Amanduh speaks out

None of this should be a surprise, because Hallmark movies, as cloying and saccharine as they are, constitute the platonic ideal of fascist propaganda.

She seems to think that blonde heteros are fascist. Which would be rather a surprise to the Japanese fascists, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, Paraguayan and Portuguese versions of that political theory.

Really, someone ought to point out that the Aryan blond gods thing was Nazi, not fascist.

Hallmark movies, with their emphasis on returning home and the pleasures of the small, domestic life, also send a not-at-all subtle signal of disdain for cosmopolitanism and curiosity about the larger world, which is exactly the sort of attitude that helps breed the kind of defensive white nationalism that we see growing in strength in the Donald Trump era.

Umm, yeah.

Still, it’s critical to be mindful of the role that Hallmark movies are actually playing in our society. The very fact that they’re presented as harmless fluff makes it all the more insidious, the way they work to enforce very narrow, white, heteronormative, sexist, provincial ideas of what constitutes “normal.”

It’s easy to spot fascist propaganda when it’s goose-stepping Pepe-the-frog memes. It’s a lot harder to notice how it’s working when it’s tied up in Christmas cheer and suggesting grinchhood of anyone who questions the rigidity of its worldview.

Fascist doesn’t mean what Amanduh thinks it does. But then very little in this world does accord with Amanduh’s beliefs.

35 thoughts on “Amanduh speaks out”

  1. Its pretty obvious that Amanda has never seen a Hallmark movie in her life.

    And that she doesn’t know what ‘fascist’ means.

  2. “……which is exactly the sort of attitude that helps breed the kind of defensive white nationalism…….”

    If I produce a movie depicting a hero being successful, is that exactly the sort of attitude which Guderian had when producing his development of the Manstein Plan, or is it the same sort of attitude that Beria had when organising the Katyn massacre..?

  3. I gather that Maitland Ward is going to appear in a Hallmark film. Some of her recent work rather goes against the worldview described hete, unless that view involves things like interracial sex, lesbian sex, BDSM and orgies

  4. Hallmark actually do have all black cast movies and diversity without shoving it down your throat in a ‘looks how woke we are’ way that other major broadcasters do.
    People are just people and don’t have to bring race up to make the storyline edgier.
    That said I’d cheerfully lose the entire channel especially over Christmas as there’s only so much you can take, that said the odd feel good movie can be comforting.
    Look at Last Christmas, binned by critics but much higher audience scores, went to see it with my wife and it was an enjoyable evening out.

  5. She has a point, in that Hallmark are one of the last bastions of heteronormative culture for a female audience. Everything else – from Women’s Hour to Loose Women – promotes an anti-motherhood narrative. Even Call the Midwife seems intent on highlighting the dangers of childbirth, rather than the positives.

  6. Sounds like Hallmark are just producing products that their customers want to purchase – in contrast to what Amanda apparently wants, that they produce products that their customers don’t want to purchase.

  7. She’s not complaining about the fact that it’s propaganda. She’s complaining that it’s the wrong sort of propaganda.
    Turn on the telly or go to the cinema and you are immediately immersed in pro gay, pro BAME programming. From Star Wars to Dr. Who, everything is pro left, pro diversity. The lefties always project. This is simply an attempt to remove some of the little remaining Christian conservative television that remains.
    She is little more than an NPC and a stonking hypocrite.

  8. She’s quite unhappy, is my guess.

    And I doubt anything that’s likely to happen will change that.

    The best thing we can all do is either to ignore her, or ruthlessly to mock and tease her so she goes and hides in her bedroom.

  9. And I thought Hallmark movies was just 1950’s and -60’s films with the blondes as lovely as Tuesday Weld and Ann-Margret frolicking about…

  10. She’s also clearly never travelled.

    All over the world, people delight in the virtues of home and family and like to see them reflected in the movies now and then.

    In fact it’s only the west where the creative mainstream is infected by miserable perverts forcing their dystopian neuroses on audiences.

  11. My twenty something daughter and some of her friends went to see Last Christmas because they just couldn’t believe the cornyness of the concept. She admitted that they had all quite enjoyed it despite being convinced it would be awful.

    The question that occurs to me is, why are these people so threatened by movies that don’t totally endorse their particular world view? They claim to be in favour of diversity. Apparently people must be as diverse as possible in appearance but, when it comes to opinions, only those that agree with theirs are allowed.

  12. BBC remake of Christmas Carol let’s see

    -one of main characters was diverse (Mrs cratchett wasn’t black)
    -Victorian London looked as diverse as modern day London
    -out of context swearing
    -child abuse
    -sexual/psychological abuse
    -‘strong’ female characters
    -anticapitalism, greed is bad
    -hate directed against capitalists is good

    Missing was a logical path to redemption and the idea that love and family is what’s important, the ending falling flat on its face.

    Perversely we see Scrooge as an OCD, slightly autistic person scarred by childhood trauma and abuse, which would have been an interesting take, but because he’s a nasty asset stripping capitalist it’s ok to hate him and not pity him or want to help him

    So all told a mess that was a sad reflection of leftist values and where an act of hate was meant to be a pivotal moment not an act of love so misusing the point, and don’t even bother looking for a mention of Christian values

  13. Just to add I enjoyed the cheesy Hallmark movie my wife watched afterwards, to as she put it help her feel better after that depressing rubbish

  14. Because the people campaigning for diversity are fundamentally dishonest and don’t want diversity at all.
    All they want is for everyone else to do as they are told. Those who aren’t willing to bend the knee are singled out, marginalised and then destroyed.
    As to why they are so threatened by worldviews that don’t accord with theirs, then stop and think about Orwell’s quote;

    ‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act’.

  15. @BniC December 28, 2019 at 8:59 pm

    Delers’ review of BBC remake of A Christmas Carol

    Jim Shelley’s review of BBC remake of Worzel Gummidge

    Programme name could be swapped between articles as both shows so infested with BBC agenda politics

    @BlokeInBrum December 28, 2019 at 9:08 pm


  16. That woman is insane, Hallmark movies are about love, fun, freedom, happiness and comedy. They’re about bringing people together. They’re not about division or anything of that nature.

    Hallmark films are about the farthest thing from fascism that exists in entertainment

    If you want to know who the fascist is, look who wrote the article; they’re the fascists telling you what you should believe or what you have to do, or you have to conform to their view of what society should be, which is repulsive

    Salon’s bashing of Hallmark is an attack on Christmas and love. They’re a bunch of haters

    Broadcaster CBC claims they cut President Trump’s appearance from ‘Home Alone 2’ because of timing; Salon catches heat for calling Hallmark movies ‘fascist propaganda.’ Reaction and analysis on ‘The Five.’

    Left are obsessed with fascism, but fail to see they are the dictatorial, intolerant, hate filled fascists
    AOC tells rally-goers that America is evolving into a ‘fascist society’

  17. Smile Time

    Lady Hale’s Christmas diary (as told to Quentin Letts)

    They say I must retire next month when I turn 75. Irritating. I have been a member of the Supreme Court since 2009 but its president — a term I do like — only since 2017. There is still much to be done. Julian, my current spouse, indicates he has little desire to have me under his heels at home. I would merely get in the way of his dusting and the Tupperware parties he holds every month with other SW1 house-husbands. Jolyon Maugham QC — a slightly familiar young man, but I am told he has the right views — comes to see me. He proposes challenging the legality of my compulsory retirement, perhaps using the Scottish courts. We could ‘crowd-fund’ the costs, he says. I doubt there are that many fools in the world. ‘You’d be surprised,’ says Mr Maugham. He feels we could pursue the case all the way to the top, i.e. to the Supreme Court. Given tiresome levels of press scrutiny I suppose I might have to recuse myself from any such judgment. Could I rely on my fellow justices to reach the right decision without my helping hand?

    As I once told Barack Obama (I think he was grateful for my advice), a president must be a leader, a strategist and a disciplinarian. At October’s state opening of parliament, one of my colleagues sauntered into the House of Lords with hand in pocket. ‘Wilson!’ I exclaimed. ‘This is not a queue for the bookmaker’s!’ I told him I would sew up his trouser pockets if we had a repeat of that sort of thing.

    Julian points out that I never complain when Lord Pannick QC plunges a hand into his pocket while developing a case before us. Ridiculous. I can hardly say ‘Don’t, Pannick!’ during a Supreme Court hearing. One does not wish to be caricatured as Corporal ‘Jonesy’ Jones.

    Alan rings. My heart goes pit-a-pat. I ask him to hold the line because Julian is outside my study in his pinny, making a din with the Dyson. I close the door and now I can hear Alan’s ravishing voice. A masterly timbre is only appropriate for the principal of Lady Margaret Hall. Alan recently invited me to be one of the college’s visiting fellows. The others include Katie Price, Russell Brand and a Mr Gary Lineker, who used to play association football. I am not sure I have ever met anyone called Gary but there is a first time for everything. Alan says he has the most beautiful thighs. Gary, that is. I suspect Alan’s thighs are no less remarkable.

    One annual chore is organising the Supreme Court’s Christmas jolly. ‘Jolly’ is not an entirely accurate word — I don’t know if you have ever met my fellow justice Lord Carnwath — but ‘outing’ has its difficulties and ‘knees-up’ is unsuitable given the decrepitude of some of them. Anyway: where to go for our party? Most of them like French cuisine but, with the Brexit horrors, this is ruled impolitic. The men hope for the Garrick Club but I cannot abide that chauvinist establishment. Being chased round the bar by Derry Irvine shouting ‘Come to me, lassie’ with a fistful of mistletoe is not my idea of fun. One of our interns says that we should visit a food bank and dine there, but this meets with long faces in the robing room. I finally alight on a suggestion from the Attorney General. He recommends an establishment called McDonald’s — a Scots restaurant, it seems. The Attorney says something about ‘good game, good game’ and exhorts me to ask for its venison, ‘even if the staff say it is not available — they do that to keep the good stuff for their regulars’. McDonald’s it is, then. I am told there is no need to book because the service is so efficient. I am grateful to Geoffrey. It is good of him not to hold a grudge after that prorogation judgment.

    Julian has taken up knitting and is making me a Christmas bobble hat with a pattern saying ‘11-nil’, to mark our comprehensive spanking of Boris Johnson’s ‘government’. I like hats. Julian’s homemade Christmas crackers always contain paper hats and he sometimes makes them resemble those black caps worn by judges in the good old days when we could send the lower orders to the gallows. One of the many good things about the Supreme Court — constitutional heft, European harmonisation, etc. — is that I get to wear a flat squashy hat at ceremonial occasions. My daughter says it looks like a lardy cake, which is something the poor eat on Saturday mornings. Very bad for their waistlines, no doubt.

    Kenneth Clarke pops in for one of his moans. I have not known many Conservatives but as I say to Kenneth, he is not really a proper (i.e. improper) right-winger. He also happens to be a lawyer, though not, I fear, a very hygienic one. He arrives at the door with muddy shoes and I am obliged to remind him of our house rules. We soon have his Hush Puppies covered in our habitual prophylactic: a pair of shower caps. (One of the consolations of staying in three-star hotels, as judges nowadays must, is the regular supply of free shower caps.)

    Sir Keir Starmer — little Keir, such a dear — has asked us to his New Year fancy-dress party. Le tout Holborn will be there. Hilary Benn is going to be a flowerpot man, Diane Abbott is coming as Pierre Trudeau, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette are coming as the Blacks and Carole Cadwalladr has an Eliot Ness costume. Alan thinks I should go as Spider-Woman, after that famous brooch I wore, but at present I intend to go as ‘Brenda from Bristol’. I have been listening to The Archers to perfect the accent.

    Quentin Letts writes for the Times


  18. I didn’t watch A Christmas Carol, but from reading the review I’m glad I didn’t, I’d have been throwing things at the TV.
    Scrooge owned a coal mine? yerwot?
    Scrooge never owned “things”, he was a money lender. The assets he owned were promises of monetary repayment, the purest of capitalists. He didn’t own any “real” assets. That’s the whole fundamental bedrock of the entire story – Scrooge is dissassociated from the real world by trading purely in money, with zero connection to the physical real-world realities that that money connects to. It’s by the spirits showing him how the capital he loans connects to the real world and to the people using those loans that he connects to the real world and the people in it and is redeemed.
    They’ve as much destroyed it as if they’d sent Arnie back to kill Hitler and overshot.

  19. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I used to think that simply being Amanda Marcotte was sufficient punishment for her but of late I’ve a mind to add a bit of bastinado and some thumbscrews to the mix, see what happens.

  20. We don’t know too much about Scrooge’s business, but we know he owned a warehouse:

    Scrooge never painted out Old Marley’s name. There it stood, years afterwards, above the warehouse door: Scrooge and Marley.

    We also know he let out rooms:

    It was old enough now, and dreary enough, for nobody lived in it but Scrooge, the other rooms being all let out as offices.

  21. There’s always good money in avoiding doing what the cool kids are doing, a sea of customers for fairly conservative fayre that sells to the men who like car chases and gunfights, and the women who like stories about romance and family, preferably with some songs.

    The cool kids make all the noise, while the normal people quietly turn out to polling stations and give communism a beating.

  22. Jussi
    December 28, 2019 at 8:13 pm

    1950s films were demonized long ago, usually by the brand of critic/activist who doesn’t allow any knowledge of the subject to pollute their “thinking”.
    1950s films are and were written off as safe, conservative, conforming… something their critics of course never are, and will say so in complete unison.

    One of the pleasures of Talking Pictures TV has been the opportunity to see a broader spectrum of the films available to the contemporary cinemagoer and not just the ones the lazier and more ideological critics choose to highlight.
    Many are full of conflict, crime, deceit – one of the surprises to me, and I’ve been interested in film history since childhood, is how commonly marital disharmony was portrayed. Far from cosy, the 1950s marriages were often shown as being under stress, with one or more partners seriously considering leaving, if not more than tempted by an affair. It may not always be there as the main plot but it’s very often there as a major sub-plot or complication. The partnership rarely does split up unless one party turns out to be a villain and/or is killed. This happens quite a lot, conveniently leaving the dissatisfied party free to shack up with their preferred alternative). But even when the couple do stay married it’s often a damn close run thing and usually requires a serious external threat to make the couple realize that they are better off together.
    But of course those with an axe to grind will ignore any and all evidence to the contrary and continue with the safe, conformist stereotype.

  23. “Because the people campaigning for diversity are fundamentally dishonest and don’t want diversity at all. All they want is for everyone else to do as they are told.”

    Exactly. It is totalist language.

  24. JS,

    Yeah. There’s definitely frothy stuff from that era (like Genevieve) but people have always liked a variety of genres, whether it’s comedy, romance, drama, action or horror. One of the only things you can really say about the 1950s is that film was edited more in terms of “decency”. You couldn’t show nude women, you couldn’t show certain sorts of violence (like a gun being fired and the person being shot couldn’t be in the same frame). But there’s plenty that’s implied in films. Spartacus doesn’t show Varinia being raped, but it’s quite clear that that what happens to her.

  25. More fascism in the Lakes

    “National Park boss ignites PC row after claiming the Lake District must ‘change and diversify’ because it is too heavily weighted toward ‘white middle-class able-bodied people’.”

  26. @ BraveFart
    Yes, climbing mountains – even little ones in England – is so unfairly biassed in favour of people with two healthy legs. They should build wheelchair ramps to the tops of all the popular peaks and abolish Striding Edge because it is too narrow for wheelchairs.

  27. I must re-read Plato – I thought he wanted us to be ruled by Philosopher-Kings, the archetypes of Guardian columnists (or what Guardian columnists think they ought to be).

  28. ‘They should build wheelchair ramps to the tops’

    As long as “they” are people in wheelchairs that build them. You can’t attack the able bodied, then DEMAND they do something for you.

    “Lake District must ‘change and diversify’ because it is too heavily weighted toward ‘white middle-class able-bodied people.’”

    Let’s see you build ’em without ‘white middle-class able-bodied people,’ a$$#0|e.

  29. An essential element of the Hallmark/Mills & Boon formula is travel (Yesss Tim sex as well as travel) which puts paid to accusations of insularity.

  30. @jgh

    As you say, BBC ruined it so much the redemption message was gone

    I’ve given up watching BBC (&Licence): all their news, drama, docus and “comedy” are so full of Left SJW AGW messages they’re unwatchable.

    Hitchens today: Gavin & Stacey was an advertorial for cannabis use by all “get down wif da yoof”

    I see Silent Witness returns in a week or two:
    My guess: muslim killed by white right extremist, tranny killed by white right extremist, Jew killed by white right extremist; LGBT pathologist & non-white pathologist both offended by white xyz….


    National Park boss promoting utopia – Gov’t tells peeps where they must live. Black families in London forcibly moved to Lake District

    Did he/she/it miss news that Corbyn lost?

  31. ‘because Hallmark movies, as cloying and saccharine as they are’

    Cloying: adj. excessively sweet or sentimental.

    Saccharine: adj. excessively sweet or sentimental.

    Redundant: Amanduh.

Leave a Reply

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