, under which our unexamined beliefs play a large part in the way we view the world and how we interact with it. Out of decency and civility, we keep this side hidden from our conscious self and from others.
The woman in the film discussing what kind of people she would sell her house to, clearly upset herself. Michael asked simply questions such as, “Why would you think that?”, and she seemed to be upset be the answers she herself was giving.
The religious leaders in the film have their faith to give themselves confidence. If you believe in something absolutely, you can use your faith as a bulwark against anything that might compel you to learn or change your belief’s in any fashion. I’ve known plenty of pastors that use their faith as a weapon against spiritual growth in this manner. I’ve known others that believe that spiritual growth comes from opening yourself up to learning new things. People of religion cross the spectrum in this respect. My personal experience with Southern Baptists however, is that they believe that they know God completely, they’ve put him in a box and God doesn’t do or say anything without their approval. they are the final word on everything that God did or did not do. That pastor in the film that said that Jesus was God, and that Jesus was the inspiration for the Old Testament, is such a pastor. It doesn’t matter that Jesus isn’t in the Old Testament or that he is actually portrayed as God himself. The man has decided what Jesus and God are and his faith will protect him from foreign ideas. Like the notion that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God himself. You can tell him that Jesus did not part the Red Sea and lead Moses fromt he land of the Pharoahs, but only because from his perspective, you lack faith.
I found it interesting that in some segments of the film when a service is going on, there is a portrait of the pastor up high on the wall and a portrait of George Bush, resting on the floor. The religious symbolism of this, tells us that the pastor is closer to God than the President. Also by placing The President’s portrait on the floor, we are given the message that Bush is in need of spiritual enlightenment as he is still firmly anchored in a material life. It tells us that the pastor is a spiritual guide for Bush, and that it is his mission to bring Bush closer to God.
If Michael’s film upsets you, you might consider examinine how you feel about yourself. Michael is essentially holding up a mirror in this film. He has been honest and open. Its those he is interviewing that are conveying their message.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates
December 27th, 2006 at 9:20 am
I didn’t mean to adress that previous post to Ryan, I intended the question to be posed to Henry.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:37 am
Jack…no I have not yet seen this film, other than the clips available on youtube.
Jack, to me, it is obvious that you do not conceptualize the angle from which I view this film. I am an orthodox Darwinian materialist (a follower/copier of Richard Dawkins)…I have actually achieved an education and have long-since abandoned any sense of religious faith/dogma, as hard as that may sound coming from a red-stater. And yes, I voted for Dubbya. I’m the descendent of several high-ranking American/Confederate officers and politicians, and call the Deep South my home and family. I love everything about it, especially the black folks. The label “Ku Klux Klan” holds no racist connotation in my mind, as the original group did not fight for slavery, but rather for the oppressed and the slaves themselves.
It’s not something easy to understand unless you yourself are native to the Deep South and incorporate the place into your sense of self-identity. I have no choice but to love myself and my family, by definition. It is what I am as a human being. Any attack on the Confederacy is an attack on Americans in general and the spirit of America in particular, from my point of view. To me, America was born in Jamestown, not Plymouth. Plymouth, to me, is a New England city, and not an American city. Since birth, I’ve been raised to perceive reality/self-identity/nationhood from the viewpoint of occupation and defeat.
To me, the Zeitgeist is and always has been in Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Carolina. New England, in my mind, is and always has been a separate entity and occupying economic force. In the same way that New Englanders have considered the UK a separate entity since the First Revolution, we in the Deep South have considered New England to be a separate entity since what we call the Second Revolution. And this very real dichotomy between the minds in the Deep South and the Deep North is where rests the source of most, if not all, of our political disagreements within the United States.
Thomas Jefferson pointed to the phenomenon of New England just before his election as president when he wrote: “It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and substance.”
…
December 29th, 2006 at 1:15 am
I invoke the name of Jesus Christ as a political weapon agianst the left, only because they first used it agianst me/us.
The identification of God with America and the United States with infallible righteousness is New England stuff through and through. It is exactly the type of “religion” that was used to deify Lincoln and justify the conquest of the South in 1861–1865. In New England history it is the stage they went through between the hyper-Calvinism of their early days and their present atheism. It did not arrive in America until the early 20th century when various evangelists began imitating the style and content of the New Englander Billy Sunday. (See “The Real Old Time Religion” by the late theologian A.J. Conyers in Vol. 23, No. 3, one of the most important articles ever published in Southern Partisan.)
Many Americans are starting to show less of our traditional patriotic loyalty and more of the New England nationalism that thinks the U.S. government and the President can do no wrong and are entitled to bomb anybody who disagrees. In both religion and politics the dilution of American tradition has been a loss to America – and to the whole U.S.
There have been grave mistakes in the course of American history, apart from the original one of going naïvely into a Union with bad people. There was Bragg commanding the Army of Tennessee and Longstreet fumbling at Gettysburg. In the same class is the decision of American leaders, when they were kicked out of the Democratic Party, to join the Republicans rather than form our own party. As a result we are powerless ; ) It was inevitable but nevertheless a great loss ; )
All of American history has been distorted but no part more so than Reconstruction. We’ve been living under a New England version of Orwellian Newspeak ever since 1865. In “Destroying the Republic: Jabez Curry and the Re-Education of the Old South” John Chodes shows that Reconstruction was more than a horror of military domination and economic exploitation. It was also a program of ideological and ethnic cleansing which continues to damage the American people in our own time.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson21.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875864015/qid=1138570940/sr=12-1/103-5778968-7205468?/lewrockwell/
December 29th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Did I mention that I have a Jesus fish on the bumper of my car and a sticker that warns of the soon-to-come Rapture? I attend a rather large Southern Baptist church every Sunday and shout “amen!” when I hear something that stirs my emotions.
I do it partially to fool you, but mostly to tick you off…and a little because I love so many Southern Baptist people ; )
January 1st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Ryan, as I mentioned later, I really meant that post for Henry.
I’ve lived in Texas most of my life. It’s not the Deep South. Much of my family migrated out of Georgia early in the 20th century. We still have ties with family in that state.
The KKK may have started out as a much different organization, but in Texas its a very racist one with Masonic ties. It keeps members loyal by having them engage in embarrassing activities and sometimes crimes, then using it as leverage against its members. Much as organized crime families do. In the KKK in Texas, this starts at an early age with teenagers encouraged to commit acts of vandalism and other crimes against people who refuse to join.
The KKK may not have started as a racist enterprise and a means to control a community through the leverage of dirty secrets, but that is what it is now.
Every oak tree was once an acorn, but even a squirrel can see the difference.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
What makes you think you know anything about the South or its Messianic ties?
There is absolutely nothing racist or controlling about protecting your community from liars and criminals. It is nothing other than a moral duty.
We in the Deep South, both white and black, have traditionally viewed fraternal groups as our only line of defense against organized crime families. As we see it, the Lincoln-apologists (the ones who truly understand what the Civil War was all about) are the folks who seek to intimidate entire communities.
“Every oak tree was once an acorn, but even a squirrel can see the difference.”
What does that mean? That the South wasn’t about racism in the late 1800’s, but it is now? If so, why and how did this change come about? According to official story, you’ve got your timeline of ideological-change in reverse. I think a better approach would be to throw out the official story altogether and let the scientific method figure it out.
The standard historical myth is like a building made of cards in that it tends to collapse in on itself; it is necessary to craft one’s conceptual framework using stone or brick.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I just saw the film yesterday. In my opinion, Michael Shea did a good job of NOT letting his views dominate in any way throughout the film. I agree with a previous post that the film was more like holding a mirror up to those being interviewed, not really making a debate about the issues, just kind of listening, and I think this was the correct way to tackle a documentary such as this.
That said. The southerners are deeply religous people, with a different interpretation of Christianity than I was brought up to believe. I dont think any Blue State people really care what your religion is, as long as your religion is NOT used as justification for discrimination, and/or making public policy. Religion is a personal choice, and in 2007 we are a nation of many different faiths, and many people who actually don’t subscribe to any religous doctrine whatsoever. I belong to the latter. Having been raised Catholic, and I have left the church, never to return.
Even though I have Catholic roots, I am offended that people are using religion to dictate policy in the U.S. I believe that it is dangerous to do so, not to mention I think those Born Again ministers are scary scary people, whom I wouldn’t want to have ANY role whatsoever in formulating how the most powerful nation on the planet goes about its business.
As much as some Evangelicals seem dedicated to having the Bible replace the Constitution, I am personally dedicated to protecting the seperation of Church and State. If this country does turn into a theocracy, America will not be America anymore, and I think you might see a whole lot of people trying to move to Canada or Europe, maybe thats a little alarmist, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility
July 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
John, the same could be said of the New Englanders of the 1860’s. Look what they did. Research Sherman’s March and Lincoln’s Orders. They were barbaric, ruthless, subhuman pigs. It is no wonder why the South is the way it is today.
It has been my personal experience that, the more educated a American Southerner becomes, the more that he/she accepts the notion of doing the same thing to the North that the North has done to the South as being morally permissible. And that frightens me, because I understand that they are honest and good people.
http://www.palmetto.org/doc-001.htm