The Soloist (2009): LIberalism Takes Center Stage

Let me get the synopsis of the film out of the way before I begin the uncivil rant I have planned. The Soloist is a rendition of the true story of Nathaniel Anthony Ayers, a homeless schizophrenic musical prodigy living in Los Angeles. Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Lopez is in a rut and needs a good story. Because of the Newspaper's declining readership, the paper is forced to undergo cutbacks. Lopez gets his much-desired story when he comes across Ayers.

The movie follows Lopez, from going to crazy lengths to get bizarre stories, to going out of his way to befriend a man who makes being helped as easy as chewing broken glass. The performances of the two main characters are beyond gainsaying. Robert Downey Jr. as Steve Lopez was a solid choice. Jamie Foxx, as the genius cello and violin player Nathaniel Ayers, should win Best Actor for his scarily well-done adoption of a character every bit as quirky as Dustin Hoffman's "Raymond Babbitt."

While the acting was runner-up for "too good," the directing was mediocre. We have a sulking reporter, flashbacks from Ayers' childhood when his life seemed to be on track, some very moving moments of musical entrancement (I honestly teared up during one of them), close-up shots of a scary-looking man who won't be helped and who at one point threatens to gut his best friend like a fish. It's a modified version of Rain Man, but with a less lively plot, and it's loaded with propaganda.

Since my emotions take over at this point, I'll stop and give it a grade before proceeding. It's a stout C+. On the merits, it does fairly well. Nothing I will say can take from that. What I can do is sound the alarm on the invading army that approaches. It's the army of radical liberal propaganda. The army is highly visible, marching forward unabashedly, and so are the left-wing messages in the film. They are the dreams of radical socialist change agents. Not a single idea is unique or surprising. We've heard it all before.

The movie is wrapped in American flags. If I had taken the time to count them, I wouldn't have noticed much else. We have flags, flags and images of President Bush, Katrina, and great segments of scenes with the homeless and obviously mentally ill being victimized by a cruel, white-run society. The vein of thinking couldn't be clearer if it were sprayed with Windex-the corrupt, oppressive, white, upper-class, with their money and their conformity is the problem in the world today and why America sucks.

Bush and the damn German-Scotch-Irish whites with their wealth...they are what has been putting down the poor. Time to spread the wealth around! We have Obama to take care of that now, but that didn't matter. It was too hard to focus on a new agenda. It's much easier to bash the hell out of the old one. Even though Bush is gone, it's still no fun if he's not picked on. That says a lot about liberal thinking. They attack in the name of change and "progression" and "transforming." Nothing is ever really good enough.

I'm no Christian. I once was a Christian preacher, and now I'm an atheist who wrote a book about it. I'm no Republican. I don't know where I stand on half of the issues, but I know what I don't stand for, and I know what I hate. I know I don't believe in prayer and I'm no fan of the Christian right, but I do believe having a white, too-evangelistic music instructor getting told off when asking Ayers to pray before a performance was yet another way of saying, "Fuck off, evangelicals!" There are no accidents in movies, friends!

Screaming, "Screw you, praying Republicans! We socialists are enlightened!" just wasn't necessary, and it isn't all that is done. Lopez speaks from his belly when he rejoices that the city chucks out more and more money to build more and more homeless shelters. Only sometimes does the city "get things right" giving, as he puts it. That's what it's all about with liberals. No one can have anything nice. If you do well and build yourself a nice big house, you've got to share it. Heaven freakin' forbid there be inequalities!

And there's more-and we're not talking about resetting scoreboards at football games so that the Little League losing team won't get their feelings hurt. We're talking about the show-all moment of how a liberal thinks, and that is by exhibiting the same level of fascism as in his bigoted rightwing counterparts. Hearses used to take people to church by force. The golden age of popes and priests once had its stranglehold on the world, and thankfully, lost it. But left or right, mankind always becomes what he hates the most.

At a point in the movie, Lopez goes before the director of a homeless shelter and tries to get Ayers his much-needed medical treatment since he refuses of his own accord to take medication. When he is informed that Ayers is not obligated to receive treatment, Lopez says what any wayfaring radical liberal would say to someone who refuses to comply with their policy: "Force him." All those centuries of oppressive popes, with their shackles and dungeons and thumbscrews, haven't taught Lopez a thing.

That's the way liberals are-oppose their agenda and they won't go the tolerant route, even though logic says to. They'll seek to suppress the opposition through any effective means, whether we are talking about a so-called Fairness Doctrine or a geeky liberal's forcing his help on those who don't want it. Right-wingers are guilty of this too, though you have to walk a little further right to encounter that than you do on the left. I, for one, am interested to see how the Obamunists will do, but I'm not optimistic.