Film Review: “Death of a Nation”

(2018, Dinesh d’ Souza producer)

Review by Richard Terrell
(Professor of Art, Emeritus, Doane University)Death of a Nation

The nation’s Democratic Party leaders, academic professors everywhere, mainstream film reviewers and major print media will insist that you not dare see this film, lest you self-identify as a dummy troglodyte. It is guaranteed to earn condemnation as wacko “conspiracy theory,” “right-wing delusion,” or sentimental, pro-American red-neck jingoistic propaganda.

All of which is why one should see it, despite the film’s 0% (!) critics’ rating on the Rotten Tomatoes review site (any movie that earns a ZERO is at least worthy of some attention). This is the sort of film that scares the hell out of people who believe, as Democrats believe of themselves, that they have a cosmic right to rule the lives of others. This resentment and fear, expressed through ridicule and concentrated potshots at the film’s lesser stylistic moments, is rooted in the degree to which D’Souza exposes commonly held bromides and beliefs. A reading of a couple of the typical reviews by the professionals reveals an interesting approach, in which almost no attempt is made to refute any of the central claims made by the movie. It is not enough to simply denounce a film as inaccurate, nonsensical, fantastical, etc. One must show how this is the case. Interestingly, the reviewers do not even attempt to do so.

Rather, they latch onto those aspects of the film that are most vulnerable, such as the dramatized re-enactments of historical moments. We may all agree, off the top, that historical reconstructions featuring actors playing Adolf Hitler are universally weird, even ridiculous, and this film is no exception. Surely there is enough historical footage of Hitler to allow him to play himself, with perhaps some voiceovers or even printed text on screen. Be that as it may, these scenes open D’Souza to easy jabs at style.

More importantly, we may ask: what is this film about? What is its major thesis?

In summary, D’Souza sees America at a pivotal point in its history, due to its unusually stressed and polarized political and social divisions, manifested in the eruption of whining denunciation, violence and expressed hatred by the losers in the presidential election of 2016. D’Souza sees significant precedents for America’s contemporary situation in the Civil War era and the Nazi period in Germany. Whereas one may say that the danger is exaggerated, it is apparent to any rational person that such speculation is not unwarranted. Yes, we can make too much of facile associations, yet at the same time we might invoke the insight that “those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.” Is it not true that there is violence in our streets, carried out by black-clad fascist-style thugs claiming to be “anti-fascist?” Do not these activities evoke memories of Germany in the 1930s? Is it untrue that the racist eugenics movement flourished in the U.S. among “progressive” elements of society and that it influenced German “racial hygiene” programs? Is it untrue that the fascist movements in Italy and Germany were, indeed, “socialist?” And is it untrue that today’s Democratic Party is heavily threaded with people who embrace Socialism? Is D’Souza’s claim that Woodrow Wilson’s racism imposed segregation in the U.S. governmental services something he just made up? Is it not true that Wilson admired D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” film which exalts the Ku Klux Klan (Wilson’s own writings are quoted in the film) and screened it in the White House?

All of the things mentioned above are, in fact, true, and any rational person might perceive a legitimate concern about such realities.

One could go on asking such questions of things D’Souza presents, but the point here is that whereas people might want to argue the finer aspects of these issues, they are at the very least reasonable issues to be raised. The simple fact of the matter is that in the U.S. today the greater share of street violence and public shout-downs of speakers in campus and other venues is carried out by people who readily associate themselves with leftist politics and gravitate naturally toward the Democratic Party for a reason—because it is in that party where they see their natural home. Today’s Democratic Party is where the totalitarian impulse in our politics most deeply resides. The only thing that I find astonishing in that claim is that a good number of people who should know better don’t see it.

The professional critics take D’Souza to task for comparing Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln. Two things must be said here. First, D’Souza does not, in fact, compare Trump to Lincoln in any personal sense. The Lincoln-Trump association he makes is positional, which is to say that he sees both men as occupying the presidency in a time of crucial and heated division which has implications for the nation’s subsequent destiny. It is significant, in D’Souza’s vision of things, that Trump is most viciously hated by people whose own actions and rhetoric embrace and act out totalitarian impulses. D’Souza locates these impulses in the historical realities of the Democratic Party, and his film gives ample evidences to demonstrate the rationality of this thesis. These supporting arguments are, for the most part, left alone by the film’s critics, who opt instead for direct, simple ridicule.

The most telling interview in the film is a television interview with international financier George Soros. The tragic emptiness of this man, and the essentially evil reality that resides in him is frightening to see. Soros sees no ethical or moral significance to his betrayal of his own people (Jews) during World War II. There is not even a hint of remorse or regret about it. He is revealed as essentially amoral, one who would betray anything or anybody in order to foster his own position and power. What is so significant about Soros, though, is his substantial funding of influential movements and organizations that feed the Democratic Party support system (e.g. Media Matters, etc.). Yet, nobody challenges Democratic Party leaders to disavow Soros’s attraction to their party, or repudiate his financial services on behalf of the party. This may indicate that Soros is, indeed, representative of the Democratic Party’s soul.

D’Souza’s exposure of the unsavory, violent, and totalitarian character of the Democratic Party and its history is a valuable counterweight to widespread notions, unsupported by evidences, that the Democratic Party represents “compassion,” “fairness,” and other popular, emotive bromides and superstitions. The film could do more, however, in its treatment of the Trump phenomenon. It does not touch at all upon the hatred and animosity toward Donald Trump in the upper echelons of the Republican Party. Here is where the parallelism that D’Souza wants to stress between Lincoln and Trump fails. Lincoln at least had a party behind him. Trump’s challenge is to a broader establishment and power structure, the bi-partisan “swamp” that is Washington D.C.’s self-protective culture. In this respect, Trump may be unique.

It would be incorrect to characterize D’Souza’s movie as a “documentary,” with the notion of objectivity that concept implies. His purpose is openly partisan, and his approach is weighted with a disdain for the Democratic Party and the desire to expose its pretenses. As such, his movie is more in the genre of films represented in the work of Michael Moore, of “Farenheit 9/11” fame. Such films are meant to motivate and inflame passion and stir a sense of indignation. As such, “Death of a Nation” is a counterweight to the type of work done by Moore. In my view of things, such a balance is not a bad thing at all. And, given the intensity of hatred and vilification for president Trump, who is literally surrounded about by forces and influences seeking his personal, professional, and political destruction, D’Souza’s decision to halt or impede the pile-on mentality is a welcome antidote. That those who so energetically seek the destruction of political opponents through force, violence, and political corruption are themselves forces of destruction and chaos is a thesis worthy of attention and serious appraisal.

2 Responses

  1. Great review, thank you. I thought this movie/documentary was fantastic and very informative and inspiring in standing for truth and what is right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *