by Ben Spatz
What can I say about art with oversimplified leftist politics? On the one hand, oversimplification is a dangerous thing. On the other hand, the world is starved for leftist politics of any kind. And too often people avoid oversimplifying at the expense of being political at all.
I think it depends on the context, which in the case of art means the audience. Complex leftist thinkers have a right to be annoyed with _Bulworth_, or with Circus Amok, or with Danny Hoch. But as long as these people are playing to a wider audience, they are doing a good thing. _Bulworth_ had a national audience and that's why it was a good thing, despite being oversimplistic and stereotyping. In the context of Hollywood movies, it was complex and radical. Of course it didn't have a sophisticated, articulate politics. But it's unfair to hold it to that kind of standard. Instead, compare it to the general Hollywood fare, and its power is obvious.
This is part of a general issue: Sometimes people with good complex politics attack art with good oversimplistic politics. It's important to critique such art, but only from a position of fellow warrior. Too often the art gets the brunt of the anger instead of all the huge quantities of art that have disgusting offensive politics. Don't get mad a _Bulworth_ for not being sophisticated enough, get mad at all the movies that call themselves "not political."
Only a person who is being complex and politically active at the same time has the prerogative to tell someone else that they are being too politically simple. You can't make that accusation from a position of complex politics and no activism.