Meet the Trumps: From Immigrant to President (2017)

I’m always looking for that one tag that will get a lot of hits.  It seems that while Donald Trump may not get me the most, I do usually garner at least one comment.  (If Trump appears in the motion picture, that comment is less than flattering.)  Meet the Trumps is about Donald Trump, as well as his father and grandfather.  I suppose that the comment section should get interesting.

We start with Friedrich Trump, who started out in Bavaria.  He did all manner of things in America, including running a brothel and selling hamburgers made from horse meat.   When he came to America, he did so without the permission of the government, nor had he completed his military service.  That meant that he couldn’t get his citizenship back.

He married in America and had Fred Trump, who took to real estate.  His big thing seemed to be getting ever last penny out of his property.  When it came to Eisenhower’s plan to build housing for troops, Fred Trump seemingly overbilled.  (When caught, he claimed that the money was resting in his account, so I think it was more than a simple markup.)

When it came time to pass the business on to Fred Trump, Jr., it became apparent that Freddie wasn’t cut out for the ruthlessness that was expected of him  I mean, he actually thought that upgrading windows was a good idea.  Who improves their properties?  Thus, the business was passed along to Donald Trump, future president of the United States of America.

This appears to be an episode of a TV show called The Passionate Eye.  It’s not particularly hard hitting.  There are no big revelations  It seems to give more of an overview of the life of the three Trumps.  There wasn’t much that really surprised me.  I didn’t know anything about the grandfather, but it doesn’t really surprise me that he wasn’t let back into Bavaria.  (I am curious about his business selling horse burgers.  Did any of the customers know where the meat came from?)

This is one of those things where fans of Trump will decry it as fake news.  Those that don’t like him will probably know much of the stuff.  It seems to show a lack of empathy running back several generations.  Take Trump’s father making money off of a government project.  Yes, that is how business is run.  It seemed to me that he was profiteering.  If you’re building for troops, it’s not the kind of thing you make excessive profit on.  It should probably be viewed as steady work rather than a cash cow.

You could probably get several documentaries out of this.  The grandfather is probably interesting enough to get his own.  There are enough housing scandals that you could probably get a short documentary on each.  This is about what I would expect from an episodic documentary.

IMDb page

Death of a Nation (2018)

When I was a child, I remember hearing that a lot of people would vote along party lines.  Republicans would go and select any name with (R) beside it.  Democrats would select anyone with (D) by their name.  It confused me because it meant that winning a race usually meant getting your party to turn out.  How could we become so partisan?  Then, Obama got elected and Republicans stonewalled.  Trump got elected and Democrats stonewalled.  Is this what politics has come to?  Sadly, the answer is yes.

Enter Dinesh D'Souza.  I hadn’t heard of him, but he apparently has a few movies out.  (I only knew about this one because of a poster at my nearest AMC.)  The movie opens with a reenactment of the final moments of Adolph Hitler’s life.  There are all sorts of segments with people not believing that Trump will win the primary or the general election.  There are calls for impeachment.

D’Souza draws a comparison between the current Republican president and the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.  You see, both are hated by Democrats.  Lincoln, for wanting to free the slaves and end the way America operated at the time.  Similarly, Trump is working to make America great.  Democrats will whine, sure, but we’ll survive.

The only problem I have with the documentary is that it’s basically propaganda.  There are way too many shots of flags or the Statue of Liberty for me to say otherwise.  There’s also a lot of the usual rhetoric, like how Democrats are evil and believe in eugenics because, you know, Margaret Sanger.  D’Souza also compares Democrats to Hitler and Mussolini because both dictators wanted to take away people’s guns, just like Obama.

Yes, D’Souza invokes reductio ad Hitlerum.  Because Hitler and Mussolini did it, it must be bad.  I’ll admit, it is similar to saying that Trump is like David Duke because both used America First.  It’s a line that a politician might be inclined to use if they were running for president.  It’s a little more complicated than that; Trump has done other, more serious things like demonize the press.  (No leader should do that.  The free press is necessary to a free society.)

There are a few interviews, some of which seem more skewed than others.  An interview with Richard Spencer seemed overly edited.  It may be coincidence; choices had to be made given how many people were interviewed.  Still, the entire argument is skewed towards the right.  D’Souza points out that the Democratic Party was founded to support slavery and that the Republican Party tended to be more liberal.  He then tries to say that nothing has really changed.  Democrats still oppress minorities and Trump would welcome anyone of any nationality.  Yes, Mr. Shithole Nation, the same guy who wanted Mexico to pay for the wall, would welcome everyone regardless of origin or background.

Oh, and apparently, Hitler learned everything he needed to know about genocide from Andrew Jackson.  I’m not saying that Jackson was a great president.  He did try to forcibly relocate Native Americans.  But to blame Hitler on Democrats seems like a bit of a stretch at best.  Add to this the claim that Hitler was pro-homosexual, as he tolerated gays among the Sturmabteilung.  There are a lot of claims in the movie that seem unbelievable.

Everyone is welcome to hold their own views and canonize anyone they want, but it will always amaze me that Trump will have as many people voting for him as he did.

IMDb page

Official Site

Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press (2017)

You may not have heard of King Pyrrhus of Epirus.  He beat the Romans in the Battle of Heraclea, but suffered a greater proportional loss than the Romans did.  Thus, the term pyrrhic victory has come to mean a situation where one technically wins, but comes at a cost so high as to undo any advantage gained.

Terry Bollea may have suffered a similar victory in suing the gossip site Gawker.  If you’ve never heard the name Terry Bollea, either, you can be forgiven.  You may know him better as Hulk Hogan.  Gawker made public a sex tape of Hogan.  (Interestingly, the sex tape has its own IMDb page.)  Hogan then sued Gawker out of existence.  It’s natural to sue over something like this.  It’s a violation of his privacy.  He did win, but it ultimately cost him his relationship with the WWE.

The question isn’t so much if Hulk Hogan was correct in suing.  The documentary focuses on the role of an independent press.  Did Gawker have the right to publish the sex tape?  Since Hulk Hogan is a celebrity, then yes.  Not only would the tape be relevant, but there were parts to it that eventually came out and proved more damaging to Hulk Hogan than the original clip.

The documentary then pivots to the sale of the Las Vegas Review-Journal to a mysterious group of investors.  The reporters for the Review Journal suspected Sheldon Adelson of being part of that group.  The reporters investigated and found that they weren’t far off.  They ran with the story, which resulted in a lot of said reporters leaving the newspaper.

You’re probably wondering why I’d give away so much of the documentary.  Part of it is that it is history.  You may or may not have noticed Gawker going away.  You may or may not have read about the case in the paper.  However, I don’t consider it spoilers if it was a news story.  There is also the issue of the documentary making a good case.

When I added the documentary to my list on Netflix, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to watch it.  I’ve never been a fan of Hulk Hogan or wrestling in general.  I had come into it thinking that Gawker had done something sleazy and was now facing the music.  The documentary does make a good point of showing how even something as salacious as posting a sex video is worthy of protection under the First Amendment.  If we don’t protect Gawker, it sets precident for other media to be sued.

The important things for a journalist are accuracy and relevance.  Was it actually Hulk Hogan in the tape?  Yes.  All claims made by Gawker were accurate.  Was it relevant?  As it pertained to a celebrity, the answer is also yes.  I would agree that Gawker could have used some discretion.  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

The point that the documentary makes is that a free press is necessary for a free society.  Part of their charge is to call out the excesses and misdeeds of those in charge.  This is why it’s so disturbing that President Trump would disparage the press.  He’s discrediting those who are supposed to be keeping an eye on him.  This is exactly why not interfering with the free press is engrained in the First Amendment.  Newspapers cannot be afraid of the government.

IMDb page

Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie (2016)

George Carlin once asked, “If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?”  Such is the question with Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal: The Movie.  The movie was released right after Donald Trump won the Republican primary.  The movie is presented as something that is done almost entirely by Trump.  The opening and closing credits have Trump listed as writer, director, producer and almost everything else.  The theme is performed by Kenny Loggins, although the credits posit that Trump could have performed it better.

The movie is satirical.  The opening scene has Ron Howard telling the audience that Trump made the TV movie based on the book, but that it was preempted by a football game that went into overtime.  Trump vowed never to let his masterpiece be seen again, but Howard managed to find a VHS copy of the movie at a yard sale.

The actual movie starts with a kid stealing a copy of the book upon which the movie is based.  He runs into an office only to find that it belongs to his all-time greatest hero, Donald Trump.  Trump allows the kid to remain.  This allows the kid to serve as an adoring audience for Trump while he explains The Art of the Deal.  He goes through several segments, which I understand correspond mostly to chapters in the book.

The thing is that it comes off exactly like you’d expect a Trump-made movie to come off.   The movie is made to have Trump look big.  He always hogs the scenes and tells about how great he is and how mediocre everyone else is.  In the scene with Ivana Trump, he constantly interrupts her.  The movie succeeded at looking like it was made by an amateur.

The joke plays out kind of quickly, leading to some repetition.  Trump explains seeing a picture of a boy looking at the Taj Mahal, which inspired him to buy the casino from Merv Griffin.  This becomes a running gag, wherein Trump repeatedly calls Griffin to make a deal.  There are also a few scenes where people tell Trump that he’ll never get the casino.

I’m not even sure I picked up on all of the humor.  Trump and others repeatedly claim how great Trump is with minority tenants.  The movie was supposed to be released in 1988, which would have made me 12.  I’m assuming that there was some lawsuit with Trump and his tenants around that time.   Some of the jokes are dated, such as an appearance by ALF of sitcom fame.  We also get an appearance by Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown, coming back to warn everyone that Trump will be made president.  Most people with get the Back to the Future reference, but I’m not sure how well known ALF is now.

There were several scenes that were vulgar, like Trump giving two middle fingers.  This isn’t really something for children.  Speaking of which, I don’t think most children will find this funny in a few generations.  As I said, some of the references are dated.  Also, I don’t know how much people will know of the personal lives of Trump in 50 years.  If you look back at presidents from around 50 years before you were born, how much do you know about them?  How many references would you get if Calvin Coolidge was the main character?  I think a lot of it is meant for today’s audience.

In case you’re wondering, I had to look up Der Scutt.  I wasn’t sure if it was supposed to be some ironic name, but Donald Clark "Der" Scutt is the actual architect of Trump Tower.  I’m not really sure where the Der comes from, though.

It was 50 minutes total, which was about 25 minutes too long for me.  It was exactly what I expected it to be, given that it was presented as a VHS copy of a 1988 production by Donald Trump.  It’s just that the joke got kind of old quickly.  It was actually made by Funny or Die, which is known for much shorter skits.  If you stay past the closing credits, you’ll see an end scene of Ron Howard deciding that the tape isn’t worth saving.  He made the right choice burning it.

IMDb page