SPOILER ALERT: At the end of "Hillary's America," there are two full-scale orchestral and vocal renditions of "God Bless America" and "The Star-Spangled Banner." In the theater where I viewed the film, one patron stood up and extended her arms during those two songs. Another patron simply raised her arm in a salute that resembled those in Italy and Germany in the 1930s.
The film begins with a retrospective of the eight months Dinesh D'Souza spent in a "community confinement center" for making an illegal political campaign contribution. The film provides no details on why D'Souza did not appeal the case all the way to the Republican friendly Supreme Court. After all, the thesis of the film is that the Republican Party has the greater tradition in America of being friendly to outcasts and marginalized groups who have been exploited, repressed, and harassed by the Democrats. And D'Souza clearly sees himself as one of the victims in the vast conspiracy of the DNP.
Much of the film is a history lesson about such presidents as Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, who were indeed racists and, in the case of Jackson, was responsible for the tragic "Trail of Tears" relocation project of the Cherokee tribe in the 1830s. These details were accurately presented in the film and are important for all Americans to know about their past.
Yet, there is a major flaw in D'Souza's understanding of the American political party system, which is in the process of constant change. The Republican Party of the time of Abraham Lincoln bears little resemblance to the Republican Party of 2016. Likewise, Jackson's Democratic Party is a far cry from the Democrats of today. D'Souza wants viewers to believe there is a direct connection between Lincoln and Reagan, Jackson and Wilson, and that the political parties have sustained the same ideology for over two hundred years. The superficial analogies D'Souza attempts to draw are simply not persuasive for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of American politics. Even in the early part of the twenty-first century, the two parties have changed in character. Quite simply, the entire premise of this film is erroneous.
The section of the film that attacked the Clintons was also underdeveloped and unpersuasive. A troubling allegation was made about the ethics of the Clinton Foundation, particularly in the use of funds to provide relief to the earthquake victims of Haiti. But the film did not probe deeply into this topic. It raised the question that Hillary's lost e-mails might offer proof that millions of dollars were improperly used from Clinton Foundation fund for the crisis in Haiti. Yet D'Souza was unable to provide any concrete evidence of wrongdoing.
While this film is pure propaganda, it is surprising that it could have generated a big budget and space in movie theaters for feature film presentations. It is obviously generating good box office revenue. But the reviews on this website do not suggest that viewers are looking at the film with a critical eye.
The film begins with a retrospective of the eight months Dinesh D'Souza spent in a "community confinement center" for making an illegal political campaign contribution. The film provides no details on why D'Souza did not appeal the case all the way to the Republican friendly Supreme Court. After all, the thesis of the film is that the Republican Party has the greater tradition in America of being friendly to outcasts and marginalized groups who have been exploited, repressed, and harassed by the Democrats. And D'Souza clearly sees himself as one of the victims in the vast conspiracy of the DNP.
Much of the film is a history lesson about such presidents as Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, who were indeed racists and, in the case of Jackson, was responsible for the tragic "Trail of Tears" relocation project of the Cherokee tribe in the 1830s. These details were accurately presented in the film and are important for all Americans to know about their past.
Yet, there is a major flaw in D'Souza's understanding of the American political party system, which is in the process of constant change. The Republican Party of the time of Abraham Lincoln bears little resemblance to the Republican Party of 2016. Likewise, Jackson's Democratic Party is a far cry from the Democrats of today. D'Souza wants viewers to believe there is a direct connection between Lincoln and Reagan, Jackson and Wilson, and that the political parties have sustained the same ideology for over two hundred years. The superficial analogies D'Souza attempts to draw are simply not persuasive for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of American politics. Even in the early part of the twenty-first century, the two parties have changed in character. Quite simply, the entire premise of this film is erroneous.
The section of the film that attacked the Clintons was also underdeveloped and unpersuasive. A troubling allegation was made about the ethics of the Clinton Foundation, particularly in the use of funds to provide relief to the earthquake victims of Haiti. But the film did not probe deeply into this topic. It raised the question that Hillary's lost e-mails might offer proof that millions of dollars were improperly used from Clinton Foundation fund for the crisis in Haiti. Yet D'Souza was unable to provide any concrete evidence of wrongdoing.
While this film is pure propaganda, it is surprising that it could have generated a big budget and space in movie theaters for feature film presentations. It is obviously generating good box office revenue. But the reviews on this website do not suggest that viewers are looking at the film with a critical eye.